On October 17, the Illinois State Board of Elections asked the 7th circuit to rehear Lee v Keith. This is the case in which the 7th circuit had ruled the Illinois ballot access law for independent candidates for the legislature to be too harsh. The law requires a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast, due in December of the year before the election. No independent candidate for the legislature has qualified in Illinois since 1980. The 7th circuit original decision was 3-0, so the state’s chances of getting a rehearing are low.

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.

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.