On October 20, a state court in Washington maintained privacy protections for initiative petition signers, so that they are now treated the same as people who sign referendum petitions. See this story.
Reply
National Review Online has this short account of a conversation with Newt Gingrich, about the November 3, 2009 elections. Gingrich deplores the fact that a strong independent candidate is running for Governor of New Jersey, and he also deplores the fact that the New York Conservative Party has its own candidate in the special election for U.S. House, 23rd district.
On October 20, U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour set a trial date in Washington State Republican Party v State, cv-05-927. This is the lawsuit over the constitutionality of the “top-two” election system. The attorneys estimate the trial will last for four or five days and will involve social science experts.
On October 20, U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour set a trial date in Washington State Republican Party v State, cv-05-927. This is the lawsuit over the constitutionality of the “top-two” election system. The attorneys estimate the trial will last for four or five days and will involve social science experts.
On the afternoon of October 20, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-1 to forbid the Secretary of State of Washington from releasing the names and addresses of people who signed the R-71 Referendum petition. The dissenter is Justice John Paul Stevens. Here is the order.
The Court’s order says that the ban will remain in effect until the lower courts have finished deciding whether the Constitution requires that such petitions be kept private. Then, if the losing side asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the constitutional case, and the Court denies cert, then at that point (assuming the state has won) the ban would be automatically terminated. But, if the U.S. Supreme Court at that point decides to accept the case for full review, the ban would remain in effect until after the U.S. Supreme Court had issued its full opinion. Of course, if at that point the state had lost, the ban would also continue to remain, obviously. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.