| Page 6034

Texas Democrat Wins Ballot Access Case

Posted on July 5, 2008 by Richard WingerJuly 5, 2008

The Texas State Constitution says that no one may run for the legislature if he or she holds another elected position in local government, if there is a salary for the local elected office. Bill Dingus was the only Democrat in the March 2008 primary for State Representative, 82nd district. However, he had not resigned his position on the Midland city council when he ran. Therefore, he was removed from the November ballot even though he had won the Democratic primary. He sued in federal court and got no relief.

However, since he had by now resigned from the city council, he then sued the Democratic Party of Texas in state court, seeking to be designated as the party’s choice. Texas political parties can nominate someone after the primary if the party had been left with no nominee due to ineligibility. He had no actual disagreement with the Democratic Party, but due to arcane legal rules, that was the only lawsuit open to him. On June 30, he won the case, and will be on the November ballot. If he had not won the case, the speaker of the Texas House, Tom Craddick (the Republican nominee in the 82nd district) would have been opposed only by Libertarian nominee Sherry Phillips.

New Orleans/Google/YouTube Presidential Debate

Posted on July 5, 2008 by Richard WingerJuly 5, 2008

Public officials in Louisiana have teamed up with Google and YouTube to promote a presidential debate in New Orleans on September 18. However, neither Senator McCain, nor Senator Obama, has said yet whether he will accept the invitation.

Louisiana officials were angry with the Commission on Presidential Debates, when the Commission announced on November 19, 2007, that the Commission would not hold any of its debates in New Orleans. The CPD presidential debates will be in Oxford, Mississippi on September 26, Nashville, Tennessee on October 7, and Hempstead, New York on October 15. The back-up sites are Danville, Kentucky, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

See the webpage for the proposed New Orleans debate. That site says that presidential candidates must be at 10% in polls, in order to be included. The webpage features a YouTube of various officials. First is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who says, “I want to invite all our presidential candidates.” Then comes New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who says the proposed New Orleans debate will be “more democratic than ever before.” Then Chad Hurley of YouTube speaks, saying “We have a chance to open it up even more.” Finally, David Drummond of Google speaks, saying “Voters will have an opportunity to learn about the candidates.”

Since the poll requirement for the New Orleans debate is 10%, whereas the Commission on Presidential Debates requirement is 15%, the New Orleans debate sponsors are marginally closer to an inclusive general election debate than the CPD. Nevertheless, their rhetoric is out of sync with their criteria. As most readers of this site already know, a debate which invited all candidates who could theoretically win the election would involve only six presidential candidates, almost surely Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader and Obama. Thanks to Ross Dreyer for the link to the New Orleans debate organization.

California Write-in Results Expected on Friday, July 11

Posted on July 5, 2008 by Richard WingerJuly 5, 2008

California elections officials are expected to have the write-in tally from the June 3, 2008 primary completed by close of business, July 11. The write-ins are important for determining whether the Democrats have a candidate in the 15th State Senate race. They are also important for determining the identity of the Peace & Freedom Party state central committee members. The PFP state central committee will choose the presidential candidate next month. Membership on the PFP state central committee depends on who got elected to the various county central committees, and some of the candidates were write-in candidates.

Cody Quirk Analyzes California AIP Rules

Posted on July 4, 2008 by Richard WingerJuly 4, 2008

Cody Quirk, one of the editors of Third Party Watch, has done some hard work analyzing the rules for American Independent Party structure. See here. Of course, this subject is timely because of the recent dispute in the California AIP, over whom the proper state officers are, whom the presidential candidate should be, and which state convention (Los Angeles at the end of June, or Sacramento on July 5-6) is valid.

The California legislature passed a bill in 1975, setting out the rules by which the American Independent Party, and also the Peace & Freedom Party, should organize themselves. Back then, state legislators in some states, including California, thought it was the duty of government to place party organization rules in the election laws.

In 1984, some county units of the Democratic and Republican Parties of California, and the state Libertarian Party, brought a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the First Amendment protects the right of political parties to decide on their own organization and rules, without government involvement. The parties won that lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989; the decision is Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee.

Neverthless, the bills passed by the California legislature in 1975, setting forth internal party rules for PFP and AIP, had been written by leaders of those two parties. The California election laws governing those parties’ rules are still in the Election Code. Both parties, in their own Bylaws, do acknowledge that the parties accept those parts of the Election Code as their legitimate rules. There are no California election code sections that apply specifically to the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party. When the Libertarian Party qualified for the ballot in 1980, and when the Green Party qualified for the ballot in 1992, both parties told the Secretary of State that they wish to follow the Peace & Freedom code sections, although since then both parties have made changes.

Preliminary Hearing Set in Oklahoma State Court for Paul Jacob

Posted on July 4, 2008 by Richard WingerJuly 4, 2008

On July 23, a lower state court in Oklahoma City will hold a hearing in the criminal case against Paul Jacob, Rick Carpenter, and Susan Johnson, for conspiracy to invite out-of-staters to circulate an initiative petition in Oklahoma. July 23 is not the trial date. It is merely a procedural hearing in which the state must explain to a judge why a trial should be scheduled. Jacob, Carpenter, and Johnson encourage people to attend this hearing, which begins at 9 a.m. For more information, call Brandon Holmes, 703-586-7088.

The three were told by a representative of the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s office that it is legal for temporary residents of Oklahoma to circulate initiative petitions. Later, though, they were arrested for conspiring to use temporary residents to circulate their initiative petition.

In the meantime, the civil case that challenges the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s ban on out-of-state initiative circulators will be argued in the 10th circuit sometime in September. Oklahoma may be hard pressed to explain why only people domiciled in Oklahoma may circulate initiative petitions, when certain kinds of people who are not domiciled in Oklahoma are permitted to vote (for example, military personnel stationed in Oklahoma, and college students attending school in Oklahoma even though they are domiciled outside the state). Oklahoma will also need to explain why any adult may circulate a petition in Oklahoma for a new party or an independent presidential candidate.