Washington Democratic Party Asks State Not to Hold “Top-Two” Primary This Year

Posted on by July 7, 2008
Reply

On July 7, the attorney for the Washington state Democratic Party sent this letter to the Washington Attorney General:

“Last Thursday all counsel received an order from the 9th Circuit requesting supplemental briefing in connection with the State’s pending appeal of the injunction against implementation of I-872 that was entered by Judge Zilly in 2005. As is evident, the appeals of the State and Grange have not been fully resolved. The State has not requested Judge Zilly to modify his earlier injunction.

“When Secretary of State Reed first proposed to implement the Top Two Primary via emergency powers and without regard to Judge Zilly’s injunction, the Democratic Party responded on April 22, 2008 by noting: ‘It seems to us that it would have been better had you decided to wait until Judge Zilly had decided how to modify the existing injunction related to I-872 and then determined what, if any, steps to implement I-872 in 2008 would be appropriate. We hope that you will reconsider whether you have committed the resources of your office in a prudent fashion in connection with I-872.’

“Unfortunately, the Secretary elected to continue on his course of action asserting that the challenge to I-872 had been fully resolved. The 9th Circuit’s order confirms that the litigation pending since 2005 is not over. The injunction entered in that case against implementing I-872 is still in effect. The State has made no effort to modify or vacate it. Proceeding with the planned August primaries and November elections in violation of this injunction will expose all of the results to challenge, potentially wasting significant taxpayer resources on elections that have to be redone.

“We urge you once again to reconsider the course of action the State is taking and continue to follow the existing Open (Montana) Primary law until such time, if ever, as the validity of I-872 is fully and finally upheld.”

One More U.S. Supreme Court Election Law Case

Posted on by July 7, 2008
Reply

Although the U.S. Supreme Court is on summer recess, it will return in October. One election law case is scheduled for oral argument at that time. It is Bartlett v Strickland, 07-689, and concerns North Carolina’s legislative redistricting plan. It will be argued October 14.

The North Carolina Supreme Court had invalidated the legislative districting plan, and had said the legislature should pay more attention to following county boundaries, than in creating a district in which it is plausible that African-Americans could elect someone. Normally the federal Voting Rights Act would have said that the goal of creating a Black district is more important than following county lines. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court said the Voting Rights Act does not apply in this instance, because the district in question is only 49% African-American. The North Carolina Supreme Court said the Voting Rights Act would only apply if the district were majority African-American. The U.S. Supreme Court will review that decision. An Amicus Curiae brief against the North Carolina Supreme Court’s position has already been filed by the Attorneys General of 14 states, all of whom have Democratic Attorneys General. They are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio. Other organizations that have filed an amicus brief against the North Carolina Supreme Court’s position include the NAACP, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund), the League of Women Voters, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Briefs on the side of the North Carolina Supreme Court opinion are due August 11. It will be interesting to see if any state Attorney Generals file briefs on that side.

The Nation Magazine Calls for Inclusive Presidential Debate

Posted on by July 7, 2008
Reply

John Nichols of The Nation has this July 6 opinion piece, calling for a general election presidential debate that includes all the candidates who will be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election. Unfortunately Nichols doesn’t know about Chuck Baldwin, but his commentary advocates a Barr-McCain-McKinney-Nader-Obama debate. Thanks to David McReynolds for the link.

Arizona Supreme Court Says Signatures with PO Box Address are Valid

Posted on by July 7, 2008
Reply

The Arizona Supreme Court will decide on July 7 whether petition signatures are valid if the signer only lists a Post Office box, not a physical residence address. The case is Jenkins v Hale, cv 08-0208-AP-EL. The issue must be decided in time for the September 2 primary, so it is being rushed. The Court will decide based on the written briefs (the last of which is being submitted this morning). There will be no oral argument. The case arose because the petitions of three Democratic candidates for the legislature in the northeastern corner of Arizona were challenged. The lower court ruled in favor of the validity of the signatures. The three candidates whose ballot position is at stake are Senator Albert Hale, and House candidates Albert Tom and Chris Descheeny. UPDATE: The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision, so that candidates Albert Hale and Chris Descheeny will be on the September 2 primary ballot. The Court said it will explain its reasoning later. Candidate Albert Tom, who is an incumbant, will not be on the primary ballot. Even counting signatures with post office boxes instead of physical addresses, he needed 522 valid signatures and only had 495 valid.

Alan Keyes Faction of the American Independent Party of California

Posted on by July 7, 2008
Reply

The faction of the American Independent Party lead by Ed Noonan held a state convention in Sacramento on July 5. According to one person who was there, 19 people attended, including one or two people who did not support the legitimacy of that meeting. The July 5 meeting nominated Alan Keyes for president and Wiley Drake for vice-president. It is not known if Drake attended the meeting or if he will accept the nomination. He is pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, and he had also attended a campaign event for Chuck Baldwin, held in southern California, the preceding week.

The faction loyal to the national Constitution Party had held a state convention in Los Angeles on June 28-29, with 35 members of the state central committee in attendance, and a total attendance of 55.