Colorado Supreme Court Keeps Candidate on Ballot, Refuses to Hear Secretary of State’s Appeal

Posted on by July 2, 2010
Reply

On June 29, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the Secretary of State’s appeal in a ballot access case.  This means the decision of the lower court stands.

The lower state court had put Jennifer Coken on the Democratic primary ballot, even though the Secretary of State had ruled she didn’t have enough valid signatures.  There were two issues.  The Secretary of State had invalidated signatures of people who had signed both for Coken and for one of her opponents in the same race, because the opponent had submitted her petition first.  The other issue was whether signatures should be invalidated if the circulator had moved during the middle of the petition drive.  See this story about the Colorado Supreme Court’s declining to hear the Secretary of State’s appeal.

Guam Won’t Change from Secret-Open Primary to Public-Choice Open Primary

Posted on by July 2, 2010
2

On July 2, the Guam Election Commission voted to make no change in the type of open primary that Guam uses.  The classic open primary, in which each party has its own primary ballot and its own nominees, comes in two styles.  Some of the classic open primary jurisdictions provide that the primary voter must ask, in public view, for one particular party’s primary.  Others let the primary voter decide in secret inside the voting booth which party primary ballot to choose.

Guam will continue using the secret-open primary.  See this story.

Portland, Maine Voters to Vote on Mayoral Election Using Instant Runoff Voting

Posted on by July 2, 2010
12

The Charter Commission of Portland, Maine, has arranged to ask city voters if they wish to amend the charter, and elect a Mayor with a citywide vote using Instant Runoff Voting.  The popular vote will be on November 2, 2010.  See this story.

Currently, Portland voters do not elect a Mayor.  Instead they merely elect a city council, and the council chooses one of its own members to act as Mayor.  Thanks to Thomas MacMillan for the link.

U.S. District Court in Nebraska Refuses to Grant Injunction Against Out-of-State Circulator Ban

Posted on by July 2, 2010
2

On July 1, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon, a Clinton appointee, refused to grant an injunction against Nebraska’s ban on out-of-state circulators.  Citizens in Charge v Gale, 4:09cv-3255.  The six-page order relies on the fact that in 2001, the 8th circuit in a North Dakota case had upheld a similar ban.

The 8th circuit is the only circuit in which any U.S. Court of Appeals has ever upheld a ban on out-of-state circulators.  The 2001 case was from North Dakota.  The other states in the 8th circuit, besides Nebraska, are South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas.  The latter four states do not ban out-of-state circulators.

The order also doubts that the ban actually makes it more expensive for petitions to be completed when an out-0f-state ban exists, citing the travel expenses to bring out-of-state circulators into the state.

New Mexico Loses Campaign Finance Lawsuit in 10th Circuit

Posted on by July 1, 2010
1

On June 30, the 10th circuit affirmed last year’s U.S. District Court decision in New Mexico Youth Organized v Herrera, 09-2212.  The 19-page decision is here.  Two organizations, New Mexico Youth Organized, and Southwest Organizing Project, sent out direct mail in the spring of 2008, criticizing two New Mexico State Senators for their votes on certain bills in the legislature.  The two Senators complained to the Secretary of State that the two organizations had never filed as political committees.  The Secretary of State initially said the law didn’t require the organizations to do that.

The New Mexico Attorney General had then advised the Secretary of State that the two organizations should be told that they must register as political committees.  This would have meant that they had to file the names and addresses of their officers, and make periodic reports of expenditures and contributions.  Both the U.S. District Court and the 10th circuit ruled that states do not have the authority to regulate groups that way, because the groups did not explicitly tell voters to vote against the State Senators, nor to vote for the opponents of those State Senators.  Furthermore the organizations were not formed specifically to influence voters to vote in a certain manner.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.