The Washington Post has this story about the dilemma that Maryland and the District of Columbia are in, over their traditional September primaries. The new federal law that requires overseas absentee ballots to be sent at least 45 days before an election means that September primaries are no longer practical. Both jurisdictions have asked for a waiver for 2010.
California is the only state in which every candidate may list his or her occupation on the ballot. John Eastman, a Republican running for California Attorney General, has chosen “Assistant Attorney General.” His opponents are crying foul, because even though he lives in California, he is not an Assistant Attorney General in California. The title is bestowed on him by the state of South Dakota, which has hired him to work on one particular case. See this story.
California law does not permit more than three words for an occupation on the ballot.
California is the only state in which every candidate may list his or her occupation on the ballot. John Eastman, a Republican running for California Attorney General, has chosen “Assistant Attorney General.” His opponents are crying foul, because even though he lives in California, he is not an Assistant Attorney General in California. The title is bestowed on him by the state of South Dakota, which has hired him to work on one particular case. See this story.
California law does not permit more than three words for an occupation on the ballot.
Two West Virginia Republicans wanted to run for Republican Party Executive Committee in their home county, Ralpigh County. Due to a mix-up with the an erroneous entry on the Declaration of Candidacy, instead they are on the ballot in Wood County, 135 miles from where they live. This story explains how it happened and why nothing can be done about it.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Moore v Hosemann, 09-982, at its April 2 conference. Any decision would not be released until Monday, April 5. This is the case over whether Brian Moore, Socialist Party presidential candidate, should have been on the ballot in 2008 in Mississippi. The actual issue now before the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t involve the election law itself, but whether the 5th circuit should have certified the case to a state court (instead the 5th circuit said the case is not moot but that Moore must file the case all over again in state court). Another issue in the case is whether, when state officials force the plaintiff to hire a process server, must the state reimburse the plaintiff?
