[EL] Breaking News (Perry lawsuit against Va); more news
Richard Winger
richardwinger at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 27 16:28:13 PST 2011
Nevertheless, Ralph Nader was put on the ballot in two states in 2000 after he complained about the out-of-state circulator ban, and he hadn't submitted the full required number of signatures in either case (Illinois and West Virginia).
Other instances when a minor party or an independent presidential candidate complained about a restriction other than the number of signatures, and did not submit the number of signatures, and still got put on the ballot, include: (1) in 1984 the 9th circuit put the Populist Party on the ballot in Idaho. The party had complained about the county distribution requirement and the early deadline, and the court ordered the party on to the ballot even though it had only gathered a few hundred signatures and the requirement was over 10,000; (2) in 1982 a US District Court put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Kansas, even though it hadn't submitted any petition at all, and had no case against the number of signatures, but instead was complaining about the restriction that no one could circulate outside his or her precinct; (3) in 1986 a US District Court put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Nevada, even though the petition it submitted was
nowhere hear enough signatures and the party had no claim against the number of signatures, just the early petition deadline; (4) in 2008 and again in 2010, US District Courts in Ohio put multiple minor parties on the ballot even though they hadn't petitioned and had no claim against the number of signatures, just the early deadline; (5) in 1984, a US District Court put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Oklahoma, even though it hadn't collected even one-third of the needed signatures and even though it had no claim against the number of signatures; the only claim was that the 3-month petitioning period was too short.
Also there were several states in 1976 in which Eugene McCarthy was put on the ballot by court order, even though he had not submitted any petition; his complaint was that the state had no procedure for independent presidential candidates, but one could have made the argument that he should have submitted the petition that would have been required for independent candidates for office other than President.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
--- On Tue, 12/27/11, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking News (Perry lawsuit against Va); more news
To: "Fredric Woocher" <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 27, 2011, 4:12 PM
It is
worse than that Fred: it appears Perry did not even submit
10,000 signatures total:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-fails-to-qualify-for-va-ballot/2011/12/23/gIQAnqKWEP_story.html
Perry’s campaign
told state election officials that 11,911 signatures were
provided, but a Republican familiar with the situation said
that the Texas governor did not submit the required 10,000.
On 12/27/2011 4:05 PM, Fredric Woocher wrote:
Can someone with
more knowledge of the facts in Virginia clarify the
following for me:
Did Perry (or
Gingrich) submit signatures gathered by out-of-state
circulators and have those signatures disqualified in
sufficient numbers to have resulted in the petitions not
qualifying, or is the claim simply that they would have
been able to submit more signatures if the allegedly
unconstitutional restriction had not existed and they had
not abided by it?
Perry's complaint
seems to be ambiguous in this regard (probably
intentionally), but If the claim is the latter, then I
think the issue isn't just one of laches, but of a failure
to state a claim, since he has not in fact submitted a
sufficient number of signatures by the prescribed
deadline. On the other hand, if the claim is the former
-- that signatures were wrongly disqualified pursuant to
an unconstitutional condition imposed on the circulators
-- then I don't believe laches should be a valid defense:
the claim was brought the moment it became ripe in that
the injury was caused by enforcing the unconstitutional
restriction.
Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser &
Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire
Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA
90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com
(310) 576-1233
From:
law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On
Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 3:43 PM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: [EL] Breaking News (Perry lawsuit against Va);
more news
Breaking
News: Rick Perry Files Suit to Get on Va. Ballot
Posted
on December 27, 2011 3:40 pm by Rick
Hasen
You can access the complaint here.
The complaint focuses on Virginia’s ban on out-of-state
circulators of petitions. As I told
the Washington Post in connection with a possible
suit by Newt Gingrich on the same grounds, such a suit now
faces long odds both legally and politically. The initial
hurdle is one of laches, the failure to bring suit
before filing time. This is an emergency of
Perry’s (and Gingrich’s) own making. Surely they knew of
the requirement earlier.
I fully expect the defendants to raise the laches defense.
On the merits (should a court reach it), the courts are
mixed on the residency requirement for petition circulators,
though there is law that could help Perry. Perhaps most
relevant is this in-chambers
opinion of Chief Justice Roberts in Lux v.
Rodrigues. The Chief found that a related aspect of
Virginia’s law could well be unconstitutional under recent
Supreme Court precedent, and that Fourth Circuit authority
to the contrary may no longer be good law, but he still
denied the complaining candidate extraordinary injunctive
relief.
Posted
in ballot
access, primaries
| Comments Off
“The
Canvass: Special Edition: Expert Predictions for 2012″
Posted
on December 27, 2011 1:05 pm by Rick
Hasen
Here.
Posted
in election
administration | Comments
Off
“Provoking
a Virginia election law legal battle: How Gingrich and Perry
could still get on the Virginia primary ballot”
Posted
on December 27, 2011 12:42 pm by Rick
Hasen
The Northern Virginia Lawyer blogs.
Posted
in ballot
access, primaries
| Comments Off
Toobin on South Carolina and Preclearance
Posted
on December 27, 2011 12:34 pm by Rick
Hasen
Here,
at the New Yorker‘s Daily Comment blog.
I will have more to say on South Carolina and the VRA soon.
Posted
in voter id, Voting
Rights Act |
Comments Off
“Absentee Ballots Key to Florida Primary”
Posted
on December 27, 2011 11:03 am by Rick
Hasen
Miami
Herald: “More Florida Republicans — about
370,000 — already have requested absentee ballots for the
Jan. 31 primary than the number of Republicans who voted in
the 2008 Iowa and New Hampshire contests combined.”
Posted
in absentee
ballots |
Comments Off
“D.C.
panel issues decision defining preclearance standards”
Posted
on December 27, 2011 11:01 am by Rick
Hasen
This
item appears at the Kuff’s World blog of the Houston
Chronicle.
Posted
in redistricting, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
“How
the Virginia Republican Party Could Expand Voter Choice in its
2012 Presidential Primary”
Posted
on December 27, 2011 10:59 am by Rick
Hasen
Richard Winger explains.
Posted
in primaries | Comments
Off
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111227/c29cd8dc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111227/c29cd8dc/attachment.png>
View list directory