Although the Judge who is handling Bob Barr’s ballot access case had initially expected to rule by today, a flurry of post-hearing briefs has delayed the decision. It is expected next week.
Reply
On August 29, the Pennsylvania Constitution Party asked a U.S. District Court to put its statewide nominees on the ballot. The party needed 24,666 signatures by August 1. It turned in about 23,000 on the deadline, and another 8,000 a few weeks later. Therefore, the party is asking the court to set aside the August 1 deadline. The case is Baldwin v Cortes, 08-1626.
The case is dependent on both Anderson v Celebrezze, and also on the point that the Pennsylvania deadline was never passed by the state legislature.
On August 29, the Ohio Constitution Party amended its complaint, to ask that a federal court put it on the ballot for president and vice-president. The party already complied with the independent petition for president, so the only effect of this part of the lawsuit is that the state would print “Constitution Party” on the ballot next to Chuck Baldwin’s name, instead of “no-party candidate” or “other party candidate” or no label at all.
The Ohio Constitution Party had filed its original lawsuit on July 9, but the subject of the original complaint was to protect its candidate for Attorney General, Robert Owens, from being challenged. Owens had voted in the March Republican primary, and he was afraid his ballot status would be challenged because of that. But, as it turns out, no one ever challenged him, so the original case probably would have been dismissed, if it had not been amended to bring up the new issue of Baldwin’s ballot label.
The amended complaint also asks that the Ohio Secretary of State print “independent” next to Owens’ name on the ballot. He does not wish to have “Constitution Party” next to his name on the ballot. This part of the complaint is arguing that Ohio is obliged to print “independent” on the ballot for independent candidates. Ohio law says the label for candidates who use the independent procedure must be either no label, or “no-party candidate” or “other-party candidate.” But in the past, the Minnesota and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have both ruled that “independent” is such a unique generic word, that states cannot bar the use of the word on the ballot for independent candidates who wish that label.
On August 28, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby held a hearing in Hoffman v Dunlap, no. 08-cv-279. The question is whether Hoffman, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, should be on the ballot. Hoffman’s co-plaintiffs include 14 voters who signed his petition, including some voters whose signatures were stricken simply because they had signed the same sheet on which another voter had signed and then had said that Herb Hoffman had not been watching when that signature was placed on the petition. The Secretary of State, and a lower state court in Maine, had only invalidated the 3 signatures of the people who had signed and then said that Hoffman had not been watching them sign. But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court had invalidated all 90 signatures on the same 3 sheets, which put Hoffman below the required 4,000 signatures.
The federal case argues that the rights of the signers who signed the same sheets are being violated by an arbitrary disallowance of their signatures for no valid reason. The federal case also argues that the law on witnessing signatures is unconstitutionally vague. Judge Hornby said he will rule by close of business on Friday, August 29.
On August 26, a state court in Dallas, Texas, held a trial on the matter of the identity of the national Reform Party officers. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled that the national Reform Party convention in Yuma, Arizona, in 2005, had not been properly called. The court also ruled that the July 18-19, 2008 national meeting had been a proper national convention. Therefore, the ruling recognizes David Collison of Houston, Texas, as the party’s national chair.