Alabama Files Brief in 11th Circuit in Ballot Access Case

Posted on by December 7, 2009
4

On December 7, Alabama filed its brief in Shugart v Chapman, the case pending in the 11th circuit over whether a state can require an independent candidate for US House to obtain more signatures than an independent candidate for president.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, in 1979, and again in 1992, that states cannot require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for statewide office. Alabama argues that those precedents don’t apply if the statewide office is the office of President.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in both 1979 and 1992 that when a state requires more signatures for an office in just part of the state than for a statewide office, that type of disparity is discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court also said in both cases that discriminatory ballot access laws cannot survive unless the state can show that the law is needed for a compelling state interest. But a few months later in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that if the law under challenge is not discriminatory, then it can survive if it merely has a rational basis.

Alabama’s brief insists that the rational basis test applies, but the brief does not really address the point that since this case involves a discriminatory ballot access law, the rational basis test does not apply. And, indeed, it seems obvious that if Alabama can get along with 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for President, there is no compelling state need to require more than 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House.

Rasmussen Poll Imagines a “Tea Party” Exists, and Says It Would Rival Republican Support in 2010 Congressional Races

Posted on by December 7, 2009
12

Independent Political Report links to this Rasmussen Poll, which asks voters which party they would support for Congress in 2010 if their choices were limited to the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee, and the nominee of a party called the “Tea Party.” There is no such political party. One wishes Rasmussen Polls had done a poll that asks voters to choose among parties that actually exist.

The results are: Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23%, Republican 18%, other or undecided 22%.

U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Case on Freedom of Association

Posted on by December 7, 2009
1

On December 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v Newton, 08-1371. This is not an election law case. But it is a freedom of association case, and all legal decisions in that area of the law affect political parties.

The Christian Legal Society is the only student organization ever denied recognition by Hastings College of the Law. Hastings requires recognized student groups to admit any student, regardless of that student’s beliefs. For example, the university guidelines say, “For example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs from becoming members or seeking leadership positions in the organization.”

The Christian Legal Society does not wish to admit as members any student who “advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” Because the University will not recognize the group, it is barred from access to meeting space at the school, from participation in the annual Student Organizations Fair, from placing announcements in the law school newsletter and on bulletin boards, from sending fliers through law school mailboxes, and from being mentioned in the list of student organizations.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of the Christian Legal Society, the decision might also strengthen the ability of political parties to control their own nominations process.

The U.S. Supreme Court took a long time to decide whether to hear this case or not. It was on the Court’s conference seven times before the Court made its decision. Those conference dates were September 29, October 9, October 19, October 30, November 6, November 13, and December 4.

New York City Election Board Tallies All Write-in Votes for Mayor, Other Offices

Posted on by December 7, 2009
2

The New York city Board of Elections recently issued the official tally of election returns for Mayor and other city offices, from the November 3, 2009 election. See this link. It shows the vote for Mayor by Borough. Scroll down below totals given for each borough, to get to the city totals.

Apparently for the first time in a New York city election, the Board included a tally of each person who received write-in votes. New York state has a declared write-in declaration of candidacy procedure for president in the general election. However, it does not have a declared write-in candidacy procedure for any other office. Therefore, technically, every write-in (for office other than president) is valid, and every write-in ought to be tallied. But, that has not been done before.

The results show that the person who got the most write-ins for Mayor is Charles Montgomery Burns, the fictional character in the Homer Simpson series. He is Simpson’s boss. He was credited with 25 write-ins. Perhaps there was a small organized attempt to get write-ins for Mr. Burns, possibly as a satire on electing a wealthy person to be Mayor. See this story.