New Hampshire Libertarian Petition for Two Statewide Offices is Valid

Posted on by June 19, 2008
Reply

The New Hampshire Libertarian Party’s original statewide petition has enough valid signatures on it for the presidential stand-in candidate (George Phillies), and also for the party’s U.S. Senate nominee, Ken Blevens. The party is still short approximately 1,000 signatures for its gubernatorial nominee, Susan Newell. The party is now working on a new statewide petition that includes the gubernatorial nominee and also Bob Barr for president, plus some additional state legislative candidates.

If the new petition also gets 3,000 valid signatures, the Secretary of State plans to put both Bob Barr and George Phillies on the November ballot as Libertarian candidates for president. The petition deadline is August 6. If the Massachusetts Libertarian lawsuit wins (see prior blog item), it is likely that the Libertarian Party will also sue New Hampshire over substitution. If the Barr petition has been finished, at that point the purpose of the New Hampshire lawsuit would be to give permission for George Phillies to withdraw.

This is the first time any minor party statewide petition has had enough valid signatures in New Hampshire, since 2002, when the Libertarian Party last successfully completed a statewide petition (for Governor and U.S. Senator). The party’s statewide petitions in both 2004 and 2006 failed to garner enough valid signatures.

Massachusetts ACLU Agrees to Represent Libertarian Party over Presidential Substitution

Posted on by June 19, 2008
Reply

On June 19, the Massachusetts ACLU agreed to represent the Libertarian Party in court, over the failure of the Massachusetts Secretary of State to let the Libertarian Party substitute its actual presidential candidate, Bob Barr, for the party’s stand-in presidential candidate, George Phillies.

All the court precedents from other states concerning presidential and vice-presidential substitution are favorable. Furthermore, Massachusetts allowed vice-presidential substitution for John B. Anderson in 1980, and also told the Constitution Party in 1996 that presidential substitution is allowed. Massachusetts also told the Reform Party in 2000 that vice-presidential substitution is allowed. And, Massachusetts told Ralph Nader in 2004 that vice-presidential substitution is allowed.

The basis for allowing presidential and vice-presidential substitution is equal protection. All states allowed the Democratic Party to substitute a new vice-presidential candidate in 1972. The Democratic National Convention had chosen Thomas Eagleton for vice-president, at its national convention in July. A month later, Eagleton resigned from the ticket. The Democratic National Committee called an emergency meeting and chose Sargent Shriver as the new vice-presidential candidate. The party had already certified Eagleton’s name to all 50 states, but all states accepted an amended certification that Shriver’s name should be put on the ballot instead.

One of the favorable court precedents is El-Amin v State Board of Elections, Commonwealth of Virginia, 721 F Supp 770 (1989). The U.S. District Court said that Virginia’s failure to let independent candidate committees use substitution does not even pass the rational basis test (page 775), since Virginia lets qualified parties engage in substitution.

Maine Independent Candidate for U.S. Senate Defeats Democratic Party Challenge to His Petition

Posted on by June 19, 2008
Reply

On June 19, a Maine hearing officer issued an opinion that Herbert J. Hoffman has enough valid signatures and should be listed on the November ballot. He is the only independent candidate on the ballot for Maine’s U.S. Senate election this year, and there are no minor party candidates for that race.

The state Democratic Party had challenged Hoffman’s petition, even though the town clerks had found that he had the needed 4,000 valid signatures. The challengers asserted that all voters who had listed a post office box on the petition (instead of their physical street address) should be rejected, but the Hearing Examiner disagreed with that idea. Thanks toDavid Bright for this news.

California Bill, Deleting Certain Laws that Discriminate Against Communist Party Members, Advances

Posted on by June 19, 2008
Reply

On June 18, California Senate Bill SB 1322 passed the Assembly Education Committee. It had already passed the Senate. It removes several laws that discriminate against members of the Communist Party, such as a law making it illegal for a member of that party to work for a public school. Although this is not an election law bill, if it passes, it may be easier to repeal similar California election laws in the near future. SB 1322 passed the Assembly Education Committee on a party-line vote, with all Republicans on that committee voting “No.”

Democratic Party Won't Accept General Election Public Funding This Year

Posted on by June 19, 2008
9

For the first time in the history of public funding for presidential elections, a major party has declined to accept general election public funding. The system has existed starting with the 1976 presidential election. The decision was made by Barack Obama. By turning down $80,000,000 in public funds, this year’s Democratic presidential campaign is free to spend as much money as it can raise privately.

In past years, there hasn’t been enough money to promptly pay primary season matching funds (which have the lowest priority, when there isn’t enough money in the fund to pay all obligations). The Democratic Party’s decision of June 19 means that there will now be no shortage of funds for the primary season matching program. Assuming the FEC gets a quorum very soon, primary season funds for Ralph Nader should be available quickly. Cynthia McKinney is also striving to qualify for primary season matching funds.