On March 31, both sides in Barr v Galvin filed briefs asking for summary judgment. Barr v Galvin is the case in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts over whether the Libertarian Party had a right to use a stand-in presidential candidate on its 2008 petition. Although last year the judge had granted injunctive relief to Barr and the Libertarian Party, on the basis that Massachusetts’ policy (of refusing to permit presidential stand-ins) is probably unconstitutional, he has not yet ruled specifically that the policy is unconstitutional. The fact that both sides have asked for summary judgment shows that both sides agree no further fact-finding is needed. A ruling will probably be out in sixty days or less. Then, apparently, if the judge does indeed rule that the Constitution protects presidential stand-ins, Massachusetts expects to appeal to the First Circuit.
Ralph Nader’s 2004 Hawaii ballot access case has been in the 9th circuit since last year. The chief issue is whether it is constitutional for Hawaii to require six times as many signatures for an independent presidential candidate as for an entire new party. Last year the 9th circuit put the case on hold, to see if the legislature would alter the law for independent presidential candidates. However, no bill on that subject was ever introduced, and it is far too late for such a bill to be introduced now. The Hawaii legislature adjourns May 7. At that time the lawsuit will be active again.
The only bill introduced this year in the Hawaii legislature that has any possible impact on minor parties or independent candidates is SB 680. That is a proposed constitutional amendment that would impose registration by party. However, it has made no headway.
This year, there is a tendency for state legislatures to spend little time on election law issues. This is largely because almost all state legislatures that are still in session are preoccupied with budget issues.
As this newspaper story points out, the Texas legislative session is now half over. Furthermore, the Texas legislature doesn’t meet in regular session in even-numbered years. The ballot access bill, HB 820, has made no headway so far this year. The sponsor asks that Texans who support the bill contact their state legislators and ask that those legislators co-sponsor the bill. The bill won’t get a hearing without more co-sponsors.
On March 31, the Oregon Senate Elections Committee holds a hearing on two bills to improve independent candidate ballot access. They are SB 326 and SB 353. SB 326 repeals the law (passed in 2005) that says primary voters can’t sign for an independent petition. SB 353 reduces the number of signatures for independent candidates from 1% of the last presidential vote to one-half that amount. Thanks to Dan Meek for this news.
The 2005 bill, restricting who can sign an independent candidate petition, was passed in a fit of pique by certain legislators who didn’t like Ralph Nader. Nader had tried to petition as an independent candidate in Oregon in 2004, before the restriction had been passed. Even though his 2004 independent petition failed, people who didn’t like his 2004 run for president were so opposed to his candidacy, that in a fit of emotion, they made independent candidate access more difficult.
The Illinois ballot access lawsuit called Stevo v Keith is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is case 08-1187. If Illinois state government wishes to ask the Court not to take the case, the state’s response is due April 24. Sometimes defendants waive their right to respond. It will be interesting to see if Illinois responds. The issue is whether the state has any real interest in requiring about 10,000 signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House in some years, when it only requires 5,000 in certain other years.