Ralph Nader will be a guest on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN “Late Edition” TV show. It runs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. eastern time. Of course he won’t be on all two hours.
Reply
On January 31, a New Jersey Superior Court ruled that absentee voters who voted before that date may ask to have their first ballot withdrawn, and then they may vote again. This appears to be the first time any court has permitted early absentee voters to do this, anywhere in the nation. The case is Block v Milgram, C34-08, Ocean County Superior Court.
The lawsuit was filed by the Ocean County Elections Department, and applies statewide. Voters who already voted who want to cast a new ballot must apply by February 4 (Monday). The rationale for the decision is that Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards dropped out somewhat unexpectedly on January 30, after approximately 25,000 New Jersey voters had voted absentee. Presumably many of these voted for one of the candidates who dropped out and would like to vote again.
In 1990, the Republican candidate for Minnesota Governor dropped out of the race in late October. Minnesota reprinted all its ballots, only a week before the election, to list the replacement Republican nominee. However, early absentee voters who had already voted for the now-replaced Republican nominee did not have a similar opportunity to vote again. The official election returns dutifully listed 10,941 votes for Jon Grunseth, the original Republican nominee. Since the new Republican nominee won the election by 59,770 votes, the Grunseth votes didn’t matter anyway.
On February 1, the California Secretary of State released new registration data. The new tally is as of January 22, 2008, the deadline for the February 5 presidential primary.
Comparing the new percentages for each political party to the last tally (the last tally was as of December 7, 2007), all political parties declined, except for the Democratic and American Independent (Constitution) Parties.
The new percentages are: Democratic 42.95%, Republican 33.28%, American Independent 2.09%, Green .81%, Libertarian .51%, Peace & Freedom .36%, Reform .17%, independents and other parties 19.82%
The old percentages were: Democratic 42.66%, Republican 33.55%, American Independent 2.07%, Green .86%, Libertarian .53%, Peace & Freedom .37%, Reform .19%, independents and other parties 19.77%.
The Reform Party is not ballot-qualified, but since it has asked the Secretary of State to tally its registrants, the figures for it are known.
The March 1, 2008 paper edition of Ballot Access News will carry registration data for all the states that have registration by party. This will be the first new data for the whole nation since BAN’s January 1, 2007 issue.
The Arizona Libertarian Party is entitled to a taxpayer-funded presidential primary on February 5, but it declined. On January 29 it sent out a press release, pointing out that the party will hold its own on-line presidential primary, at no cost to the taxpayers. The press release says this is saving Arizona taxpayers $1,000,000. Also, the party-run presidential primary is using Instant-Runoff Voting. See the party’s web page for the primary.
It is possible that the U.S. Supreme Court will have heard and decided six election cases in the period February through June 2008.
1. Washington State v Washington State Republican Party, 06-730, was argued on October 1, 2007, and will likely produce an opinion in February or March.
2. Crawford v Marion County Bd. of Elections (the Indiana photo voter-ID case), 07-21, was argued on January 9, 2008, and will result in an opinion in the next four months.
3. Governor Bob Riley v Kennedy, 07-77, will be argued on March 24, 2008, and will produce an opinion before the Court adjourns in June 2008. This case tests the interplay of the Voting Rights Act Pre-Clearance provision and state court decisions, and originates in an Alabama dispute over whether the Governor had a right to fill a vacancy in a county commission, or whether there should have been a special election.
4. Jack Davis v FEC, 07-320, will be argued on April 22, and will probably produce a decision in June 2008. This case challenges the relaxation of campaign finance contribution limits when one of the candidates contributes at least $350,000 to his or her own campaign.
5. Bartlett v Strickland, 07-689, is a legislative districting case from North Carolina. The Court will decide on February 15 whether to hear the case. The Court seems interested, since on January 15 it asked the other side to respond. The issue is whether the Voting Rights Act can be used to establish districts with a likely African-American winner (for the purpose of assisting African-Americans), even though the district itself is not majority African-American.
6. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 07-953, tests whether a movie that seems to criticize a candidate for federal office can advertise itself without having to disclose the names of people who spent money making the movie. The movie in question is “Hillary: The Movie.” The film is intended for showing in movie theaters, just as “Fahrenheit 9/11” was shown in movie theaters during an election year, 2004. The lower court ruled that since the movie’s purpose is to persuade people not to vote for Hillary Clinton, advertising for the movie is controlled by federal campaign finance regulations. The movie’s producers argue that there should be no distinction made between their movie and Fahrenheit 9/11. The US Supreme Court will decide on February 15 whether to hear this case.
The Court is not sitting until February 19 (the Tuesday after President’s Day Holiday), so we won’t know what the court has done on February 15, until February 19.