New York Omits Candidate From Absentee Ballots Even Though Court Put Him On Ballot

According to this story in the New York Daily News, the New York City Board of Elections has printed absentee ballots in City Councilman Alan Gerson’s race that do not include Gerson’s name. This, despite the fact that last week the New York Supreme Court ordered him restored to the ballot. This is not a mistake; the New York City Board of Elections says it is policy.

That policy violates what the U.S. Supreme Court said in American Party of Texas v White. That 1974 decision upheld many Texas state ballot access laws, but the one victorious point in that case was that the U.S. Supreme Court said it violates the U.S. Constitution to omit a candidate (who is on the regular ballots) from absentee ballots. This part of the decision is on pages 794-795 in U.S. Reports. Thanks to Kimberly Wilder for the link.

Sierra Club Endorses Independent Candidate for New Jersey Governor

On August 17, the New Jersey Sierra Club announced that it is endorsing Chris Daggett for Governor, in the November 2009 election. Daggett is an independent candidate who was formerly head of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. The Sierra Club only rarely endorsed candidates who are not nominees of either major party.

U.S. Supreme Court Acts In Capital Punishment Case and Also Accepts Bob Barr's Amicus Curiae Brief

On August 17, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a lower court judge to hear new evidence in a death penalty appeal called In re Troy Davis, 08-1443. The case, from Georgia, concerns whether actual innocence is enough to stop capital punishment from being carried out, when the prisoner had lost his or her previous appeals. The Court on August 17 also agreed to accept the amicus curiae brief of Bob Barr. Normally the Court doesn’t need to decide whether to accept amici briefs, because both sides waive any objections. However, in this case, the state of Georgia had refused to waive its objections to Barr’s brief, so the Court had to decide whether to accept it. Barr argues on the side of the prisoner, Troy Davis.

The Court’s vote on whether to accept the case was 6-2. Justice Sotomayor did not participate and Justices Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. The only other amicus submitted in the case is from the NAACP, and both sides had agreed to accept that brief.

U.S. Supreme Court Acts In Capital Punishment Case and Also Accepts Bob Barr’s Amicus Curiae Brief

On August 17, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a lower court judge to hear new evidence in a death penalty appeal called In re Troy Davis, 08-1443. The case, from Georgia, concerns whether actual innocence is enough to stop capital punishment from being carried out, when the prisoner had lost his or her previous appeals. The Court on August 17 also agreed to accept the amicus curiae brief of Bob Barr. Normally the Court doesn’t need to decide whether to accept amici briefs, because both sides waive any objections. However, in this case, the state of Georgia had refused to waive its objections to Barr’s brief, so the Court had to decide whether to accept it. Barr argues on the side of the prisoner, Troy Davis.

The Court’s vote on whether to accept the case was 6-2. Justice Sotomayor did not participate and Justices Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. The only other amicus submitted in the case is from the NAACP, and both sides had agreed to accept that brief.