Former Republican Congressmember from Michigan May be Independent Candidate for Governor

Posted on by February 1, 2010
Reply

Joe Schwarz says he will decide by March 1 whether to be an independent candidate for Governor of Michigan. See this story. He was a Republican State Senator 1987-2002, and he only left the legislature because of term limits. He was elected to Congress in the 7th district in 2004. He was defeated for re-election in the Republican primary in 2006. Schwarz is pro-choice and his primary opponent, Tim Walberg, is pro-life. Democrats won the 7th district in 2008.

Michigan has never had an independent candidate for Governor on a government-printed ballot. Michigan did not permit independent candidates to get on the ballot for any office until 1988. Other states that have never had an independent candidate for Governor on a government-printed ballot are Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

If Schwarz runs, he will be disadvantaged by Michigan’s straight-ticket device and ballot format. Independent candidates do not get a party column of their own, or a logo, and they can’t take advantage of the straight-ticket device that parties enjoy. All independent candidates are squeezed into the same column. Thanks to Peter Gemma for this news.

Los Angeles Times Editorializes Against Petition Privacy

Posted on by February 1, 2010
Reply

The Los Angeles Times of February 1 has this editorial, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should decide Doe v Reed in favor of the state of Washington. The issue is whether Washington state should turn over the names and addresses of people who sign referendum petitions to people who want to put those names and addresses on a web page.

The editorial says that unlike voting, signing a petition takes place in public. The weakness in that argument is that signing a petition does not necessarily take place in public. Some petitions are circulated among like-minded groups, at meetings of such groups. Not all petition signatures are gathered in public spaces. Also there is a big difference between having one’s signature and address seen by, at most, 20 people who sign the same sheet below the signature of a voter who wishes privacy, and having one’s signature and address posted to a web page. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Illinois Bill to Move February Primary to March

Posted on by February 1, 2010
Reply

Illinois Representative Elaine Nekritz (D-Northbrook) has introduced HB 4964, the move the Illinois primary from the first week in February, back to the third week in March. Currently, Illinois is about to hold the earliest congressional primary in midterm years (February 2, 2010) in U.S. history.

Representative Nekritz also introduced HB 5039, to move the petition deadline for candidates running in primaries from 92 days before the primary, to 102 days before the primary. All candidates qualify for partisan primary ballots in Illinois with petitions, and elections officials are having trouble processing petitions, especially challenged petitions, with a deadline that is 3 months before the primary. It is likely that some Illinois state legislator will soon introduce a bill to set up a filing fee procedure alternative for candidates running in primaries.

If the Illinois legislature passes HB 5039, but not HB 4964, Illinois candidates in partisan primaries will need to file petitions in October of the odd year before the election. In other words, to run in an election, primary candidates will need to have completed a petition 13 months before the general election. See this story.

Strong Brief Filed in 4th Circuit in Case Over Invalidation of Signatures due to Omission of Middle Initials, Etc.

Posted on by February 1, 2010
Reply

Last year, Howard County, Maryland, rejected 87% of the signatures on a referendum petition, because the Howard County Board of Elections believed that a recent decision of the Maryland State Court of Appeals means that petition signatures are invalid if they aren’t exact matches of that voter’s signature on the voter registration form.

Proponents of the referendum filed a lawsuit against this policy in both state and federal court. The federal case lost in U.S. District Court in October 2009. Proponents of the referendum have just filed this brief in the 4th circuit. The brief is 78 pages long. Pages 44-46 explain the practical problems with the Board of Elections’ policy. The vast majority of voters don’t remember exactly how they filled out a voter registration form, which sometimes was an action they had taken decades earlier. And even if they do remember whether they used a middle initial, or used their entire middle name, or whether they put down, “Jr.” or “Sr.” or “III”, or similar additions to the name, the petition form space for printing one’s name is very small. It isn’t easy to fit a full name into the space for printing one’s name. So, to make one’s printed name fit, signers typically use abbreviations, accepted shortened forms of longer names, such as “Wm.” for “William”, or else they use nicknames, such as “Bill” for “William.” So, all those signatures are invalid. Page 47 of the brief has a useful list of court precedents that have ruled that exact name matches are not required.

South Carolina Democratic Party Says it Won’t Let Ex-Felon Run for Congress in its Primary

Posted on by January 31, 2010
7

On January 13, the Executive Director of the South Carolina Democratic Party sent a letter to Brian Doyle, who wants to run in this year’s Democratic primary for U.S. House, 3rd district. The incumbent in that seat is not running for re-election.

The letter says, “Brian: As I am sure you are aware, the Party must follow the Constitution of the State of South Carolina when accepting a candidate’s filing. It is our understanding that you were convicted in 2003 of a felony and that alone disqualifies you from seeking office in South Carolina. The South Carolina Constitution clearly states, “A person convicted of a felony or an offense against the election laws is not qualified to file or to hold office, unless it has been fifteen years since the completion of the sentence for the crime or unless the person has been pardoned. The South Carolina Democratic Party would be forced under the law to reject your candidate filing this year.”

For over 90 years, state and federal courts have consistently ruled states cannot add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution to serve in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this understanding in 1995, when it ruled in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton that states may not keep candidates for Congress off any ballot, just because the person has already served three terms in Congress.

On January 27, Doyle sued the South Carolina Democratic Party over its threat to keep him off its primary ballot, and also over its failure so far to include him on the party’s web page list of candidates this year. Here is a link to the party’s web page. The case is Doyle v South Carolina Democratic Party, 3:10cv-203, filed in U.S. District Court.

If political parties had the power to add qualifications to run in their own primaries for Congress, then, in theory, the Republican Party (which once endorsed term limits for Congress) could provide by party rules that no long-serving member of Congress would be permitted to run in a Republican primary for re-election.