This interesting article describes the progress of the trial over whether Connecticut’s Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz, satisfies a statute that requires candidates for Attorney General to have engaged in the “active practice of law” for the past ten years. The case is likely to depend on the extent to which Bysiewicz has drafted legal opinions, or participated in the drafting of legal opinions, while she has served as Secretary of State.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears Doe v Reed, 09-559, on April 28. On April 20, the final brief in that case was filed. Read it here. It is the rebuttal brief for proponents of keeping petition names and addresses secret, and consists of 24 pages of text.
Footnote 17 criticizes the amicus brief filed by Ohio and many other states. That amicus said that it is necessary for petition names and addresses to be made publicly available, in order to prevent petition fraud. That amicus gave as an example the Ralph Nader 2004 independent candidate petition controversy. As footnote 17 explains, no one charged anyone connected with the Ohio Nader petition with petition fraud. Instead, the controversy was whether four of Nader’s petitioners really lived in Ohio. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On April 19, Arizona SB 1024 was amended in the House. SB 1024 is the bill to delete the names of candidates for presidential elector from the November ballot, and to add the names of vice-presidential candidates. Currently, Arizona is one of six states that still lists candidates for presidential elector on the ballot. The bill has already passed the Senate.
The amendment was added by Representative Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley). It says that when political parties certify the names of their presidential nominees for the November ballot, the parties must include (within an additional ten days) an affidavit from the presidential candidate, stating that he or she is qualified to hold the office. The candidate must also attach documents showing evidence. The amendment says the Secretary of State will review the documents and exclude the candidate from the November ballot if the Secretary of State does not believe the evidence is sufficient. The vote on this amendment was 31-22, with Democrats generally voting against the amendment and Republicans voting in favor. Assuming the bill next passes the House, it must then return to the Senate to see if the Senate concurs.
The amendment is discriminatory because an independent presidential candidate need not provide such documents, nor must the presidential candidate of a new party, nor a write-in presidential candidate. Also it is not easy to imagine which documents would be required, because proving that one has been a resident of the United States for the past 14 years (the least-known constitutional requirement for presidents) is not necessarily easy. General Dwight Eisenhower was not exactly a resident of the United States during the years 1942-1945, even though under this bill, he would need to have “proven” that he was a “resident” for all years 1938-1952.
National Review Online has this exclusive interview with Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Thanks to Political Wire for the link. Crist says he absolutely will run for the U.S. Senate this year, either as a Republican or as an independent. He hasn’t decided which route to take, and must decide by April 30. UPDATE: here is a TV news story that surveyed some ordinary voters, including some Republicans, and finds that many Republicans say they will vote for Crist even if he runs as an independent.
According to this story, the leadership of the U.S. House will not bring HR 157 to the floor of the House this year for a vote. This is the bill that would have given a voting representative in the House to the District of Columbia. Thanks to Gene Berkman for the news.
