On August 21, John Hulett died at his home in Lowndes County, Alabama. He was one of the founders of the Lowndes County Freedom Organization in 1966. This was a political party that sought to elect African-Americans to county office. It appeared on the ballot under the logo of a black panther. The Alabama Democratic Party, which was then dominated by segregationists, used a rooster as its logo. The symbolism for the black panther was that a black panther could easily overcome a rooster. Hulett visited Oakland, California, in May 1966, and his party’s symbol was the inspiration for the formation of the Black Panther Party of northern California. The Black Panther Party in California never became ballot-qualified, but it helped the Peace & Freedom Party become qualified in California in late 1967.

The Lowndes County Freedom Organization polled between 46% and 41% of the vote for its countywide slate, in 1966. Later Hulett was elected sheriff, but as a Democrat. The county was so poor, the sheriff also had to be the cook for the inmates of the county jail. Hulett was a much loved figure during the years he was sheriff.

On August 22, the 9th circuit affirmed a lower court decision that Washington state’s “top-two” primary system is unconstitutional. Washington State Republican Party v State, 05-35774. The voters of Washington state had passed an initiative in 2004, setting up the “top-two” system. This is a system in which every candidate runs on a single primary ballot. Every voter uses that ballot. Then, in November, only the two candidates who placed first or second can be on the ballot.

The 9th circuit focused on the fact that the Washington “top-two” system still provides for party labels on the ballot. The court said that if party labels appear on the ballot, then the election is a partisan election. And in partisan elections, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association clause protects the use of the party’s name. If party labels are involved in an election, then parties have a right to insist that only party members participate in choosing those candidates who will have that party’s label next to their names on the ballot.

The decision has good language about the importance of party labels, and will be a useful precedent for ballot access cases in states such as Ohio and Tennessee, which generally force minor party nominees to appear on the ballot without a party label.

Ever since July 10, the Green, Libertarian and Constitution Parties of Pennsylvania have been waiting for the 3rd circuit to rule on the ballot access lawsuit. There is still no opinion.

However, on August 21, the Pennsylvania Green Party filed a new lawsuit in state court in Harrisburg. A hearing will be held on August 22, in the afternoon. The case is “In re: Nomination Paper of Carl Romanelli,” 426 M.D. 2006. The new case argues that the state miscalculated the number of signatures needed by minor party and independent statewide candidates this year. The law says the number of signatures is 2% of the vote for the highest vote-getter in the last statewide election. Normally Pennsylvania elects State Supreme Court Justices, or Commonwealth Court Judges, in partisan elections in odd years. But in November 2005, there was no such partisan election for either type of statewide judge. Therefore, the state used data from the November 2004 election, and said 67,070 signatures are required in 2006.

The new Green Party lawsuit argues that the state should have used the 2005 judicial retention election, to calculate the number of signatures for 2006. The 2005 judicial retention election was an election in which two incumbent members of the State Supreme Court were on the ballot, with a “yes” box, and a “no” box next to their names. If this election were used, with the “yes” total standing in for the vote total, only 15,494 signatures would be needed in 2006.

The new Green Party lawsuit also argues that the state cannot require qualified parties to submit any signatures for their nominees (this is the same argument pending in the federal case). Alternatively, the lawsuit argues that the number of signatures needed (67,070) is so great that it violates the State Constitutional mandate that “elections be free and equal.” Finally, the new Green Party lawsuit argues that the current challenge being made to the Green Party’s statewide petition is procedurally flawed, since the Democratic Party objections to the signatures were too general, and they should have been more specific.