Rhode Island Ballot Access Case Appealed to the First Circuit

Posted on by November 17, 2009
4

On November 5, the city of Central Falls, Rhode Island, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, to overturn the U.S. District Court opinion in Fontes v City of Central Falls. The U.S. District Court, on October 8, had struck down a city ordinance that says if a voter signs for one candidate, and later signs for another candidate for the same office, the signature that counts is the one that was submitted first. The case in the 1st Circuit is Fontes v City of Central Falls, 09-2516.

Ironically, Rhode Island election laws, like the election laws of most states, have no prohibition on a voter signing for two different candidates for the same office. In other words, the city of Central Falls imposed a ballot access restriction that does not exist in state law in that state. This particular lawsuit had arisen when Hipolito Fontes had gone door-to-door to get the needed 200 valid signatures to run for Mayor in a non-partisan election. Campaigners for the incumbent Mayor, who was the only other candidate, followed Fontes and asked the same voters to sign the Mayor’s petition as well. Because enough voters signed both petitions, and because the Mayor turned his petition in first, Fontes only had 197 valid signatures and would not have been on the ballot except for the U.S. District Court’s order, putting him on the ballot. Fontes lost the election, receiving 426 votes; the incumbent received 1,495 votes.

South Carolina Files Brief in Opposition to Green Party Arguments in Ballot Access Case

Posted on by November 17, 2009
15

On November 16, attorneys for the state of South Carolina filed this brief in the lawsuit South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina State Election Commission, pending in the 4th circuit.

The Green Party nominated Eugene Platt for state legislature on May 3, 2008, at a convention. The next month, Platt was defeated for the Democratic Party nomination for the same seat. South Carolina permits fusion, so Platt had been hoping to be the nominee of both parties in November. Because he lost the Democratic nomination in June, the Green Party nomination was considered void by the state, and Platt was omitted from the November ballot entirely. The state’s brief mostly ignores Platt’s strongest precedent, called California Democratic Party v Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court 2000 decision that said it is unconstitutional for a state to force a party to let outsiders help determine its nominee. Platt argues that since the Democratic Party was permitted to cancel out his Green Party nomination, the South Carolina system (as appled to instances when a minor party nominates first, before a major party nominating event) violates the principles set forth in California Democratic Party v Jones.

The state argues that Platt knew he was jeopardizing his Green Party nomination by running in the Democratic primary, and if he wanted to guarantee his Green Party nomination he should have avoided seeking the Democratic nomination. One wonders, what is the purpose of South Carolina’s fusion law, if not to encourage (rather than discourage) candidates from trying to use it.

The state’s brief also has a factual error on page 23. It says the U.S. Taxpayers Party nominated Pat Buchanan for president in 1996. This is not true. The U.S. Taxpayers Party only held one presidential convention in 1996, in San Diego, in August 1996, and it nominated Howard Phillips for President.

Chicago Tribune Article Criticizes Illinois' Petition Challenge Process

Posted on by November 17, 2009
2

The Chicago Tribune has this article in its November 17 edition, about the Illinois system for determining if candidate petitions are valid or not. New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, are the only three states in the country in which tradition and habits say it is legitimate and normal for candidates to challenge the primary ballot access petitions of their rivals, so as to eliminate those rivals from primary ballots. Most states don’t even use petitions for candidate ballot access to partisan primaries. And in many of the states that do use petitions to control access to the primary ballot, elections officials check those petitions in a fair, apolitical, competent manner, and challenges aren’t part of the system.

And even in the handful of other states that do use petitions for primary ballot access, and technically depend on the challenge system, the norm is that such petitions never get challenged. One example of such a state is Wisconsin.

Newspapers in New York frequently criticize the challenge system in that state, but it is somewhat rare for Illinois newspapers to make such criticisms, so this article is welcome. The article points out that petition challenges in Illinois primaries are becoming more and more common, perhaps because access to the voter registration rolls is easier than it has been, partly because of the internet.

Chicago Tribune Article Criticizes Illinois’ Petition Challenge Process

Posted on by November 17, 2009
2

The Chicago Tribune has this article in its November 17 edition, about the Illinois system for determining if candidate petitions are valid or not. New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, are the only three states in the country in which tradition and habits say it is legitimate and normal for candidates to challenge the primary ballot access petitions of their rivals, so as to eliminate those rivals from primary ballots. Most states don’t even use petitions for candidate ballot access to partisan primaries. And in many of the states that do use petitions to control access to the primary ballot, elections officials check those petitions in a fair, apolitical, competent manner, and challenges aren’t part of the system.

And even in the handful of other states that do use petitions for primary ballot access, and technically depend on the challenge system, the norm is that such petitions never get challenged. One example of such a state is Wisconsin.

Newspapers in New York frequently criticize the challenge system in that state, but it is somewhat rare for Illinois newspapers to make such criticisms, so this article is welcome. The article points out that petition challenges in Illinois primaries are becoming more and more common, perhaps because access to the voter registration rolls is easier than it has been, partly because of the internet.