Initiative Proponents File Request for Rehearing En Banc on Montana Ban on Pay-Per-Signature

Posted on by August 27, 2022
22

On August 24, the proponents of an initiative in Montana asked the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc in Pierce v Jacobsen, 21-35173. They only want a rehearing on the part of the August 10 decision that declined to strike down the Montana ban on paying initiative circulators on a per-signature basis. They already won the other half of the case, against the out-of-state ban.

The Ninth Circuit on August 10 had declined to rule against the per-signature ban on the grounds that the evidence wasn’t sufficient. But the initiative supporters argue that their evidence is strong enough.

Marjorie Taylor Greene “Insurrection” Case is Still Pending in Both Georgia Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit

Posted on by August 27, 2022
6

Lawsuits concerning Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s qualifications to run for Congress are still pending in two courts.

Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court had ruled that Greene does not have a right to avoid a challenge in the state courts to her qualifications, relative to the Fourteenth Amendment’s “insurrection” clause. Therefore, Greene had to go through the challenge, which she won in lower state court. However, the challengers to her qualifications have appealed that to the State Supreme Court. That case is Rowan v Raffensperger.

In the meantime, Greene is hoping to persuade the Eleventh Circuit that the U.S. District Court should not have forced her to go through the state challenge process. She argues that state officials cannot adjudicate congressional qualifications. That case is Greene v Secretary of State, 22-11299. To bolster her federal case, on August 19, she notified the Eleventh Circuit that the state case is still alive. Here is her filing to the Eleventh Circuit, which includes as attachments the filings of the challengers in the State Supreme Court.

Rhode Island Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Successfully Re-Validates Enough Signatures to be on Ballot

Posted on by August 26, 2022
2

The Rhode Island Secretary of State’s office initially determined that Elijah Gizzarelli, the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, only had 946 valid signatures. The requirement is 1,000. But the Gizzarelli campaign persuaded the Secretary of State’s office that some signatures had been invalidated in error, and he will be on the ballot.

He is the first Libertarian to be on the general election ballot for Governor since 1976.

Arizona Supreme Court Says Flaws in Paperwork Need Not Disqualify Initiatives

Posted on by August 26, 2022
2

On August 24, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in Leibsohn v Hobbs, cv-22-0204. The issue was whether a statewide initiative should be removed from the ballot because some of the circulators’ paperwork was incomplete. The Court agreed with the lower courts that the paperwork problems should not result in removing the initiative from the ballot.

On the same day, the court issued a somewhat similiar opinion in Protect Our Arizona v Hobbs, cv-22-0203.

A third opinion, also issued on August 24, says that in some cases, the circulators’ failure to provide the unit number as part of the address might result in their work being disqualified. Mussi v Hobbs, cv-22-0207.

Texas Supreme Court Refuses to Remove Libertarians from Ballot Who Didn’t Pay Filing Fee

Posted on by August 26, 2022
4

On August 26, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order in In re Keith Self, 22-0658. This is the case over whether Libertarians who didn’t pay the filing fee before being considered for a convention nomination in April 2022 should be removed from the ballot. The unanimous order says the Republican candidates who filed the lawsuit waited too long to sue. The Supreme Court also said that it is not adjudicating the matter of whether the fees should be paid. UPDATE: here is a news story.

This is the second election in a row in which the Texas state courts have ruled in favor of ballot access for minor party candidates who didn’t pay the fee.

The issue of the constitutionality of the fees is pending in federal court. The theory that they are unconstitutional depends on the idea that the purpose of filing fees is to keep ballots from being crowded. Texas has required filing fees for primary candidates for over a century, but never imposed filing fees on candidates nominated by convention until recently. There is no problem with “crowded ballots” in a convention setting. By contrast, primary ballots are capable of being crowded.

In addition, the Texas filing fee law says fees paid by primary candidates are given to the political party, but fees paid by convention candidates go to the government. Thanks to Jeff Harper and Linda Curtis for this news.