Court Victory for Alabama Ex-Felons who Wish to Vote

Posted on by October 27, 2006
2

On October 26, the Alabama Supreme Court voted 5-4 to keep a lower court ruling in place, until the lawsuit Gooden v Worley has been fully litigated. The lower court ruling, issued August 23, 2006, lets ex-felons and felons register to vote, at least until the legislature defines the term “moral turpitude”. The Alabama Constitution says persons convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude” can be barred from registering to vote. However, neither the Constitution, nor any state law, defines “moral turpitude”. Over the years, election officials in some counties have said that convictions for drunk driving, attempted burglary, and other crimes, are crimes of “moral turpitude”, whereas elections officials in other counties have said they are not.

Washington Secretary of State Does Not Support Grange Plan

Posted on by October 26, 2006
2

The Washington State Grange plans to work to remove party labels from the ballot, in that state. First it will ask the legislature to pass that idea. If that doesn’t work, it will circulate an initiative to remove party labels from ballots.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, who has previously been an ally of the Grange in election law matters, said on October 26 that he does not support the Grange’s latest idea.

The Grange is motivated to remove party labels from the ballot, because the federal courts have ruled that as long as party labels are on the ballot, political parties then have a First Amendment Freedom of Association right to have some control over who can use their label. The parties used their Freedom of Association right to win a lawsuit against the “top-two” election system in the 9th circuit a few months ago. Although the state and the Grange will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, few expect that Court to hear that appeal.

Republicans Try to Disqualify Democratic Opponents at Last Minute in 3 States

Posted on by October 26, 2006
2

During the two weeks, Republicans have filed lawsuits to disqualify various Democratic nominees in Alabama, California and Ohio. Since the ballots have already been printed, and since these lawsuits could have been filed months ago, it is unlikely that courts will take them seriously. In Alabama, the Republican nominee for Attorney General filed a lawsuit to block counting any votes for four particular Democratic State Senators who failed to file a particular campaign finance report months ago. In California, some Republicans filed a lawsuit to block counting any votes for the Democratic nominee for Attorney General, on the grounds that during part of the past five years, he was only an inactive member of the Bar. And in Ohio, some Republicans filed a lawsuit to disqualify the Democratic nominee for Governor on the grounds that he doesn’t actually live at the address where he is registered to vote.

In California, a lower state court ruled that the case should not be expedited, so it won’t be heard until after the election. In Ohio, the state court of appeals rejected the lawsuit. The Alabama lawsuit has a hearing on October 31.