Nader Again Asks Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Re-hear 2004 Case on $80,000

Posted on by November 7, 2009
2

On November 6, 2009, Ralph Nader again asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to rehear the 2004 case over whether it was proper and constitutional for that Court to order him to pay approximately $80,000 to the people who challenged his 2004 petition. In re Nomination Paper of Nader, 94 MAP 2008. Here is the succinct 5-page brief, which makes two points that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never addressed: (1) the people who challenged Nader’s petition did so in a criminal conspiracy, and some of them have already pleaded guilty; (2) the U.S. Supreme Court, and lower courts, have established over the last 44 years that states cannot charge candidates for the costs of administering elections, except for the limited purpose of keeping ballots uncrowded.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has one new member, elected earlier this week, although she hasn’t taken the oath of office yet.

Final Brief Filed in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Presidential Substitution Lawsuit

Posted on by November 6, 2009
Reply

Here is the Libertarian Party’s response brief in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, the federal case over whether unqualified parties should be allowed to use stand-in presidential candidates on their petitions. Although it is short (only five pages), it has a good compendium of other federal court decisions that say in some areas of election laws, states may not discriminate against unqualified parties, relative to qualified ones. This is in response to the state’s brief, which seemed to argue that states are free to discriminate in all areas of election law, but only cited examples of cases in which unqualified parties need not be treated equally for purposes of having their members serve on election boards.

Two Independents Elected to Virginia Legislature This Week

Posted on by November 6, 2009
5

On November 3, the two Virginia state legislators who were running for re-election were re-elected. They are Lacey Putney in the 19th district, and Watkins M. Abbitt in the 59th district.

Putney was re-elected with 64.1% of the vote. His only opponents were a Democrat, Lewis Medlin, who got 20.6%, and a Constitution Party candidate, Will Smith, who got 15.1%.

Watkins Abbitt was unopposed.

Another independent candidate, Gordon Helsel, lost to his Republican opponent, but placed ahead of his Democratic opponent. The vote in the 91st district was: Republican Tom Gear 48.3%, independent Gordon Helsel 32.6%, Democrat Sam Eure 19.0%.

U.S. Supreme Court Receives Request to Hear Petition Privacy Case

Posted on by November 6, 2009
Reply

On November 6, the proponents of privacy for Washington state referendum petitions asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal. Here is the brief. As noted earlier, on September 10 the U.S. District Court in Washington state had ordered the Washington Secretary of State not to release the names and addresses of people who signed the R-71 petition. But on October 15, the 9th circuit had ruled that the Secretary of State could release the information. Then, on October 19, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled 8-1 that the information should not be released, at least until the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue of whether injunctive relief had been proper.

In the meantime, the West Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to hear another case on the same issue. A lower state court had ruled in favor of privacy for initiative petitions earlier this year, in a case from Jefferson County. That case is Shepherdstown Observer v Maghan, no. 09-c-169 in Jefferson County Circuit Court. This is a different case than the recent one in Ohio County, West Virginia, in which a lower state court had ruled that such petitions are public information. The Ohio case was decided November 5, 2009. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news about the cert petition in Washington state.