This interesting analysis, published March 7 and written by Jay Cost, explains the disconnect between pure internal democracy and the actual rules in use for this year’s Democratic presidential nominating process. Thanks to Tim Brace for the link.
On March 7, Socialist Party presidential candidate Brian Moore filed a lawsuit in federal court against an Ohio restriction on petitioning. Moore v Brunner, case number not known yet. The lawsuit attacks an Ohio law that makes it illegal for someone who is not a registered voter in Ohio, to circulate for an independent candidate.
Ralph Nader had filed a similar lawsuit in 2004, but the federal courts in Ohio refused to adjudicate the issue for his lawsuit, since the 2004 judges believed that Nader had used out-of-state petitioners, in defiance of the law. Moore won’t have that problem, since he hasn’t started petitioning in Ohio.
Ohio law, taken as a whole, is irrational. It is legal for out-of-staters to circulate a new party petition in Ohio, so there can’t possibly be any defense for imposing residency rules for circulators for independent candidates. Furthermore, Ohio even forces the independent candidate circulators not only to be residents, but to be registered voters in Ohio. In 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down laws requiring circulators to be registered voters.
On March 6, the Missouri Senate Financial, Governmental Operations and Elections Committee passed SB 797 unanimously. This is the bill that fixes the typographical error in the 1993 ballot access reform law. SB 797 will relieve new parties from having to list their presidential candidate, and candidates for presidential electors, on their petition for recognition.
Here is a newspaper story about the oral argument in the 5th circuit in Mississippi Democratic Party v Barbour, 07-60667. The case was argued on March 5 in front of these 3 judges: Edith Jones and W. Eugene Davis (Reagan appointees), and Emilio M. Garza (a Bush Sr. appointee).
The issue is whether the Mississippi Democratic Party can close its primaries to individuals who refuse to declare that they are party members. Mississippi does not have registration by party.
Judge Davis is from Louisiana, and the other two judges are from Texas. Texas does not have registration by party. Louisiana does have registration by party, but has had a recent tradition that parties don’t nominate candidates (although that has recently changed for Congressional elections). The decision, when it comes out, will be interesting for a variety of reasons. One is that these judges will be very conscious that their opinion will have a big impact in all 3 states of the 5th circuit, not just on Mississippi alone.
Another reason the decision will be interesting, is that the judges will invariably say something about the January 2008 U.S. Supreme Court opinion New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the link.
On March 6, the Arizona deadline, the Arizona Green Party submitted 29,300 signatures on its petition for party recognition. The legal requirement is 20,449. Even if only 70% of the signatures are valid, the party has enough to qualify.
Arizona elections officials traditionally do a high-quality job of checking signatures, unlike certain other states that do sloppy work, or disqualify signatures for trivial reasons like a missing middle initial or a somewhat imprecise address.
Richard Scott, speaking for the Arizona Green Party, said, “If it weren’t for the help of Greens all over the nation, the drive could not have been completed.”
