According to this Atlanta Constitution-Journal news story about Cynthia McKinney’s decision not to seek the Green Party’s presidential nomination, McKinney may have been unhappy that she would have been forced to run in the California Green presidential primary against about eight other individuals also seeking that nomination.
The last set of briefs has now been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case known as State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party. These briefs are the rebuttal briefs filed by the state of Washington and its ally, the Grange. The state’s brief is here and the Grange’s brief is here. The issue in the case is whether a state may print party labels on the ballot, when it uses a system in which every candidate runs on a single initial ballot, and then the top two vote-getters compete in a run-off.
The lower federal courts had invalidated the system, since they believed that printing party labels on such a run-off ballot implies that the label means that the named party nominated that candidate.
The Republican and Libertarian Party briefs filed earlier said that the system is unconstitutional, in part, because the ballot access threshold to get on the November (i.e., run-off) ballot is too difficult. In effect, it becomes a 30% barrier. The Grange rebuttal brief did not even discuss this point. The state’s brief did, but it asserted that there is no constitutional right to a spot on a November ballot, if there is easy access to the first round. This assertion is not true. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that George Wallace had a constitutional right to a spot on the November ballot as a third party presidential candidate, even though he could easily have got on the Ohio Democratic presidential primary ballot in 1968. He would only have needed 1,000 signatures; any voter could have signed. If Washington state’s theory were correct, all ballot access protection for independent and new and minor parties would be wiped out.
The last set of briefs has now been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case known as State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party. These briefs are the rebuttal briefs filed by the state of Washington and its ally, the Grange. The state’s brief is here and the Grange’s brief is here. The issue in the case is whether a state may print party labels on the ballot, when it uses a system in which every candidate runs on a single initial ballot, and then the top two vote-getters compete in a run-off.
The lower federal courts had invalidated the system, since they believed that printing party labels on such a run-off ballot implies that the label means that the named party nominated that candidate.
The Republican and Libertarian Party briefs filed earlier said that the system is unconstitutional, in part, because the ballot access threshold to get on the November (i.e., run-off) ballot is too difficult. In effect, it becomes a 30% barrier. The Grange rebuttal brief did not even discuss this point. The state’s brief did, but it asserted that there is no constitutional right to a spot on a November ballot, if there is easy access to the first round. This assertion is not true. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that George Wallace had a constitutional right to a spot on the November ballot as a third party presidential candidate, even though he could easily have got on the Ohio Democratic presidential primary ballot in 1968. He would only have needed 1,000 signatures; any voter could have signed. If Washington state’s theory were correct, all ballot access protection for independent and new and minor parties would be wiped out.
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on September 18, on the bill to give the District of Columbia its own voting member of the U.S. House, plus an additional seat for Utah. The bills are S1257 and HR 1906.
The House will probably vote on HR 811 next week as well. HR 811 is Congressman Rush Holt’s bill to require vote-counting the states to use vote-counting machines with a paper trail, when they conduct federal elections.
On September 11, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 924, which would have directed the California Secretary of State to place a non-binding referendum question on the February 2008 ballot, asking voters about U.S. policy in Iraq.
