On September 12, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in federal court, to get a ruling that since the state lets the qualified parties substitute a new nominee, that the state must also let the unqualified parties have the same freedom. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, case number not known yet.
On September 12, at 6:30 p.m., U.S. District Court Judge Yvette Kane denied injunctive relief to the Constitution Party of Pennsylvania. She said that it is possible the legislature had delegated authority to the State Elections Department to write a regulation setting a filing deadline. She also said that even if the Elections Department did not have authority from the legislature to do that, that setting aside the August 1 deadline would restore the old unconstitutional May deadline, and that would injure the other petitioning groups this year. The case is Baldwin v Cortes, 1:08cv-1626.
This lawsuit will have been beneficial, despite this disappointing outcome. Since the case only denied injunctive relief, not declaratory relief, it is still alive. It is very likely that regardless of what happens next in the lawsuit, the legislature will now understand how important it is to pass a bill setting a constitutional deadline. As noted in earlier posts on this matter, the old deadline was invalidated by two federal courts in 1984, and the legislature has ignored those 1984 decisions and has never replaced the old May deadline.
On September 12, a U.S. District Court Judge in Massachusetts held oral arguments in Barr v Galvin, the case over whether the party will be permitted to substitute Bob Barr on the ballot for George Phillies. The hearing was one hour. The judge asked few questions, and it is difficult to predict how he will rule. He said the ruling will not be out until September 19 at the earliest. The state said it doesn’t need the ruling until September 29. Massachusetts has not even had its primary (for office other than president) yet.
On September 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to disturb the U.S. District Court’s injunctive relief in Bogaert v Land. The case number in the 6th Circuit is 08-2130. The District Court had ruled that it is unconstitutional to tell circulators that they can’t work on a recall petition unless they live in the district of the office-holder who is being recalled. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
On September 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to disturb the U.S. District Court’s injunctive relief in Bogaert v Land. The case number in the 6th Circuit is 08-2130. The District Court had ruled that it is unconstitutional to tell circulators that they can’t work on a recall petition unless they live in the district of the office-holder who is being recalled. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
