The Ohio Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill, which includes ballot access improvements for new and previously unqualified parties, has been introduced. It is HB 260, by Representatives Dan Stewart and Tracy Heard (both are Democrats from Columbus).
All three briefs have now been filed in the 5th circuit in Libertarian Party v Dardenne, the case over whether the Louisiana Secretary of State acted improperly when he kept Bob Barr and Brian Moore off the November 2008 ballot for president (Brian Moore was the Socialist Party nominee). The case is being handled for the political parties by Law Professor Mark Brown, who is an expert on the question of why the U.S. Constitution, Article II, does not permit any authority except state legislatures from creating rules that keep anyone off the ballot for president.
As noted earlier, a federal court in Washington state is considering whether the names and address of people who sign a Referendum petition, for the purpose of blocking a civil unions law from taking effect, should be considered public or private. On July 29, the judge had issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Secretary of State from releasing the names and addresses to the public.
On August 5, a group that wants to see the names and addresses of people who signed Initiative 1033 asked the Court to intervene. I-1033 advocates limits on taxes. The National Education Association wants to see who signed that petition. The Washington Coalition for Open Government supports the position that the petitions should be public. It makes an interesting analogy. If a bill were introduced in the legislature, the legislators who sponsored the bill would, of course, be identified. The analogy says that in the initiative and/or referendum process, it is particular voters who sign the petition who are sponsoring a “bill” (by analogy), and so they should be identified publicly as well.
The lawsuit is Protect Marriage Washington v Reed.
On August 4, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott, a Clinton appointee, enjoined Ohio from enforcing a state law that makes it illegal for a former state legislator to represent any organization at the state legislature within one year of having served in office. However, the order only applies to ex-legislators who are not being paid to lobby. Brinkman v Budish, sou. dist., 1:09-cv-326. Here is the decision.
The decision says the plaintiff, Thomas E. Brinkman, “is not seeking pecuniary benefit from his representation of the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. Therefore, a concern for quid pro quo corruption is not implicated.”
The decision also suggests that the Ohio lobbyist restriction may violate Equal Protection, since it permits a former state legislator within one year of his or her legislative service to lobby on behalf of state agencies, but not on behalf of any other group. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.
Detroit held its municipal election on August 4. Nine city councilors were to be elected at-large in a non-partisan election. The top 18 candidates go into a run-off. Monica Conyers, who had pleaded guilty to a felony earlier this year, had remained on the ballot, but she did not place among the 18 top candidates. If she had been elected, she could not have served in office and the city would have needed to hold a special election. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
