Indiana requires presidential primary candidates to submit 4,500 signatures in order to appear on a major party presidential primary. Furthermore, there must be 500 signatures from each of the state’s 9 U.S. House districts. John McCain’s petition was upheld on March 12 by the Indiana Election Commission, even though there was doubt that he had 500 valid signatures from the 4th district.

McCain submitted 498 signatures that everyone agrees were valid, from the 4th district, on February 12. There were also 3 signatures on a petition from Monroe County (a county that is split into two different U.S. House districts) that were questionable, because that petition didn’t say which U.S. House district they were from.

McCain then submitted another 13 valid signatures from the 4th district on February 22.

Indiana practice is not to accept petitions on a piecemeal basis. In other words, petitioners only get to turn in signatures once. If there aren’t enough, a supplemental petition isn’t permitted, even if the supplemental petition is turned in on or before the deadline.

It is also Indiana practice that petition forms must be completely filled out, and omitting the district number is usually fatal.

Now, though, the Indiana Election Commission has set a good precedent, and it seems that in the future, Indiana will be forced to let other petitions also be submitted in sections, not necessarily all at once. The Indiana Election Commission members voiced the opinion that the voters should not be deprived of their opportunity to vote for McCain in the Republican presidential primary in May over meaningless technicalities. Thanks to http://blueindiana.net for many of the details in this story. Also, thanks to Karl Hardy for making me aware of this story. Ironically, the 4th U.S. House district is one of the most Republican areas in Indiana; it is currently represented by Steve Buyer, who won almost 2:1 in November 2006.

On March 13, the 9th circuit refused to rehear Porter v Bowen, 06-55517. Last year, the 9th circuit had voted 3-0 that a past California Secretary of State had no authority to try to shut down an internet site that let Gore voters in “safe” states pair up with Nader voters in “swing” states. The purpose of the internet was for two strangers to “meet” and make a promise to swap their votes, to the mutual advantage of both.

Last year’s decision, upholding the right of such internet sites to exist, came down on August 27. Now, over six months later, the 9th circuit has refused to rehear the case. Three judges of the 9th circuit wanted to rehear it: Andrew Kleinfeld, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, and Carlos Bea. Writing for all three judges, Judge Kleinfeld wrote an eleven-page dissent from the denial of rehearing. It ends, “If people in one state want people in another state to vote a particular way, they can go there and ring doorbells, send them letters, buy ads on their media, publicize arguments on the internet, and otherwise explain to them why they ought to vote a particular way. But they do not have a constitutional right to buy their votes, with money or promises.”