[EL] grounds for Gingrich and/or Perry to sue for Virginia ballot access

[Bonin, Adam C.]

Would Perry or Gingrich be able to make the factual averments which were made in the West Virginia case? Nader, unlike the instant candidates, had much experience with ballot access operations. From that opinion:

"In an affidavit submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Todd Main, Field Director of Ralph Nader's Presidential Campaign, averred that the Nader campaign did not use its regular, experienced circulators, many from other states who obviously were not registered to vote in West Virginia, in an attempt to comply with West Virginia law. Main asserts that had the Nader Campaign been permitted to utilize their experienced circulators who were not registered voters, those circulators could have obtained 150 signatures each a day and could have easily obtained valid signatures in excess of 12,730. Main also attests West Virginia's two (2) percent signature requirement is one of the most burdensome in the country."

--Adam Bonin

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Richard Winger [richardwinger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 12:20 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] grounds for Gingrich and/or Perry to sue for Virginia ballot access

Either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich or both are free to sue Virginia State Board of Elections over the Virginia state law that wouldn't let out-of-state circulators work on their presidential primary petitions.

In 2000, Ralph Nader won injunctive relief against Illinois and West Virginia, after complaining that his petitions might have succeeded without the ban on out-of-state circulators.  The Nader decision isn't reported but was Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Illinois State Board of Elections, northern district, 00-cv-4401.  The West Virginia case is reported and is Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Hechler, 112 F Supp 2d 575 (s.d. W.V. 2000).

The US Supreme Court decision from 1999, Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, suggests that bans on out-of-state circulators are unconstitutional, although it didn't settle that issue completely.  It did strike down a Colorado law that said circulators must be registered voters.  525 US 182.  Since then, bans on out-of-state circulators have been thrown out in the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th circuits, and in lesser courts in certain states not in those particular circuits.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
________________________________
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
________________________________
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.