Oregon Groups File Amicus Curiae Brief in Doe v Reed, the Petition Signers Privacy Case Pending in U.S. Supreme Court

On February 23, three Oregon groups filed an amicus curiae brief in Doe v Reed, the case that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on April 28. The issue is whether petition signatures should be private. The amicus was filed by Common Sense for Oregon, The Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, and Oregonians in Action.

The amici brief says that petition signers are not private in Oregon, and gives concrete example of how some Oregon petitions have been so controversial that signers were harassed. The brief gives details about a petition to recall three city councilmembers in West Linn, Oregon. Emotions ran so high, some signers later asked that their names be blacked out, before the petition had been submitted, because they were afraid to let it be known that they had signed the recall. Proponents of the recall received late-night threatening phone calls. Finally, even though they believed they had enough valid signatures, they chose not to submit them. The amicus also describes incidents from the Nader independent petition in Oregon in 2004, when signers received vaguely intimidating letters from a law firm, saying that the voter’s name had appeared on the Nader petition, asserting that the Nader petition had many fraudulent signatures, and asking the voter if he or she had really signed the petition.

ACLU Wins United Citizens Case on South Carolina Fusion Procedure

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.

Chautauqua County, New York, Sells Old-Fashioned Mechanical Voting Machines for Scrap for Only $52.47 Each

This news story says Chautauqua County, New York, has sold its old-fashioned mechanical lever voting machines to a scrap dealer for only $52.47 apiece. One would have thought that the county could have sold them for more money if it had sold them to individuals on e-Bay. Perhaps some of the other New York counties that still must sell their machines will try that. Of course, the machines are heavy, so shipping would be an added cost.

All Political Parties in Washington State Will Cease to be Ballot-Qualified, At Least Temporarily, After November 2, 2010

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.

Two Important Court Hearings on March 4

On Thursday, March 4, two different courts will hear oral argument in two important election law cases:

1. The Indiana Supreme Court will hear League of Women Voters of Indiana v Rokita, the case that asks whether the law requiring photo voter-ID for almost all voters at the polls violates the State Constitution’s equal protection clause.

2. The 11th circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, will hear Coffield v Handel, over whether the state’s requirement for independent and minor party candidates for U.S. House to get on the ballot violates the U.S. Constitution. The law is so strict, it has not been used since 1964, and it was actually considerably easier in 1964 than it is today. Since 1964, the petition deadline has been moved from October to July; notarization of each petition was not then required, but today it is; back in 1964 the petitions were not checked but were deemed to be valid, but today they are checked; back in 1964 no Georgia county was split by a congressional district boundary, but today many of the counties are split, making it tougher to know which voters on the street are eligible to sign.