On January 18, 2008, a Minnesota state court ruled that Minnesota elections officials should have furnished declaration of candidacy forms to a man who is currently an inmate in the Faribault State Prison. Leonard J. Richards had begun trying to run for Congress since 2005, but state prisons officials determined, “Offenders are not allowed to run for office.” Also, the Secretary of State, and county elections officials, refused to respond to Richards’ letters asking for the forms. In Minnesota, candidates may obtain a place on a party primary ballot by paying a filing fee; no petition is required.

Richards then sued in federal court, but his lawsuit was transferred to State Court, Rice County district court. The case is Richards v Windschitl, 66-cv-06-1517. The order says, “Mark Ritchie as Secretary of State and his Office, shall provide to the plaintiff the appropriate forms allowing him the ability to file for federal elective office, without interference.” Also, “Mark Ritchie as Secretary of State and his Office, shall provide Plaintiff with the number of write in votes he received in the 2006 election. This information shall be provided within 30 days from the date of this Order.”

Under U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that struck down term limits laws for federal office, neither states nor the federal government can add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution to run for Congress.

The February 11 issue of the Wall Street Journal has this column by Theodore B. Olson, about an imaginary lawsuit that might conceivably come to exist this year called “Clinton v Obama”. The hypothesis concerns the now widely-discussed possibility that the Democratic presidential nomination will be so close at the Denver national convention in August, that it will all hinge on whether the party should seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Olson, of course, is a partisan Republican attorney who represented George W. Bush in Bush v Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson also won the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres.

The Florida delegate count (if that state had any national convention delegates) would be Clinton 105, Obama 67. The Michigan count would be 73 Hillary, unpledged 55.

In 1984 the Democratic National Convention passed a resolution that says, “Be it further resolved that the Democratic Party of the United States recognizes the right to vote as the most fundamental of all rights in our democracy. And no duty of the Party is more important than protecting the sanctity of this right.” Notwithstanding that resolution, in 2004 the Democratic National Committee spent heavily in an attempt to prevent voters from voting for Ralph Nader, and this year the same committee feels that preserving a particular calendar of presidential primaries is more important than the voting rights of rank-and-file Democratic voters in two particular states. Thus the party leaves itself open to charges of hypocrisy. Thanks to Howard Bashman’s “How Appealing” for the link.

The Libertarian Party traditionally gets its presidential candidate on the ballot in all states, or almost all states. Its presidential candidate was on in 46 states in 1988, 50 states in 1992, 50 states in 1996, and 50 states in 2000 (although the presidential candidate listed in Arizona was someone other than the presidential candidate listed in the other 49 states). In 2004 the party got its presidential candidate on in all states except New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

The Green Party has never been as successful at that task as the Libertarian Party. The best it ever did was in 2000, when it got its presidential candidate on in 43 states. This is because the national Libertarian Party has a strong tradition of helping state affiliates with ballot access, whereas the Green Party does not have that tradition.

However, the national Green Party’s ballot access committee is now providing concrete help to some state parties. Last year it helped the Arkansas Green Party, and on February 10 it appropriated $4,000 for the Arizona Green Party. The Arizona Green Party now has 11,000 signatures on its party petition, but it needs 20,449, by March 6.

There is a good chance the Arizona deadline for the party petition is unconstitutional. Petition deadlines for new or previously unqualified parties, or for their nominees, that early (even for office other than president), have been declared unconstitutional in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

No petition to qualify a party in Arizona has succeeded since 2000, when the Greens last did it. The Arizona legislature moved that petition deadline from May to March in 2000. Thus even if the Green Party effort falls short, it is worthwhile for it to make a maximum effort, and sue against the deadline if such a lawsuit becomes necessary.