Ohio: Third parties irate as Seitz bill passes Ohio Senate | Cincinnati.com

A Green Township Republican’s proposal for regulating minority political parties’ attempts to get on the ballot passed the Ohio Senate on Tuesday, over the complaints of members of the Libertarian and Green parties. Ohio’s rules for letting minority parties on the ballot were struck down by a 2006 court ruling that said the state made it too hard for the parties to get on the ballot. Directives from the Ohio secretary of state have governed ballot access since then. State Sen. Bill Seitz says it’s time to have a new, constitutional law. He sponsored the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday, 22-11, after being rushed through a Senate committee in just two weeks. The Senate Oversight Committee passed the bill just 20 minutes before the full Senate was scheduled to take up the bill.

Connecticut: Windham third party taking ballot issue to court | The Norwich Bulletin

After successfully seating candidates on every major board in the last two municipal elections, The Bottom Line party now finds itself fighting just to get on the ballot. The party, which formed about six years ago, had its nominees removed from the ballot by order of the secretary of state, despite Town Clerk Patricia Spruance going to bat for them. At issue is a 2011 regulation requiring third-party candidates to sign the nomination form. “It seems like an unjust situation,” Spruance said. “It really is a case of disenfranchisement of eight candidates and individual voters.” The enforcement of the 2011 regulation has affected more towns than Windham. Several other municipalities have taken their town clerks to court.

Connecticut: Judge Orders Save Westport Now Back on Ballot | Westport Now

Booted from the Nov. 5 ballot last week over a technicality, Save Westport Now (SWN) will now have ballot access on Election Day, a Stamford Superior Court judge ruled today. Judge Kenneth B. Povodator ordered Westport Town Clerk Patricia Strauss to give SWN endorsed and nominated candidates for the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)—Democrats Andra Vebell, David Lessing and Alan Hodge—a SWN place on the ballot in addition to their names on Democratic line. The move drew praise from Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill. “Judge Povodator’s decision is good for the voters of Westport,” Merrill said in a statement. “It is always in the best interest of voters to have choices on the ballot, and I am relieved the judge resolved this issue.” Founded in the 1980s to save Gorham Island from development, a bid that failed, SWN is a third party, environmental and preservation advocacy group. It has typically endorsed and nominated Democratic candidates for the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), although last election it endorsed Republicans.

Ohio: Seitz bills raising storms in Columbus | Cincinnati.com

A Green Township state senator, one of Ohio’s most controversial and colorful, is pushing bills that opponents say would keep the Libertarian Party candidate off the gubernatorial ballot and would lead to higher prices for electricity users. The first bill would set rules for small political parties to follow if they want their candidates to appear on Ohio ballots, after a federal appeals court struck down Ohio’s previous rules. The second would loosen the energy-efficiency and demand-management rules the state passed in 2008. Republican Sen. Bill Seitz defended both his bills Wednesday in committee hearings. Opponents will get chances to speak against the bills this fall. They’re already making their views known, though, setting the bills up for a fight. “This is the John Kasich Re-election Protection Act,” Aaron Keith Harris, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party of Ohio, said of Seitz’s political party bill.

Editorials: A vote for fairness in Pennsylvania elections | Lancaster Intelligencer Journal

State Sen. Mike Folmer carries a dog-eared copy of the Pennsylvania Constitution in his breastpocket. When it comes to elections, he opens the booklet to Article 1, Section 5 where it states, “Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise thereof.” And then he asks how free and equal elections are in the commonwealth when Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress and row offices need 1,000 signatures to gain access to the ballot while independents or members of a third party are required to obtain upwards of 60,000 signatures. In his view, that makes Pennsylvania’s ballot process unconstitutional. Whether the rules in place are constitutional or not is for the courts to decide. But we agree with him on one count: It’s clearly unfair.

Connecticut: In Bethel and elsewhere, minority parties knocked off ballot | NewsTimes

The CT Tea Party in Bethel is knocked off the ballot for the November election because of a filing technicality based on a two-year-old election law, leaving former First Selectman Robert Burke the option of running as a write-in candidate. In Westport, a local minority party lost its ballot line for the first time in 20 years. In Ridgefield, the local independent party line was bounced from the ballot because of the same law. However, Ridgefield’s and Westport’s cross-endorsed candidates will appear on the ballot. Local officials in recent days learned that minority parties in Middletown, Simsbury and Fairfield may have problems related to the 2011 law, which requires minority party candidates to sign certificates of endorsements filed with town clerks. Signatures are not required of Republicans and Democrats.

Arizona: Petition drive seeks to block ‘bad’ election laws | Camp Verde Bugle

Voters apparently are going to get the last word on controversial changes in state election laws pushed through by Republicans at the end of last session. Backers of a referendum drive turned in 146,028 signatures on petitions to block the changes from being implemented as scheduled on Friday. If the Secretary of State determines there are at least 86,405 valid signatures — and a likely legal challenge falters — the law will remain on hold until voters can ratify or reject it at the 2014 election. “It’s not every day that voters get the opportunity to refer a bad piece of legislation to the ballot,’ said Julie Erfle who chairs the campaign. The last successful referendum drive was in 1998.

Pennsylvania: Greens, independents, plan new push for Pennsylvania ballot access | Philadelphia Weekly

Another legislative season will soon begin in Pennsylvania, and the state Green Party is still attempting to pressure a vote on a bill that would allow third-party candidates for state office easier access to the ballot. Their latest tactic: an online petition to pressure Harrisburg into a vote. Then, say supporters, there’s more to come. The petition asks supporters to sign in support of Senate Bill 195, introduced by Senator Mike Folmer (R-Berks) as mirror legislation to SB 21, which he introduced last session. Folmer’s bill would lower the standard as to what constitutes a third party and therefore does not require independent candidates to jump through hoops to get on the ballot, as is currently the case. The petition “demands” the bill move out of committee—it’s currently sitting in the State Government Committee, chaired by Sen. Lloyd Smucker (R-Lancaster)—to a hearing and then a vote in the full Senate. As we’ve documented before, these days, that basic legislative process is a lot to ask for any bill that doesn’t have the blessing of establishment Republicans.

Editorials: The Aftermath of Shelby County v. Holder: Will Voting Rights Be Diminished? | CityLand

The United States Supreme Court’s June 25, 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, eliminating a “preclearance” coverage formula that had subjected numerous jurisdictions with checkered voting rights histories to the U.S. Department of Justice’s oversight.  Although the decision allows Congress to create a new coverage formula, in today’s political climate that appears unlikely.   While the preclearance system was often associated with deep Southern states like Alabama and Mississippi, in 1971 three New York City counties – Bronx, Kings and New York – were added as covered jurisdictions, and since then the DOJ has blocked New York voting laws on several occasions to protect the rights of minority voters.  This article examines Shelby County v. Holder, its consequences for minority voting rights across the country, particularly in New York, and possible local remedies in the event of Congressional inaction.

Editorials: Eliot Spitzer and New York’s incumbent-protection ballot rules | Joshua Spivak/Newsday

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s surprise entrance into the New York City comptroller race highlights one issue that will be ignored — how New York laws continue to serve incumbents and the existing political system at the expense of the voters. Spitzer’s entry was a last-minute decision. He had four days to gather 3,750 signatures on nominating petitions. This may not seem to be a high bar, but obviously Spitzer didn’t agree — he reportedly paid signature gatherers as much as $800 a day to get their John Hancocks. He said he ended up with 27,000. Why did Spitzer need to gather so many? It wasn’t because he wanted to show that he had a popular following. Nor was it an example of a gross overpayment. Instead, it was simply because New York’s ballot-access laws remain convoluted enough to require candidates to get a very large cushion of signatures to prevent them from being tossed off the ballot by party regulars who know — and make — the rules.

New York: Will Eliot Spitzer Even Get On The Ballot? | Buzzfeed

In the past 48 hours, Eliot Spitzer has appeared on just about every local television and radio show to promote his eleventh-hour bid for New York City comptroller, but the comeback candidate may have a problem that publicity alone can’t fix: getting on the ballot. After Spitzer appeared Monday afternoon at his petition drive with no staffers in tow — and few volunteers canvassing the area — questions remain about whether his hurried campaign will be able to collect the 3,750 signatures from registered Democrats required to qualify for the ballot by the midnight deadline this Thursday. Although Spitzer’s first public appearance Monday was billed as a signature drive, that was not at all the focus of the hour-long event: Only two volunteers appeared to be collecting signatures near the candidate’s press gaggle, though a campaign spokesperson later called BuzzFeed to say that eight had in fact been at the event. Spitzer himself spent the afternoon talking to reporters, speaking individually to only seven or so voters — and leaving in a taxi with about that many signatures on his own petition sheet.

Voting Blogs: Ninth Circuit Upholds Denial of “Independent” Label on California Ballots, Leaves Option for Another Lawsuit Issue of Labels for Members of Unqualified Parties | Ballot Access News

On July 3, the Ninth Circuit upheld California law that requires independent candidates for Congress and partisan state office to have “No party preference” on the ballot instead of the label “independent.” However, the ruling leaves open for a future lawsuit the related issue of whether the law is unconstitutional as applied to members of unqualified parties; the law requires “no party preference” for them as well. The case is Chamness v Bowen, 11-56303. The 26-page opinion says there is no evidence that “no party preference”, instead of “independent”, injures independent candidates. The decision does not mention the point that California still permits independent presidential candidates to use the word “independent” on the ballot.

National: Rep. James Clyburn urges national standards in revised Voting Rights Act | theGrio

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C,), the man House Democrats have tapped to lead their push for revising the Voting Rights Act after last week’s Supreme Court decision gutted the law’s Section 4, urged the creation of national voting standards that would likely replace the special restrictions for a bloc of Southern states under the current law. While not ruling out a new kind of “pre-clearance” system, which had required parts or all of 15 states to get federal approval for changing their voting provisions, Clyburn said Democrats were mostly debating a new provision that would mandate every state abide by certain “minimum standards.” Clyburn said such a law, for example, might require every state have at least nine days of early voting. States could chose to have many more days, but could not have fewer than nine, he said. Similar federal standards would apply to redistricting and ballot access concerns, such as voter ID laws, although he did not provide details.

National: States promise quick action after court voting ruling | ABC

Across the South, Republicans are working to take advantage of a new political landscape after a divided U.S. Supreme Court freed all or part of 15 states, many of them in the old Confederacy, from having to ask Washington’s permission before changing election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination. After the high court announced its momentous ruling Tuesday, officials in Texas and Mississippi pledged to immediately implement laws requiring voters to show photo identification before getting a ballot. North Carolina Republicans promised they would quickly try to adopt a similar law. Florida now appears free to set its early voting hours however Gov. Rick Scott and the GOP Legislature please. And Georgia’s most populous county likely will use county commission districts that Republican state legislators drew over the objections of local Democrats.

Arizona: Foes vow to fight new ballot qualification requirements | AZ Central

Libertarian Barry Hess said he’s determined to run for governor next year, even though he’ll face a 4,380 percent increase in the number of signatures he’ll need to qualify for the ballot. For Democrats, it’s a 9.8 percent increase. Meanwhile, any Republican seeking the seat will have a 5.8 percent decrease in the signature requirement. The shifting numbers are due to a late addition to a wide-ranging election bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week. The measure was favored by Republicans, who flexed some local and national muscle to revive House Bill 2305 in the waning hours of the recently completed legislative session.

South Carolina: Governor Haley signs ballot access measure | WCIV

On the heels of the 2012 election, a team of Republican state senators joined former Attorney General Henry McMaster at Gov. Nikki Haley’s signing of the Equal Access to the Ballot Act. The Senate bill aimed to correct issues that prevented more than 200 candidates from being booted off ballots across the state. Last year, elections officials said the candidates did not properly file paperwork to join the races. “When you run for office, it’s a true sacrifice, it’s an individual sacrifice, it’s a family sacrifice, and you have to fight,” said Gov. Nikki Haley. “What we saw last election was one of the most painful things you can ever see in an election – you had 200 people wanting to fight, wanting to serve and they were denied access to the ballot. With this bill we are saying that no party or individual will ever get in the way of someone running for office. We are fighters in South Carolina and we want more fighters.”

Voting Blogs: Supreme Court Decision Strengthens “Elections Clause” of U.S. Constitution | Ballot Access News

On June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 12-71. The most important consequence of this decision is that the Elections Clause in Article One of the U.S. Constitution has been strengthened. The “Elections Clause” only relates to Congressional elections. It says, “Section 4. The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Idaho: GOP rejects rule to limit ballot access in GOP primaries | Spokesman

Republican leaders in Idaho on Saturday dumped a plan calling for party officials to vet GOP primary election candidates. The rejection came at the Republican Party Central Committee’s summer meeting in McCall, where the state’s dominant political group was setting its policy direction for the year to come. The proposal was from former Senate Majority Leader Rod Beck, as a way to pressure GOP candidates into adhering more to the wishes of their local party leaders. But dozens of other Republicans including House Speaker Scott Bedke, Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter and Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs objected to it, on grounds that it would put decision-making in the hands of just a few people and disenfranchise broader GOP voters.

Editorials: Wyoming ballot access should be fair, but not easy | Star Tribune

The recent failed effort to repeal a new state law limiting the duties of the state superintendent of public instruction reiterated a long-held belief: Wyoming’s referendum laws are among the most stringent in the nation. State lawmakers should consider whether the laws are too stringent. At the same time, let’s not go too far. California’s proposition system is a prime example of direct democracy run amok, where, as a result of unintended consequences, public power has often rendered the state’s Legislature ineffective. Wyoming’s is a republican form of government in which we elect — and therefore trust — our citizen Legislature to make decisions for us. This isn’t a pure democracy where we get a say on every issue. Imagine how messy state government would become if every issue were put to a vote. Trouble is: Where do we begin to ease the restrictions? It appears to be the proverbial chicken-and-egg issue.

Voting Blogs: Arizona Election Law Bill Amended to Vastly Increase Primary Ballot Access Petitions for Smaller Qualified Parties | Ballot Access News

On June 6, a conference committee in the Arizona legislature amended HB 2305 to make it vastly more difficult for members of small qualified parties to get themselves on a primary ballot. Current law sets the number of signatures needed for a candidate to get on his or her own party’s primary ballot as a percentage of the number of members of that party. But the bill changes that, so that the number of signatures needed is a percentage of all the registered voters from all parties.

South Carolina: Election law paperwork compromise advances | The State

Candidates for public office would not be disqualified for improperly filing paperwork, according to a compromise approved by a legislative committee Tuesday. The proposal, S.2, comes after a state Supreme Court decision last year that led to the removal of more than 200 candidates from ballots statewide because they did not file a hard copy of their statements of economic interest, as the law requires. The fiasco ended up costing the state and political parties thousands of dollars in lawsuits. Because the court decision did not impact incumbents, it aborted tough re-election contests that had been expected for some moderate Republicans. The decision also sowed seeds of distrust among voters, prompting some candidates to run on a platform of reforming the state’s ethics laws.

Voting Blogs: Connecticut Legislature Passes Bill Outlawing Fusion for New and Small Parties | Ballot Access News

On June 4, the Connecticut legislature passed HB 6580, which outlaws fusion unless both parties had polled at least 15,000 votes for one of the state statewide offices at the previous gubernatorial election. The bill passed the House on June 1 and the Senate on June 4. It also alters campaign finance laws. See this story, which is not accurate when it says the bill entirely bans fusion. “Fusion” means the practice of two parties jointly nominating the same candidate, so that his or her name appears on the November ballot with both party labels. Assuming the Governor signs the bill and it takes effect, it is probably unconstitutional. States are free to ban fusion if they wish, but they cannot do so in a discriminatory manner. For instance, the Third Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law in 1999 that permitted fusion between two large parties but not fusion between a large party and a small party, in Reform Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305.

Voting Blogs: Sixth Circuit Says Michigan was Right to Keep Gary Johnson Off the 2012 Ballot | Ballot Access News

On May 1, the Sixth Circuit issued a brief opinion, saying the U.S. District Court in Michigan was correct when it kept Gary Johnson, or any other Libertarian Party presidential candidate, off the ballot in November 2012. The part of the decision on the merits is only one short paragraph long, and does not discuss the factual error in the U.S. District Court’s decision. The U.S. District Court had said in its original opinion that John B. Anderson had not appeared on the 1980 Michigan Republican presidential primary ballot, so the precedent created when Anderson appeared as a minor party presidential nominee in November was not relevant. Later the District Court amended its opinion to acknowledge the error, but did not then re-think the conclusion.

Illinois: Biss bill would abolish local election boards | Evanston Now

State Sen. Daniel Biss of Evanston persuaded a Senate committee today to advance his plan to abolish the local electoral boards that decide whether challenged candidates stay on the ballot. If signed into law, Senate Bill 1689 would assign the controversial panels’ duties to county election officials. “Our ballot access process should be as transparent and easy to navigate as possible, so newcomers and outsiders don’t find themselves at a disadvantage,” said Biss. “The current system, with its unnecessary and inefficient proliferation of boards stocked with incumbents, favors candidates who already know how to play the game.”

New York: Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot on Mayoral Ballot | New York Times

State Senator Malcolm A. Smith, who rose to become the first black president of the State Senate, and City Councilman Daniel J. Halloran III were arrested early Tuesday on charges of trying to illicitly get Mr. Smith on the ballot for this year’s mayoral race in New York City, according to federal prosecutors. Mr. Smith, a Queens Democrat, and Mr. Halloran, a Queens Republican, were among a half-dozen people arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in the corruption case. Others included Republican County leaders in Queens and the Bronx, the mayor of the Rockland County village of Spring Valley, Noramie F. Jasmin, and her deputy, Joseph A. Desmaret, according to a criminal complaint. Mr. Smith, 56, was taken from his home in handcuffs by F.B.I. agents before sunrise and Mr. Halloran, a lawyer, was arrested about the same time, law enforcement authorities said.

Arizona: No special spot on voter registration form for Libertarians | Daily Sun

State lawmakers are free to provide special spots on voter registration forms to Democrats and Republicans that are not offered to other political parties, a federal judge has ruled. Judge Cindy Jorgenson acknowledged that the 2011 law does mean that those who want to register as Libertarians — or, for that matter, any minor party — have an additional hurdle. That’s because the registration forms have three spaces: Republican, Democrat and “other.” And that last option requires an individual to write out the name of the desired party. But Jorgenson rejected claims by an attorney for the Libertarian Party that the law amounts to illegal and unacceptable discrimination. She said the state has a legitimate interest in keeping the registration form simple.

Editorials: Proposed Amendment Would Limit Voter Choice in California | Richard Winger/IVN

California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Ventura County) have introduced identical proposed state constitutional amendments that would change the top-two open primary section of the California Constitution. Lara’s bill is SCA 12 and Gorell’s is ACA 9. Article II, section 5 of the California Constitution includes the new primary rules, which say that the two candidates who get the most votes in the primary, for Congress or partisan state office, go on the November ballot. The Lara-Gorell amendment would change the language of this section to say that if the person who came in second in a primary is a write-in candidate, he or she could not be on the November ballot unless he or she received approximately 120,000 write-ins for a statewide office, 3,200 write-ins for State Senate, 1,600 write-ins for Assembly, or 2,500 write-ins for a congressional race. The specific formula is one percent of the last general election vote total for that office.

Editorials: If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 – Watch out in the covered jurisdictions | Michael J. Pitts/The Great Debate (Reuters)

If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5, Congress is unlikely to pass any sort of “New Voting Rights Act.” So when thinking about what happens next, we need to focus on what voting changes the jurisdictions now subject to oversight might enact that would violate Section 5’s principal aim of preserving minority voting strength. In doing so, there are two dichotomies to consider: one between state legislatures and local governments, the other between voting changes related to ballot access, such as voter registration, and those related to vote dilution, such as redistricting. When it comes to state governments and vote dilution, states seem unlikely to dismantle districts that give minority voters clout — the “safe” districts that often have a majority of minority population. One reason it’s unlikely is that most of the states under Section 5 oversight are controlled by Republicans, and Republicans often perceive safe minority districts as politically favorable because they pack reliable Democratic voters together. That’s not to say all states will preserve all such districts—there will undoubtedly be outliers. But massive retrogression of minority voting strength on the statewide level seems unlikely.

Massachusetts: Storm threatens to bury GOP’s ballot hopes | Boston Herald

Some panicked Republicans are fretting that they may not even get a candidate on the ballot for the special Senate election as the deadline for 10,000 signatures approaches, with the weekend’s blizzard threatening to cut into vital collection time. “The Mass. GOP can’t afford to play Princeton basketball and let the clock run out here. With only 20 days left, candidates need to announce and pull their papers now to ensure they’ll make the ballot,” said Michael Hartigan, a Republican consultant who worked on former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s 2010 campaign. Massachusetts officials require candidates to have 10,000 valid signatures to get on the election ballot by Feb. 28, but most campaign officials agree that campaigns need at least 20,000 to account for ineligible signatures.

Australia: Legal hurdles ahead for Assange political bid | Lawyers Weekly

An academic and former advisor to Julian Assange’s legal team has claimed the WikiLeaks founder will face significant eligibility and constitutional hurdles in his bid for an upper-house seat. WikiLeaks last week (30 January) confirmed that Assange would “run on a WikiLeaks party ticket” after Prime Minister Julia Gillard called an election for 14 September. Graeme Orr (pictured), a professor who specialises in the law of politics at the University of Queensland, told Lawyers Weekly that he was approached by Assange’s lawyers last year to provide advice on a potential Senate bid by the controversial activist. Orr claimed Assange’s first hurdle is being eligible to stand, which, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, requires candidates to be registered to vote. “It is public knowledge that [Assange] is not on the electoral roll,” said Orr.