See this story, reporting that the trial in Minnesota state court over who won the U.S. Senate election last year has finally ended, after several weeks. A decision is expected in a few days. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news.
Ballot Access News has just noticed that one more interesting case over the qualifications of presidential candidates is now reported. The U.S. District Court for Northern California recently reported Robinson v Bowen, at 567 F Supp 2d 1144, which was a challenge to the qualifications of Senator John McCain to be president.
When a case is “reported”, that means it it put in the printed law books, and anyone can easily read it and cite it. When a case is not “reported”, it is not always easily found, and unreported cases are far less useful as precedents. Robinson v Bowen is very interesting because it says that states have no authority to keep presidential candidates off the ballot just because they do not meet the constitutional qualifications. Back in 1972, when the Socialist Workers Party sued to force the Ohio Secretary of State to place Linda Jenness on the ballot, a U.S. District Court upheld the action of the Secretary of State in keeping her off (since she wasn’t yet 35 years old), but unfortunately that case, Jenness v Brown, isn’t reported.
On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.
The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.
Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old.
On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.
The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.
Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old.
Illinois currently lets qualified political parties nominate someone after the primary is over, if the primary didn’t produce a party nominee. On March 10, the House Elections & Campaign Reform Committee passed HB 723, to restrict the ability of qualified political parties to continue to enjoy that freedom. The bill is sponsored by three Republicans and two Democrats, all from Chicago or its suburbs. A similar bill made some headway last year, but did not pass last year.
The bill seems especially hurtful to the Green Party, which is a ballot-qualified party. Current law says the vacancy can be filled until 60 days after the primary. The bill would restrict that to 16 days. The process for filling vacant nominations is very complex and shortening the time will make it even more difficult. The bill also says that after 16 days, a party can still fill a vacancy, but only if it submits a petition signed by 5% of the last general election vote.
