On February 8, a federal lawsuit was filed against several Utah laws that make it difficult to qualify initiatives. Are You Listening Yet PAC v Henderson, 2:24cv-104. Among other things, the lawsuit challenges the ban on out-of-state circulators, and the February 15 petiition deadline. The plaintiffs have been circulating an initiative relating to the Utah state flag, and they are asking for injunctive relief to help them qualify that initiative for this year’s ballot. Here is the Complaint.
On February 8, Pakistan held an election for National Assembly. The party that had won the 2018 election, PTI, had been removed from the 2024 election ballot for a technical violation of election laws. Therefore, PTI ran its nominees as independent candidates. Although not all votes have been counted, it appears that PTI’s candidates, running as independents, outpolled all of the other parties. Independents won at least 96 of the 237 seats. See this wikipedia article.
On February 9, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, charging that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is illegally getting help with ballot access from a Super PAC. Here is the filing. UPDATE: see this story, which predicts that the FEC is not likely to take any action.
The Democratic Party says “State law presumes that the candidate and the campaign will be the entities obtaining valid qualifying petitions” to get on the ballot. That is not necessarily true. In 2004, the Michigan Republican Party circulated a petition to put Ralph Nader on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate. Nader did not have anything to do with that petition drive. Democrats sued to invalidate the petition on the grounds that Nader’s campaign did not circulate it, but the Michigan State Court of Appeals ruled that nothing in state law required the presidential candidate’s campaign to be the only entity circulating such a petition. DeeLeeuw v State Board of Canvassers, 688 NW 2d 847.
Also, in 1968, petitions to place Eugene McCarthy on the ballot as an independent were circulated in Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and McCarthy had nothing to do with those efforts and even opposed them.
In 1960, petitions were circulated to put Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus on the ballot in several states, and Faubus had nothing to do with those efforts. In 1952, petitions were circulated to put General Douglas MacArthur on the ballot in several states, and he had nothing to do with those efforts. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
On Saturday, February 24, 2024, from 5:30 to 7 PM PST, the first Presidential candidate panel will include Libertarian Party presidential candidates Michael Rectenwald and Mike ter Maat, along with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party nomination.
On Sunday, February 25, 2024, again from 5:30 to 7 PM, the second Presidential candidate panel will include Libertarian candidates Lars Mapstead, Jacob Hornberger, and Charles Ballay, along with Independent candidate Cornel West.
The LPCA convention is February 23-25, 2024, at The Hilton Costa Mesa, 3050 Bristol St., Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
The U.S. Supreme Court oral argument seems to show that the Colorado Supreme Court decision that keeps former President Donald Trump off the ballot will be reversed, perhaps unanimously. Some of the justices, both Democratic and Republican appointees, seem very bothered by the idea that states can make decisions about ballot access in connection with the insurrection clause, because there would be a patchwork effect.
Justice Elena Kagan mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze shows that states don’t have unlimited discretion to bar candidates from the ballot, even though Article Two says they can appoint presidential electors any way they wish. It is a good signal for ballot access that the U.S. Supreme Court is thinking about Anderson v Celebrezze, which struck down early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates.
The attorney for the objectors, Jason C. Murray, reminded the Court three times that there were no ballot access restrictions in place in 1868. It is very good that the Court heard this. It is possible that some members of the Court may not have known that. The attorney explained that there were no government-printed ballots until the 1890’s, which is true and which needs to be better known.
