Missouri Supreme Court Invalidates Photo ID Law

Posted on by October 17, 2006
Reply

On October 16, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that a new law, requiring voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote at the polls, violates the Missouri Constitution. The case is Weinschenk v State, SC88039. The court pointed out that although state ID cards are free, they require a birth certificate, and birth certificates cost $15. Furthermore, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to get a birth certificate.

The case depends on the Missouri Constitution’s provision that “all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” The Court said that gives more voting rights protection than the U.S. Constitution does.

Ballot access cases now pending in state court in New Hampshire, Oklahoma and North Carolina, also depend on similar state constitutional provisions. The Missouri decision on Photo-ID will be somewhat useful to the pending ballot access cases in the state courts of these other states. Any time any state’s State Supreme Court says that its own Constitution gives more protection for voting rights than the U.S. Constitution does, that strengthens the principle in other states with similar language in their state’s constitution. The Oklahoma ballot access case has already lost in lower state court, because the lower state court didn’t seem to think that Oklahoma’s similar State Constitutional provision gives any more protection for voting rights than the U.S. Constitution.

Minor Party Activists in Alabama and Pennsylvania to Use the "Write-in Weapon"

Posted on by October 17, 2006
Reply

Alabama and Pennsylvania minor party activists this year will insist that their write-in votes be tallied, and will sue if their demands are not fulfilled. They hope to persuade elections officials to become allies, in the fight for better ballot access laws, by this technique.

Alabama and Pennsylvania are two of the four states with a Democratic-Republican ballot monopoly this year for all statewide office. Furthermore, both states typically refuse to provide an official state tally of write-in votes. Neither state even has a procedure by which a serious write-in candidate can file a declaration of write-in candidacy. Therefore, technically, the law in both states requires that all write-ins be canvassed. But both states routinely break their own laws, and do not provide a state canvass of write-in candidates’ totals.

Pennsylvania minor party activists are about to submit a list of write-in candidates who desire that their write-ins be tallied. Pennsylvania did tally Ralph Nader’s write-ins in 2004 and 1996, but otherwise has never done such a tally in a statewide general election. Candidates for Pennsylvania statewide office who are requesting a state tally of their write-ins are Russ Diamond (independent for Governor), Ronald Satz (Libertarian for Governor), Marakay Rogers (Green for Governor), Hagan Smith (Constitution Party for Governor), Thomas Martin (Libertarian for U.S. Senate), Carl Romanelli (Green for U.S. Senate), and Carl Edwards (Constitution Party for U.S. Senate).

In Alabama, Loretta Nall, Libertarian candidate for Governor, will make a similar request.

It is far more trouble for elections officials to count write-in votes, than votes for candidates listed on the ballot. It is hoped that if elections officials realize they must cope with counting and tallying write-in votes this year, they will be allies when state legislatures are asked to ease the ballot access laws next year.

Minor Party Activists in Alabama and Pennsylvania to Use the “Write-in Weapon”

Posted on by October 17, 2006
2

Alabama and Pennsylvania minor party activists this year will insist that their write-in votes be tallied, and will sue if their demands are not fulfilled. They hope to persuade elections officials to become allies, in the fight for better ballot access laws, by this technique.

Alabama and Pennsylvania are two of the four states with a Democratic-Republican ballot monopoly this year for all statewide office. Furthermore, both states typically refuse to provide an official state tally of write-in votes. Neither state even has a procedure by which a serious write-in candidate can file a declaration of write-in candidacy. Therefore, technically, the law in both states requires that all write-ins be canvassed. But both states routinely break their own laws, and do not provide a state canvass of write-in candidates’ totals.

Pennsylvania minor party activists are about to submit a list of write-in candidates who desire that their write-ins be tallied. Pennsylvania did tally Ralph Nader’s write-ins in 2004 and 1996, but otherwise has never done such a tally in a statewide general election. Candidates for Pennsylvania statewide office who are requesting a state tally of their write-ins are Russ Diamond (independent for Governor), Ronald Satz (Libertarian for Governor), Marakay Rogers (Green for Governor), Hagan Smith (Constitution Party for Governor), Thomas Martin (Libertarian for U.S. Senate), Carl Romanelli (Green for U.S. Senate), and Carl Edwards (Constitution Party for U.S. Senate).

In Alabama, Loretta Nall, Libertarian candidate for Governor, will make a similar request.

It is far more trouble for elections officials to count write-in votes, than votes for candidates listed on the ballot. It is hoped that if elections officials realize they must cope with counting and tallying write-in votes this year, they will be allies when state legislatures are asked to ease the ballot access laws next year.

Oral Argument Set in Alaska Green Party Ballot Access Case

Posted on by October 17, 2006
Reply

A lower Alaska state court will hear oral arguments in Green Party of Alaska v State, on November 13, at 3 pm, in Anchorage. The case is 3AN-05-10787. The issue is the constitutionality of the state’s 2004 definition of “political party”. The law passed in 2004 says that if a party does not have registration equal to 3% of the last vote cast, then it must poll 3% for Governor, in gubernatorial election years. In a presidential election year, it must poll 3% for U.S. Senate. If there is no U.S. Senate election up in a presidential election year, then it must poll 3% for U.S. House.

The Green Party failed to poll 3% for Governor in 2002, but it consistently polls 3% for U.S. House, and it almost always polls 3% for U.S. Senate. It argues that since the state uses the vote for U.S. Senate or U.S. House in presidential election years, there is no rational reason why it can’t use the vote for U.S. House or Senate in the gubernatorial election years. The Green Party already won an injunction, several years ago, keeping it on the ballot while this lawsuit is pending.

The state argues vociferously that votes cast for Green Party candidates for U.S. House are not meaningful, since Alaska U.S. House races are consistently not closely contested between the Democratic and Republican nominees for U.S. House (the Republican Party always wins by a huge margin for that office). The state argues that it is rational to only use the vote for Governor in gubernatorial election years, since gubernatorial elections are usually close in Alaska.

It would be strange if the state won the case, since the Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Parties would remain on the ballot (since they have enough registered voters, so that they don’t need to worry about the vote test). The Green Party consistently out-polls the Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Parties in Alaska. Also the Green Party has more legislative candidates on the ballot this year than the Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Parties. Therefore, if the state wins the case, the minor party that polls the most votes in most statewide elections, and has the most candidates, would be removed from the ballot, while two other minor parties would remain on.

Iowa Seems Likely to Allow Voters to Register as Members of Non-Qualified Parties

Posted on by October 17, 2006
2

The Iowa Secretary of State and the Iowa Attorney General have tentatively agreed to reform the state’s voter registration form, to let voters register into active but unqualified political parties.

Currently, Iowa and Kansas are the only states that don’t have a blank line in the “political party” question, on voter registration forms. The proposed Iowa change would not necessarily provide a blank line. But it would provide that unqualified parties that meet certain conditions would actually be listed as choices on the “political party” part of the Voter Registration form.

To be listed, a group must have run a candidate for statewide office, or for US House, in the last election; and must submit a petition of 50 registered voters who say that they consider themselves members of that party. A party would remain listed on the Voter Registration form unless two years go by and it has fewer than 50 registered members.