Boston Tea Party Finds Way to Test Texas Deadline Leniency

Posted on by September 1, 2008
Reply

The Boston Tea Party has a presidential and vice-presidential candidate who are on the ballot in three states, Colorado, Florida and Tennessee. The Boston Tea Party will also try to qualify for write-in status in Texas, for its national ticket. Texas law says write-in candidates for president were supposed to have filed their declaration of candidacy by August 26. But Texas law also says that ballot-qualified parties are supposed to certify the names of their presidential and vice-presidential tickets by August 26. The Democratic and Republican Parties missed this deadline, but on August 29, the Texas Secretary of State added their nominees to its web page anyway. Authority for the Texas leniency comes from two 1996 Texas Supreme Court decisions, Davis v Taylor and Bird v Rothstein. Those decisions say that when a party official makes a paperwork mistake, the candidates should not be punished for that mistake and must still be considered qualified.

Therefore, under the logic of the 1996 precedents, and by the logic of this year’s leniency for the major parties, the Texas Secretary of State, to be consistent, ought to accept late paperwork for declared write-in candidates. This is especially true, since there is no rational reason why the write-in deadline needs to be early anyway. The list of declared write-in presidential candidates does not impact on ballot printing.

In the meantime, the Constitution Party of Texas did file its write-in paperwork on August 20, but the Secretary of State lost it. The party has proof that the paperwork was received in the Secretary of State’s office. So far, the Texas Secretary of State has equivocated on whether she will accept the Constitution Party’s write-in presidential status.

Rogers v Corbett, the Losing 2006 Ballot Access Pennsylvania Decision, May be Useful This Year

Posted on by September 1, 2008
Reply

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it violates the First Amendment for a state to require that parties let non-members help choose their nominees (California Democratic Party v Jones). However, some states require an unqualified party to circulate petitions that carry the names of that party’s nominees. The language on these petitions typically says that the signers “hereby nominate” the candidates who are listed on the petition.

In 2006, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties jointly filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania, which has no procedure for an unqualified party to place its nominees on the November ballot, except by a petition that lists the party’s candidates. The three parties argued that this system violates the core principle of California Democratic Party v Jones. However, the lawsuit lost. The 3rd circuit said that the miscellaneous voters on the street who sign the petition are not really nominating that party’s nominees.

The 3rd circuit said, at page 198 (the decision is at 468 F 3d 189), “Jones is not applicable to a ballot access case like the present one, in which internal party deliberations on the choice of party candidates are not implicated. Unlike the law at issue in Jones, Pennsylvania election law does not open the intra-party deliberations of minor political parties to persons who are unaffiliated with the party. Forced association caused by sec. 2911b occurs only as a minor party candidate solicits signatures from registered voters, who may be registered with any party or as an independent…In Pennsylvania, a minor political party is free to select anyone it chooses as its candidate.”

So, even though the Pennsylvania petitions have signature lines under a heading that says, “I hereby nominate…”, the court, in order to save the Pennsylvania law from a judgment of unconstitutionality, interpreted the procedure to mean that the petition signers are not nominating anyone. Instead, the 3rd circuit said, petition signers are saying only they want that party to be on the ballot. This interpretation will help the Libertarian Party with its pending lawsuits over whether it can have nominees on the November ballot who are different individuals than the individuals who had been listed on petitions.

California Legislature Passes Public Funding Pilot Project Bill

Posted on by August 31, 2008
Reply

The California Assembly, late on Saturday, August 30, concurred in the Senate amendments to AB 583, so the bill is now through the legislature. It sets up public funding for the Secretary of State’s race in 2014. The voters must vote on the idea, though, in 2010. As noted earlier, the bill requires twice as many qualifying contributions for independent candidates, as for Democrats and Republicans.

Nader on in Idaho for the First Time in Any of His Runs

Posted on by August 31, 2008
Reply

Ralph Nader’s success in getting on the Idaho ballot is noteworthy, because this had been one state in which he had never before been on the ballot. There are now only 4 states in which Nader has never been on the ballot: Georgia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Oklahoma.

In the past, and also this year, he will receive write-ins in Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina. Also he got write-ins in Idaho in the past. But Oklahoma prohibits write-in votes, so Oklahoma continues to be the only state in which Nader has never received any votes at all.

The lawsuit filed against Oklahoma this year by Bob Barr, to overturn the ballot access requirements, was filed on July 17. There is still no hearing date. Barr’s attorney, Jim Linger, will make a supreme effort in the next few days to get a hearing date established.