Vermont Moves Primary From September to August

Posted on by April 7, 2010
Reply

On April 7, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas announced that he will not veto S. 117, the bill that moves the primary from September to August. Governor Douglas doesn’t approve of the bill, but he is letting it become law without his signature. UPDATE: see this newspaper story about the new law.

The bill moves the deadline for independent candidate petitions from September to June. Even independent presidential candidate petitions are now due in June. Courts in four states have ruled that June deadlines for independent presidential candidate petitions are too early. Those four states are Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, and South Dakota. The first three are not reported. The South Dakota decision is reported as Nader v Hazeltine, 110 F.Supp.2d 1201.

Supporters of Non-Partisan Elections for Kinston, N.C., File Lawsuit to Overturn Voting Rights Act, Sec. 5

Posted on by April 7, 2010
Reply

In November 2008, the voters of Kinston, North Carolina, voted to convert city elections from partisan to non-partisan. However, the U.S. Justice Department, Voting Rights Section, refused to allow the change.

Now advocates of non-partisan elections have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, is unconstitutional. Section 5 is the part of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain states to ask permission from the Voting Rights Section before changing any election law or practice. Most of the states covered by Section 5 are in the South. The voters were free to simply ask the U.S. District Court to overrule the Voting Rights Section, and approve the change from partisan to non-partisan elections. Instead, they are asking that the federal law itself be invalidated. The new case is LaRoque v Holder, 1:10-cv-00561. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for thisnews.

U.S. District Court in South Carolina Asks Democratic Party About Discriminatory Aspects of Party Web Page

Posted on by April 7, 2010
Reply

Brian Doyle, a candidate for U.S. House in the Democratic primary in South Carolina’s 3rd district, filed a lawsuit on January 27, challenging the Democratic Party’s refusal to let him file in the primary and also challenging the party’s refusal to list him on the party’s web page. The party’s web page purports to list all candidates in the party’s primary this year for federal and state office.

Since then, Doyle has been allowed to file, but the party is still not listing him on its web page, in the candidate list. On April 6, the judge asked in writing for the party to explain the reasons for its behavior. The case is Doyle v South Carolina Democratic Party, 3:10-cv-203.

Connecticut Newspaper Story Describes Deposition of Secretary of State

Posted on by April 7, 2010
Reply

The Day, the newspaper of New London, Connecticut, has this interesting account of the testimony given by Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, in the pending lawsuit over her qualifications to be Attorney General. A state law says candidates for Attorney General must have been engaged in the active practice of law for the previous ten years. Bysiewicz is an attorney, and she is running for Attorney General. The lawsuit concerns whether she meets the statutory requirement. Another issue in the case is whether the state law violates the State Constitution, because the statute appears to add to the Constitutional qualifications.