On December 8, the 9th circuit struck down Nevada’s law, requiring an initiative petition to contain 10% of the last vote cast in each of 13 counties (Nevada has 17 counties). The case is ACLU v Lomax, no. 04-17033.

The decision was not surprising, since in 2003 the 9th circuit had also struck down a similar distribution requirement for Idaho initiatives.

The basis for these decisions is highly theoretical, and depends on the Equal Protection portion of the 14th amendment. Counties vary in population. State laws that require any type of statewide petitions to contain a certain number of signatures in a certain number of counties discriminate in favor of voters who live in small-population counties, and against voters who live in large-population counties. For example, even if every voter in Nevada’s two largest counties wanted to sign a particular initiative petition, but no voters in any other counties wanted to sign it, that initiative could not get on the ballot under the Nevada law. Yet the two largest counties have 87% of Nevada’s population.

Yet, if the situation were reversed, and an initiative was wildly popular in Nevada’s 15 smallest-population counties, and had no support in the two largest counties, it could qualify.

The only state that still has a county-distribution requirement for statewide candidate petitions is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania requires candidates seeking a place on a statewide primary ballot to collect 2,000 signatures, with a certain number of signatures in each of 10 counties. It is overwhelmingly likely that this law would be invalidated, if someone were to sue. Pennsylvania state courts have upheld the law in the past, but those decisions were erroneous. No federal court has upheld the Pennsylvania distribution requirement. The Pennsylvania requirement applies to state office only, not federal office, but that is no defense.

On December 6, a U.S. District Court in Maryland upheld the constitutionality of ballots in which candidates are listed by alphabetical order. The case is Schaefer v Lamone, L-06-0896. The plaintiff, Michael Schaefer, hasn’t decided whether or not to appeal to the 4th circuit.

New Hampshire is one of the few states that permits write-ins, yet has no law asking write-in candidates who want their write-ins tallied to file a declaration of write-in candidacy, before the election.

In states like this, one never knows whether the state elections officials will do a tally of write-in candidates. Fortunately, this year, as well as in 2004, the New Hampshire Secretary of State, on his own, has voluntarily made such a tally. His office says that Richard Kahn, Libertarian write-in candidate for Governor last month, received 323 write-ins.

Pennsylvania is now the only state with a combination of severe ballot access (in 2006), which also has a bad record on tallying write-ins (like New Hampshire, Pennsylvania has no law on write-in declarations of candidacy). We still don’t know if Pennsylvania Dept. of Elections will do a write-in tally for any of the known minor party write-in candidates.