On May 21, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Underwood v Guam, 06-1268, the case over whether the Republican Party candidate for Governor in 2006 should have faced a run-off, or whether he should have been declared the winner. The dispute centered around whether “votes cast” includes void votes. The Guam Supreme Court had said a void vote is not a “vote cast.” The federal law governing Guam gubernatorial elections requires that the winner receive a majority of the “votes cast.”
On May 15, the voters of Massachusetts’ Norfolk District 11 filled a vacancy in the State House. Three candidates were on the ballot, an independent, a Democrat, and a Republican. The independent, Paul McMurtry, was elected, with 38%. His opponents each received 31%. No newspaper seems to have published the actual vote totals, and the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office has not released any figures. On May 16, McMurtry changed his registration to “Democratic.” He said he changed in order to have more influence in the legislature. He describes himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Thanks to Austin Cassidy’s Third Party Watch for this news.
On May 15, Pennsylvania held its primary elections. Pennsylvania is one of four states with statewide partisan elections this year. The others are Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Those other three states haven’t had their primaries yet.
Pennsylvania elects four statewide partisan judges this year: two to the State Supreme Court, and two to Superior Court. The November 2007 judicial races will determine how many signatures are required for minor party and statewide independent petitions in 2008.
Fewer than 1,400,000 voters turned out in Pennsylvania on May 15, even though the state had 8,108,125 registered voters that day. The low turnout was especially surprising, given that both major parties had such close races for the judicial posts. The margin for one of the Republican Superior Court nominations was less than 10,000 votes, and the margin for one of the Democratic Superior Court nominations was just barely above 10,000 votes. If the turnout in November 2007 is double what it was for the primary, the number of signatures needed in 2008 will only be about 28,000 signatures. By contrast, in 2006 it was 67,070 signatures.
On May 18, the 9th circuit heard arguments in Porter v Jones, 06-55517. This case involves California’s attempt to criminalize “vote-trading” web pages. Back in 2000, a group of Gore supporters and Nader supporters jointly set up a web page. It was designed to give Gore supporters in states that were overwhelmingly Republican or overwhelmingly Democratic a chance to help Gore, and at the same time give Nader supporters in close states a chance to help Nader. Strangers would contact each other and pledge to pair their votes. An individual Gore supporter in a safe state would be matched with an individual Nader supporter in a close state. They would communicate with each other, and if each found the other trustworthy, the Gore voter would vote for Nader and the Nader supporter would vote for Gore.
The site was becoming fairly well-known when California’s Secretary of State at the time, Bill Jones, ruled that the site was promoting illegal activity. Jones claimed that the site encouraged bribery. The site’s supporters filed a lawsuit arguing that their activity is protected by the First Amendment.
The hearing in the 9th circuit went well for the people who put up the web site. The panel included Clinton appointee Raymond Fisher, and two appointees of our current president, Richard Clifton and visiting U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez from Washington state. Click here to listen to the oral argument, which lasts 55 minutes, but will be fascinating to anyone who is interested in the First Amendment. It may take a few minutes for your computer to absorb the link, but once your computer screen has the “movie theater” black viewing screen ready, you can hear the oral argument by clicking on the arrow. You will need to have this case number at hand: 06-55517.
On May 9, the 9th circuit issued an opinion in Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v Brewer, over the constitutionality of Arizona’s Clean Elections Law. The 9th circuit said the case is moot. It had been filed in 2002 by Congressman Matt Salmon, who was that year’s Republican nominee for Governor. The lawsuit charged that some aspects of the public funding law are unfair to candidates who choose not to use public funding. The 9th circuit said since the candidate-plaintiffs had not alleged they will run again, and since the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (another co-plaintiff) no longer has any election activity in Arizona, there is no longer any active controversy.
