Michigan: Court Won’t Hear Appeal Over Sore Loser Law | Associated Press

The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal over Michigan’s sore loser law that kept Gary Johnson from appearing as a Libertarian presidential candidate on the state ballot after running in the Republican primary. The high court Monday refused to hear an appeal from Johnson and the Libertarian Party of Michigan. Johnson in the 2012 presidential election ran as a GOP presidential candidate in the primary, and then tried to run as the Libertarian presidential nominee.

Editorials: Courts should reject new law governing third parties in Ohio | Aaron Keith Harris/Cleveland Plain Dealer

Most Americans have a general sense that the Republican and Democrat parties have too much control over our political system and electoral process, but, for Ohio voters, Senate Bill 193 is a stark demonstration of just how ruthless those in power work to fend off challenges to the status quo. Passed earlier this month, and signed by Gov. Kasich, SB 193 removes all challenger parties from the Ohio ballot in 2014, and makes it more difficult for them to regain status as a recognized political party in Ohio. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Bill Seitz said he introduced the bill because Ohio had no election law in place for minor parties. This is true, having been the case since 2006 when a federal court declared Ohio minor party law unconstitutional in LPO v. Blackwell.

Ohio: Kasich signs bill on ballot access for minor parties | The Columbus Dispatch

With the Libertarian Party threatening a legal challenge, Gov. John Kasich signed a bill yesterday requiring minor political parties to collect about 28,000 signatures next year to be recognized in Ohio. And it wasn’t the only measure raising Democratic objections yesterday. The Senate passed a bill designed to establish uniform rules for the mailing of absentee-ballot applications. The bill on minor parties moved quickly. Republicans pushed to get it signed into law by the end of the day — so it would not take effect after the Feb. 5 filing deadline for 2014 candidates and give minor parties another legal argument to use against the law. Republicans argued the law is long overdue, filling a void left after the federal courts struck down Ohio’s prior minor-party law in 2006. Secretaries of state have been giving blanket recognition to a handful of minor parties since that ruling — and Speaker William G. Batchelder, R-Medina, said it was time to stop letting the courts and a statewide officeholder set Ohio’s election law.

Ohio: Controversial minor parties bill passes both House, Senate | The Columbus Dispatch

The House and Senate gave final approval today to a bill establishing new criteria for recognizing minor political parties in Ohio, and Gov. John Kasich is set to sign it tonight. Kevin Knedler, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, said the party is expected to file a lawsuit challenging the law by the end of the week. Meanwhile, the Senate also voted today for a bill designed to establish uniform rules for the mailing of absentee ballot applications. As recommended by Sen. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati minor parties would have to collect signatures equal to 0.5 percent of the total vote from the previous presidential election — about 28,000 signatures. Starting in 2015, the requirement would increase to 1 percent of the prior gubernatorial or presidential election. The House-passed version of the bill had set a more lenient 10,000 signatures next year, and then 0.5 percent after. The bill also requires that at least 500 signatures come from each of half of Ohio’s 16 congressional districts.

Colorado: State Election Law Once Again Challenged in Colorado Courts | Examiner.com

The Colorado Election Law, HB13-1303 Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act of 2013, passed in haste last legislative session on a straight party-line vote (the Senate sponsors of the bill, Angela Giron and John Morse, were subsequently removed from office in Colorado’s first legislative recall elections in state history) has once again been challenged in court. The Libertarian Party of Colorado, joined by several individual plaintiffs, filed suit in Denver District Court (Saturday, 2 November 2013) seeking to ensure that voters in this year’s coordinated (nonpartisan) municipal and special-district (including school board) elections were able to vote – and only able to vote – on those races for which they were eligible under state statute and the provisions of the Colorado Constitution.

National: Republicans target minor parties after election losses | Washington Post

Republican legislators and political activists in several red states are taking steps to make it harder for minor party candidates to make the ballot after a string of elections Democrats won with less than 50 percent of the vote. The Ohio legislature voted earlier this week to require minor parties to collect signatures of 1 percent of the number of voters who cast ballots in the last gubernatorial or presidential election. Libertarians and Green Party members complain that the rule — which would require them to gather about 56,000 signatures to make the 2014 ballot — sets an impossibly high standard. In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed legislation earlier this year to require candidates running for Congress to collect enough signatures to represent one-third of 1 percent of registered voters in their respective districts. That’s a 40-fold increase in the number of signatures Libertarian Party candidates would have to collect.

Colorado: Libertarian Party of Colorado sues for voting rights | Washington Times

The Libertarian Party of Colorado filed suit in Denver District Court Friday, seeking immediate relief from the inherent conflicts in and unlawful implementation of HB 1303, the Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act. It is also widely known as the Voter Fraud Bill for its “catch me if you can” approach to voting integrity. The suit claims that the new law disenfranchises voters because of the way it changes residency requirements. Since the requirements of the law conflict with local election codes, county clerks have implemented the law in different ways, making things even worse. The defendants in the case are Secretary of State Scott Gessler, county clerks Gilbert Ortiz (Pueblo County), Wayne Williams (El Paso), Jack Arrowsmith (Douglas), and Matt Crane (Arapahoe), representing a defendant class of all Colorado County Clerk & Recorders.

Editorials: Ohio Republicans should deep-six flawed measure on third-party access to ballot | Cleveland Plain Dealer

A misconceived Republican bill that would make it harder for third parties, such as the Libertarian Party or Green Party, to get on Ohio’s ballot has stalled at the Statehouse. That’s the good news. The bad news: A Senate-House conference committee could retool Senate Bill 193 to ease its passage later this year, when Ohioans are distracted preparing for holidays or bracing for winter. Federal courts ruled last decade that Ohio made it too hard for third parties to get on the ballot. Legislators never passed a replacement law, so court orders form today’s legal framework for third parties. Supposedly, Senate Bill 193 would fill a void. But if the status quo is a problem, someone needs to tell third parties.

Ohio: Legislative mix-up delays vote on controversial minor parties bill | Cleveland Plain Dealer

Efforts to fast-track controversial legislation that would change ballot-access rules for the state’s minor political parties were derailed Wednesday evening thanks to an apparent mistake in the bill’s wording. The Ohio Senate held off on approving Senate Bill 193 after language about petition requirements for parties such as the Libertarians and Greens was somehow omitted from the version passed by the Ohio House of Representatives earlier in the day. The House narrowly passed the measure after lengthy negotiations resulted in softened requirements for parties such as the Libertarians and the Greens to win and keep official recognition.

Ohio: Libertarians, ACLU team up to oppose “The John Kasich Re-election Protection Act” | Columbus Dispatch

Last week it appeared as if Sen. Bill Seitz and the Libertarian Party of Ohio were on the verge of a deal that would garner the party’s backing for a bill from the Cincinnati Republican revamping state law on minor political parties. But this afternoon the party issued a release saying it and the ACLU – brought on board earlier today — would be testifying against the measure Tuesday during a hearing of Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee. The Libertarians dubbed the bill “the John Kasich Re-election Protection Act.” “This is machine-style politics at its very worst,” said party Chair Kevin Knedler in the release. He noted the bill was introduced on the same day Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Charlie Earl kicked off his campaign last month. “Kasich has stabbed fiscal conservatives, tea party activists, and libertarian Republicans in the back several times, and he’s scared to death he’ll be out of a job when they exercise their democratic right to vote for a candidate they can trust to do what’s right for Ohio.”

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.

Colorado: State Supreme Court declines to hear recall appeal | The Denver Post

The Colorado Supreme Court on Thursday declined to hear an appeal that sought to throw out this week’s ruling by a Denver district judge that recast a pair of recall elections of state lawmakers. The decision means Monday’s ruling by District Judge Robert McGahey stands. McGahey agreed with arguments made by the Libertarian Party of Colorado that prospective candidates in the recall elections of Democratic Sens. John Morse of Colorado Springs and Angela Giron of Pueblo can petition onto the ballot up until 15 days before the Sept. 10 election.

Colorado: Recall Election Update: Libertarians Strike Back | The American Spectator

As I mentioned yesterday, the Libertarian Party of Colorado sued the State of Colorado to get more time to petition candidates on to the ballots to replace two state senators who are facing recall elections. It seemed to me that the Libertarians were likely to win because their argument was based squarely on the state constitution, even though a victory by them would through some chaos into the election, particularly by making it impossible to conduct a proper mail-in ballot election. Indeed, news reports say that despite the recent passage of a law that requires all major Colorado elections to be by mail, this election will not be. Yesterday, the judge in the case ruled for the Libertarians, meaning they will have until late August to try to submit enough valid signatures to have their candidates’ names appear on the ballot.

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.

North Carolina: Libertarians oppose more restrictions on right to vote | Examiner.com

The proposed Voter ID bill HB 589 will impose more restrictions on the right to vote and do great damage to the democratic process in North Carolina, the chair of the N.C. Libertarian Party said in a statement today. “Just when it didn’t seem possible that North Carolina’s election laws could get more restrictive, the Republican majority has come up with a massive bill that would make it even harder for people to vote,” said J.J. Summerell. He said that Republicans were using the excuse combating combat voter fraud, but were actually perpetrating a greater fraud on North Carolina voters under the guise of restoring “confidence in government. Republicans claim to be the party of limited government,” he said. “Now we see what that term really means: when Republicans say limited government, they apparently mean government limited to them and their supporters.”

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.

Arizona: Measure makes it tougher for 3rd-party candidates to reach ballot | East Valley Tribune

Contending one and maybe two congressional races were stolen from them, Republican legislators have approved a measure to finesse election laws to keep out the Libertarians who they say are taking votes from their candidates. The change, tucked into a much larger set of revisions to election laws, would sharply increase the number of signatures that Libertarian and Green Party candidates need just to get on the ballot for their own legislative and congressional primaries. Barry Hess, the Libertarian Party’s former candidate for governor, said in most cases the number of signatures required is far more than the number of people actually registered in most districts.

Arizona: Bill makes qualifying harder for minor-party candidates | AZ Central

Libertarians and Green Party candidates would be virtually cut off from running for office under new nominating-petition requirements in a bill now on Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk. Meanwhile, the legislation eases the number of signatures needed for Republican and Democratic candidates. On Tuesday, critics of the law said it’s a valentine for Republican candidates, who see third-party candidates, particularly Libertarians, as spoilers in races. The provision was tacked onto a wide-ranging election bill, House Bill 2305, one week before the Legislature adjourned. It passed on largely partyline votes in the closing hours of the session with the support of most Republicans and solid opposition from Democrats. On Tuesday, the minor-party officials said the bill, if signed, would cement the two parties’ hold on Arizona elections.

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.

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.

Arizona: Political parties united in dislike of Arizona’s top-two primaries | Mohave Daily News

They don’t agree on much, but a plan to create “top two” primaries has Arizona’s major and minor political parties on the same page – or at least close to it. Their responses range from outright opposition from Republican, Libertarian and Green leaders to noncommittal dislike from the Arizona Democratic Party. Proposition 121, dubbed the Open Elections/Open Government Act, would replace the current partisan primary system with a single primary that advances the top vote-getters regardless of party. The Open Government Committee, led by former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, contends the change would produce more moderate candidates and increase primary election turnout.

National: Lawsuit highlights difficulty of third-party involvement in debates | latimes.com

The participants if this year’s presidential debates are set – Republican nominee Mitt Romney will face off against President Obama in a matchup that’s been obvious for months. But there are still other presidential candidates, and one in particular is keen on elbowing his way into the debates. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson earlier this month filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates, claiming that the organization’s practices violate antitrust laws and alleging collusion between the commission and the country’s two dominant political parties. In the suit, Johnson and his campaign accuse the commission, along with the Republican and Democratic national committees, of a “conspiracy” to meet in secret and create the rules for the debates, excluding third-party candidates and participating in what the lawsuit contends is a “restraint of trade” violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Oklahoma: Court Explains Why State Officers of Americans Elect Cannot Nominate Presidential Electors | Ballot Access News

Here is the short decision of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court in Lawhorn v Ziriax, 2012 OK 78. The decision implies, but not does explicitly say, that qualified parties in Oklahoma cannot nominate presidential electors unless their party holds a national convention. This is based on an incidental part of the election law that says presidential elector candidates must take an oath to support the candidate chosen at that party’s national convention. The irony of this interpretation is that even if Americans Elect had gone ahead with its original plans, it never planned to nominate a presidential or vice-presidential candidate at a national convention. Instead, the party expected to nominate via an on-line vote of any registered voter in the nation who wished to participate.

Arizona: ‘Top 2′ primary can be on ballot, Arizona high court rules | Tucson Citizen

Voters will get a chance this fall to decide whether the state should replace its partisan-primary system with one in which all candidates would compete on a single ballot. The Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a hotly contested proposition to create a so-called top-two primary system can remain on the Nov. 6 ballot. The ruling came just one day before the hard deadline for printing the ballot, which will have nine propositions. The Open Elections/Open Government initiative, or Proposition 121, would change the current system — in which candidates are winnowed down through party primaries — to one in which all candidates for a given office appear on a single primary-election ballot. Party labels would be optional. The top-two finishers would then advance to the general election. The system would apply to all local, county, state and federal offices, except for presidential elections. Read the court’s ruling

Pennsylvania: Challenge Process of Libertarian Petition Pauses for Determination of Some Legal Issues | Ballot Access News

After almost three weeks of Pennsylvania state court proceedings in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, approximately 41,000 signatures on the Libertarian Pennsylvania statewide petition have been processed. There are still 8,500 unprocessed signatures. “Processed” means that both sides have looked at each processed signature, and either both sides agree that the signature is valid, or both sides agree it isn’t valid, or the two sides disagree. Many of the disagreements hinge on certain unresolved legal issues, such as whether a petition signature is valid if the signer put the month and day in the “date” column, but not the year. The printed forms all says “Revised January 2012″ at the bottom, so it is obvious that all the signatures were signed in 2012. But the challengers say those signatures aren’t valid.

Michigan: U.S. District Court Issues Decision Explaining Why Sore Loser Law Applies to Gary Johnson | Ballot Access News

On the afternoon of September 7, U.S. District Court Judge Paul D. Borman issued this25-page opinion in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Ruth Johnson, eastern district, 12-cv-12782. He had ruled the day before that the Libertarian Party has lost this case, but only on September 7 did his opinion explain why. The decision implies on page 17 that the precedent set in 1980 by John B. Anderson, who ran in Michigan’s presidential primary and also ran as a minor party nominee, doesn’t apply because Anderson’s name wasn’t on the Republican primary ballot in Michigan. But, that implication is mistaken. Anderson’s name did appear on the Republican presidential primary ballot in 1980 and his votes were counted. The decision says that the Michigan Supreme Court had removed Anderson’s name from the 1980 presidential primary ballot. Because this writer is on vacation, and has no access to his home files or a law library, this assertion must remain a mystery for a few days, unless someone else has more information.

Washington: Libertarian Party Files Lawsuit, Arguing Republican Party No Longer Meets the Definition of a Qualified Party | Ballot Access News

On August 15, the Washington state Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in state court in Thurston County, arguing that the Secretary of State is illegally treating the Republican Party as a qualified party, and that the Republican Party is not a qualified party. The case is Libertarian Party of Washington State v Reed, 12-2-01683-3. Here is the Complaint. The Complaint points out that the Republican Party had no nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010, whereas the Democratic Party did have a nominee. Because Washington state uses the top-two system, the process by which the Democratic Party obtained a nominee was by action of its 2010 state convention. The Democratic state convention chose Patty Murray, the incumbent. The Republican Party 2010 state convention, faced with a contest between two Republicans, Dino Rossi and Clint Didier, decided to remain neutral and made no nomination and no endorsement.

Virginia: U.S. judge strikes down State law on ballot petitions | Richmond Times-Dispatch

A federal judge has struck down a Virginia law that allows only state residents to circulate petitions to get presidential candidates on the general election ballot. U.S. District Judge John Gibney ruled Monday in favor of the Libertarian Party of Virginia. He said the restriction severely burdens the party’s freedom of speech and is not narrowly tailored to promote a compelling state interest.