On January 13, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Clark v Bowen, S179046. This is the case in which a Republican sued to overturn a California election law that says he can’t be on the Republican primary ballot in 2010 because in the preceding year, he was a registered member of the Democratic Party. The plaintiff had wanted to run for Attorney General this year.
On January 13, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Clark v Bowen, S179046. This is the case in which a Republican sued to overturn a California election law that says he can’t be on the Republican primary ballot in 2010 because in the preceding year, he was a registered member of the Democratic Party. The plaintiff had wanted to run for Attorney General this year.
In 2004, Ralph Nader’s petition in Pennsylvania was challenged by his political opponents. Under Pennsylvania’s unique challenge system, because the challengers won their case that Nader didn’t have enough valid signatures, the court said that Nader had to pay all the court costs associated with the petition verification process, a sum exceeding $80,000.
Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (which can be thought of as the highest court for the District’s own government), indicated that it wishes to hear oral argument in March or April in Serody v Nader. This is the case, which has been pending in the D.C. courts for years, over whether one of Ralph Nader’s banks in D.C. should release $30,000 of Nader’s funds to the challengers. Another bank in D.C. has already handed over another $30,000 of Nader’s funds to those challengers, and Serody v Nader also concerns whether that second bank was in error.
Because no one knew until 2009 that the Pennsylvania challengers illegally used state government resources for their challenge, this will be the first oral argument in any court in which the relevance of that illegal activity can be evaluated, in connection with the award of costs.
In 2004, Ralph Nader’s petition in Pennsylvania was challenged by his political opponents. Under Pennsylvania’s unique challenge system, because the challengers won their case that Nader didn’t have enough valid signatures, the court said that Nader had to pay all the court costs associated with the petition verification process, a sum exceeding $80,000.
Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (which can be thought of as the highest court for the District’s own government), indicated that it wishes to hear oral argument in March or April in Serody v Nader. This is the case, which has been pending in the D.C. courts for years, over whether one of Ralph Nader’s banks in D.C. should release $30,000 of Nader’s funds to the challengers. Another bank in D.C. has already handed over another $30,000 of Nader’s funds to those challengers, and Serody v Nader also concerns whether that second bank was in error.
Because no one knew until 2009 that the Pennsylvania challengers illegally used state government resources for their challenge, this will be the first oral argument in any court in which the relevance of that illegal activity can be evaluated, in connection with the award of costs.
On January 25, Frederic von Anhalt said he will run as an independent candidate for Governor of California. See this story, which explains his platform. UPDATE: Here is his campaign site. No one has used the California independent candidate procedure to get on the ballot for Governor since 1978, when Ed Clark qualified. Clark was not a true independent; he was the Libertarian Party nominee. But the Libertarian Party was not ballot-qualified in California in 1978, so Clark used the independent procedure.
Before 1978, no independent qualified for California governor since 1918, when Theodore Bell qualified. Bell was not a true independent either. He was the choice of the Democratic Party for Governor, and he used the independent procedure because, due to a quirk in California election laws back then, the Democratic Party had no nominee for Governor in 1918. No true independent candidate for California Governor has ever been on a government-printed ballot in California.
