South Carolina permits a candidate to receive the nomination of more than one political party. South Carolina also requires candidates who are seeking the nomination of any political party (whether a party that nominates by primary, or by convention) to file a declaration of candidacy in March of election years.

In 2008, South Carolina changed its policy on declarations of candidacy, for candidates who are seeking the nomination of more than one political party. In the past, a candidate who was seeking the nomination of more than one party only had to file one declaration of candidacy, listing one party. But in 2008, the Election Commission changed its policy, and said a candidate must file a separate declaration of candidacy for each political party.

However, on March 1, a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruled that South Carolina cannot implement the 2008 change, because it didn’t ask the Voting Rights Section for permission to make the change. South Carolina is one of the states that must get U.S. Justice Department approval before changing an election law or practice. The case is Gray and United Citizens Party of South Carolina v South Carolina State Election Commission, 3:09-2126. Here is the decision.

One of the key facts in this decision is that in 1998, Peter Ashy was the U.S. House nominee of both the Reform Party and the Patriot Party, in South Carolina’s 4th district. The South Carolina Election Commission did not require Ashy to submit two different declarations of candidacy, one for each party.

This outcome will help the Green Party win its South Carolina ballot access case, which is pending in the 4th circuit and which will probably have an oral argument in April. One of the reasons the South Carolina Election Commission kept Eugene Platt off the November 2008 ballot is because he had only filed one declaration of candidacy, although he was seeking the nomination of three parties, Green, Working Families, and Democratic.

The Washington state legislature adjourns for the year on March 11. The Secretary of State’s clean-up bill to fix legal problems with the top-two primary, SB 5681, would have revised the definition of a qualified political party, but that bill has already missed legislative deadlines and cannot pass this year.

Existing law says a qualified party is one that polled 5% for any statewide race in the last election. The test applies every two years, although it doesn’t apply in years in which there are no statewide races on the ballot. In 2010, a U.S. Senate race is on the ballot. The incumbent is Patty Murray, a Democrat, who is running for re-election.

Because parties no longer have nominees for any federal or state office (except they still have presidential nominees), no party’s nominee will poll at least 5% of the vote in 2010. Therefore, all parties will cease to be ballot-qualified. SB 5681 would have solved this problem by saying that parties that poll at least 1% for President are ballot-qualified for the next four years. But the bill can’t pass this year. The legislature declined to pass it this year because legislators want to see the outcome of the pending federal lawsuit that argues that the top-two system violates the U.S. Constitution. A trial in that case is set for October 2010.

On February 28, the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (COFOE) held its annual board meeting, in New York city. COFOE is a coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties, as well as certain other organizations that support their right to be on the ballot. COFOE was formed in 1985.

The board voted to spend $2,000 on a cert petition for the Alabama ballot access lawsuit, Shugart v Chapman. The issue is whether Alabama may require an independent candidate for U.S. House to submit more signatures that are required for an independent presidential candidate. Alabama has six U.S. House districts.

The 11th circuit had upheld the Alabama law on February 10, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that states cannot require more signatures for an independent candidate in just part of the state, than for a statewide office. The 11th circuit did not even mention Norman v Reed, one of those two U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Also, Norman v Reed said that when states have such laws, those laws are discriminatory, and can only be upheld if they are necessary for a compelling state interest. The 11th circuit did not apply strict scrutiny.