New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Case on Whether Members of Congress Can be Recalled

New Jersey has procedures for recall of elected officials. Those procedures do not exclude members of Congress. On May 25, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution blocks New Jersey from permitting recall of members of Congress. See this story. The case is Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v Wells, A86-09.

The lower court had ducked the issue. It failed to decide that big issue, but said at least the state should let the circulators have blank petition forms. The procedure is so difficult, requiring approximately 1,300,000 valid signatures for U.S. Senate or any statewide race, that it is fundamentally unfair for the judicial system to not say whether such a petition would be honored if it were completed.

No other court has ever ruled on this interesting question, except for a lower state court in Idaho in 1967 that said the U.S. Constitution does not permit the states to have procedures for recall of members of Congress.

U.S. Supreme Court Shows Some Interest in Arizona Public Funding Case

The plaintiffs in McComish v Bennett, the Arizona case over public funding of candidates for state office, have filed this brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose is to obtain an injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court, stopping payment of public funding this year in Arizona. Justice Anthony Kennedy has already asked the state to respond. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link to the brief. UPDATE: here is the state’s response, filed May 27.

Prestigious Blog Looks at Hawaii Election, Asks “Might This be a Good Time for Instant Runoff Voting?”

The prestigious blog www.fivethirtyeight.com, has this article, “Might this be a good time for Instant Runoff Voting?” The article is a reaction to the May 22 special congressional election in Hawaii, at which a Republican was elected with less than 40% of the total vote cast. Thanks to Peter Gemma for the link.

Utah Supreme Court Hears Electronic Signature Case on June 2

The Utah Supreme Court will hear Farley Anderson’s lawsuit over whether electronic signatures are valid, on June 2, at 11 a.m. Anderson is an independent candidate for Governor this year. Utah requires 1,000 signatures. Anderson submitted 960 valid paper signatures and 130 electronic signatures. The counties accepted the electronic signatures as valid, but the state elections office rejected them.

The ACLU will represent Anderson. See this story. Also see here for BAN’s prior coverage of this case, including a link to the web page that was used by voters who wanted to sign the Anderson petition electronically. Utah doesn’t normally have gubernatorial elections in midterm years, but this year’s gubernatorial election is a special election because the Governor elected in 2008 resigned without finishing his term.

Minor Parties Again Demonstrate in Front of Schwarzenegger Fund-Raising Event Concerning Proposition 14

On May 24, twelve minor party and independent activists demonstrated in front a Sacramento restaurant. Inside, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared. Guests paid $5,000 each to be at the event, and the money went toward the campaign for Proposition 14, the top-two measure on the June 8 ballot.

The event seemed to attract approximately twenty guests. About half of them accepted an anti-Proposition 14 flyer before entering the restaurant. Two of the guests added that they have no idea what Proposition 14 does. One guest acknowledged that the measure is unfair to minor party members.

The Governor himself seems to have entered the restaurant from a side door that opens into an alley, so he avoided seeing any of the protestors, the signs, and the fliers. Channel 10 TV filmed interviews with some of the protesters.