Illinois Agrees to Expand Access to Statewide List of Registered Voters

Posted on by July 29, 2023
10

On July 18, Illinois settled the lawsuit Illinois Conservative Union v State, n.d., 1:20cv-05542. The case had been filed in 2020 by a civic group, which wanted the list of registered voters to study whether the list is accurate. The state refused, citing a law that said the list could only be released to political committees or governmental bodies. The lawsuit depended on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which guarantees greater access to lists of registered voters.

The state finally decided that it could not defend its policy, and will release the list to the Illinois Conservative Union.

Alabama Congressional Redistricting Case Moves Quickly

Posted on by July 29, 2023
14

A three-judge U.S. District Court will hold a hearing in Singleton v Allen, n.d., 2:21cv-1291, on Monday, July 31. This is the case over Alabama U.S. House district boundaries. The Alabama legislature recently enacted a new plan, but only one of the seven U.S. House districts has a Black majority. The legislature appears to have flouted the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Singleton v Allen, issued last month.

Here is the plaintiffs’ brief, explaining why the state’s new plan still violates the Voting Rights Act.

Ohio Finishes Checking Two Initiative Petitions, but Still Hasn’t Finished Checking No Labels Party Petition

Posted on by July 28, 2023
12

On July 25, the Ohio Secretary of State announced the results of checking two statewide initiative petitions that are expected to be on the November 7, 2023 ballot. The initiative dealing with abortion has 495,938 valid signatures, easily enough to qualify.

The initiative to legalize marijuana was 679 signatures short, but existing law says the proponents have ten days to get those extra signatures.

There is a ballot measure on the ballot on August 8, 2023, put on the ballot by the legislature. It makes it more difficult to qualify an initiative. It requires signatures in all 88 counties, and it deletes the provision for a 10-day make-up period if the initial filing is shy of enough valid signatures. Polls show that the August 8 ballot question is likely to be defeated.

The Ohio Secretary of State still hasn’t finished checking the No Labels Party petition, even though the bulk of the signatures were submitted over six months ago. But the Secretary’s excuse is that the party is aiming for the 2024 ballot, not the 2023 ballot.

U.S. Court of Appeals Refuses to Disturb FEC Decision that Jill Stein Must Repay $175,272 in 2016 Matching Funds

Posted on by July 28, 2023
12

On July 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, issued an opinion in Stein v Federal Election Commission, 21-1213. The opinion upholds an April 2019 decision by the FEC that Stein must repay $175,272 in 2016 primary matching funds. Here is the 10-page opinion. The opiniion is by Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a Trump appointee. It is also signed by Judge Karen L. Henderson, Bush Sr. appointee; and Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an Obama appointee.

UPDATE: tp see a criticism of the ruling, go to jillstein.net.

There were two issues in the case. The first issue concerns timing. The FEC had changed the rules on when the period for raising matching funds ends. In the past it was the date of the latest party nomination process that the candidate had sought; but the new rule ends the period when the first party has made a nomination. Stein had sought both the Green Party nomination, which was settled on August 5, and the Peace & Freedom nomination, which was settled on August 14. She won the Green Party nomination but not the Peace & Freedom nomination.

There may not seem much difference between whether Stein’s period for raising donations (which the government matched) ended on August 5 or August 14, but she raised a lot of money during that 9-day period, and those donations could not be matched because of the FEC’s policy change. The Court opinion seems to hint that the judges feel the matching funds program, as applied to minor parties, is already more generous than it needs to be, and therefore the Court rejected the constitutional argument that the rule change is discriminatory.

The other issue concerned procedure, and whether Stein was clear enough in her messages to the FEC about an error that the FEC made when it calculated the repayment amount.