Constitution Party’s Case Against Pennsylvania Legislature’s Failure to Pass a Constitutional Deadline Could Get Opinion At Any Time

Posted on by December 26, 2009
6

The Third Circuit could issue an opinion in Baldwin v Cortes at any time. There will be no oral argument, and the three judges will rule strictly from having read the briefs. Here is the Constitution Party’s opening brief; here is the state’s brief; here is the Constitution Party’s reply brief.

The case had been filed in U.S. District Court on August 29, 2008. It had argued that Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires that ballot access rules for presidential electors are invalid, unless they were passed by a state legislature. Article II says, “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of (Presidential) Electors.”

The Pennsylvania petition deadline for minor party and independent candidate petitions, August 1, was never passed by the legislature. The Constitution Party submitted its statewide petition in Pennsylvania in mid-August, but the petition was rejected because it was late. But, the party argues that there is no valid deadline. The U.S. District Court refused any relief so the case is now pending in the 3rd circuit. The three judges on the panel are Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee; Jane Roth, a Bush Sr. appointee; and Leonard Garth, a Nixon appointee.

Philadelphia Inquirer Story on Pennsylvania State Courts

Posted on by December 26, 2009
2

The December 26 Philadelphia Inquirer has this story about more ethical problems with the Pennsylvania court system. The story says that the state’s Judicial Conduct Board, which is supposed to investigate ethics problems with state court judges, does not do its job and is intent on keeping its actions secret from other government agencies that are also trying to help fight corruption in the state judiciary. Thanks to HowAppealing for the link.

Arizona Green Party Ballot Access Lawsuit Gets Publicity

Posted on by December 26, 2009
2

On December 25, Arizona newspapers ran stories on the Arizona Green Party’s ballot access lawsuit. For example, see this story.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court on November 18, 2009, and is called Arizona Green Party v Bennett. It challenges the prohibition on out-of-state circulators. It also challenges the February 2010 deadline for new party petitions. The newspaper story says there is no hearing date, but there is a hearing date. The hearing will be January 11, 2010.

The newspaper story also says the party is challenging a law that makes it illegal for out-of-staters to register voters in Arizona. That is not correct. The party has been circulating a petition to get itself back on the ballot, and it is challenging the ban on petition circulators, not people who want to register voters.

The Arizona law for party status is complex. The Green Party can either be on in 2010 if it has registration of two-thirds of 1% as of November 1, 2009, or if it submits a petition signed by 1.33% of the 2006 gubernatorial vote. The party is using the petition method, not the registration method. It has 16,000 signatures, and it estimates that without volunteer help from Greens in neighboring states, it won’t have 20,449 valid signatures by February 25, 2010. California Greens would like to help with the petition drive, but it is illegal for them to do so. The state already lost on this issue in 2008, but all the legislature did in response was to legalize out-of-state circulators for independent presidential petitions. It left the out-of-state ban in place for all other types of petitions.