Federal Judge in Oregon Says Petition Signers Have No Right to Have Their Signatures Counted

On February 1, U.S. District Court Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that an Oregon referendum petition should be rejected, even though the group that circulated that petition had evidence that many so-called invalid signatures should have been counted. Lemons v Bradbury, cv-07-1782-MO. Judge Mosman is a Bush Jr. appointee. Here is the opinion, which the judge rendered from the bench (it is actually a transcript).

The decision came to the opposite conclusion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court in a 2004 lawsuit called Edwards v Rhode Island Board of Elections. In the 2004 Rhode Island case, the State Supreme Court ruled that validly registered voters whose signatures were rejected, but who really had signed the petition, had a right to submit affidavits affirming that their signature really was their signature. In that case, the decision resulted in putting John Edwards on the Democratic presidential primary ballot. In the Oregon case, the result is that a referendum to stop a state law on civil unions will not go ahead.

Judge Mosman said that since the state uses random sampling on initiative and referendum petitions anyway, not every signature really “counts”, because most signatures are omitted from the random sample. Furthermore, he said a valid signature might not be counted because the circulator afterwards may fail to file that sheet. The judge was also influenced by the state’s argument that it has so many signatures to check (in the period when there are lots of initiatives being submitted) that it simply doesn’t have the capacity to notify signers when their signature has been rejected, and give that signer a chance to contest the finding.

This case shows the inherent problems with using petitions to determine if a candidate or an issue should be on a ballot. Great Britain and Canada don’t face this problem for candidates, since they depend on filing fees, rather than petitions, for candidate ballot access (although both nations require petitions, the requirement is only 10 signatures in Britain, and 100 in Canada).

Why the Wesley Snipes IRS Case is Related to Ballot Access

On Friday, February 1, a jury in central Florida finished deliberating in the criminal case filed by the Internal Revenue Service against movie actor Wesley Snipes. Snipes was acquited of the most serious charges.

The law firm that had been handling the Snipes defense, the Bernhoft firm of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is committed to doing what it can to fight restrictive ballot access laws. It is handling the Nader case against several Arizona ballot access laws (now awaiting a hearing in the 9th circuit), and it won a case for the Constitution Party in Wisconsin that struck down a law on out-of-state circulators. However, the firm had been so involved with the Snipes defense that it had been unable to file any new cases. Now that impediment is removed.

There are ballot access laws in several states that, under precedent, are unconstitutional, but there has been a shortage of attorneys willing to take on these cases.

Michigan Law Review Symposium on Electoral College

First Impressions, the online version of the Michigan Law Review, has 7 articles on the electoral college. They are “An Unsafe Harbor: Recounts, Contests, and the Electoral College” by Dan Tokaji; “Reforming the Electoral College One State at a Time”, by Thomas Hiltachk; “Awarding Presidential Electors by Congressional District: Wrong for California, Wrong for the Nation”, by Sam Hirsch; “Equal Voice by Half Measures” by Ethan J. Leib and Eli J. Mark; “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Three Proposals to Introduce the Nationwide Popular Vote in U.S. Presidential Elections”, by Alexander Belenky; and “Ideological Endowment: The Staying Power of the Electoral College and the Weaknesses of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”, by Daniel Rathbun.