The South Carolina legislature passed H.3746 on June 3, the last day of the session. It makes ballot access worse for independent candidates. Parts of it can be challenged in court. For a description of the bill, see today’s earlier post about the bill, four blog posts down.

In the last few days, the state governments of California and Kansas have both made their initial responses to lawsuits in federal court that challenge residency requirements for circulators.

In Kansas, the case is Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, 10-4043. Kansas has informally told attorneys for the party that they will not contest the part of the lawsuit that says out-of-state circulators may not work in Kansas. The Constitution Party is not on the ballot in Kansas but would like to hire paid petitioners to get itself on.

By contrast, in California, where the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party recently challenged state laws that say circulators for candidate petitions (for district office) may not work outside their home district and/or their home county, the state filed this brief on June 1. It says the plaintiffs don’t have standing, and also that there is no evidence that the state enforces these laws.

California has many election code sections that regulate the residency of circulators: 9209 says city initiatives can only be circulated by residents of that city; 11045 says recall petitions can only be circulated by residents of the district of the office-holder who is being recalled; 8451 says independent candidate petitions can only be circulated by residents of the district; 9021 says initiatives can only be circulated by state residents; 8066 says petitions to get someone on a primary ballot can only be circulated by residents of that district; 8106 says petitions in lieu of filing fee can only be circulated by residents of the district.

California is in the 9th circuit, which ruled in 2008 that Arizona could not bar out-of-state circulators from working on an independent petition.