[EL] Pennsylvania Circulator Residency Victory!
Flavio Komuves
fkomuves at optonline.net
Sun Feb 23 08:59:17 PST 2014
Some further comment on this matter:
In response to the constitutional challenge in Villa v. Aichele, Civ. A.
No. 13-6374 (E.D. Pa. filed Nov. 1, 2013), the Secretary of State of
Pennsylvania, on the advice of the Attorney General, decided to
“suspend” and “cease enforcing” 25 P.S. § 2869, a law restricting the
residency of petition circulators for major-party candidates in
Pennsylvania to registered voters from the “political district.”
Pennsylvania’s decision to suspend and cease enforcing the geographical
restrictions of 25 P.S. § 2869, which deals with major-party candidates,
thus expands the rule announced twelve years ago in Morrill v. Weaver,
224 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Pa. 2002), that independent candidates’
petition circulators are not limited to those residing in the same
political district as the candidate. In sum, from the perspective of
the chief state election official, all sub-State geographical
restrictions on petition circulators in Pennsylvania have been done
away with.
The Secretary of State has cautioned candidates that
although she surrendered on the issue, the Commonwealth Court, the
state tribunal that rules on petition challenges, is not bound by her
determination. Indeed, after Morrill, the Pennsylvania state courts had
repeatedly opted not to follow its ruling, saying that were not bound by
it. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Stevenson, 40 A.3d 1212
(Pa. 2012), made clear while this is technically accurate, state courts
should as a general matter follow federal judgments on the
constitutionality of election laws, at least on comity grounds, and
specifically directed the courts to follow Morrill.
Our view is that the state courts' reluctance to follow federal guidance
in Morrill had much to do with the fact that the entity issuing the
guidance was a federal, rather than a state one. Here, the guidance is
issued by the highest state officials. The risk that the state courts
will disregard guidance was issued by a state official is, in our view,
much less than the risk they would not follow the decision of a federal
official. Indeed, we view that risk as being so low that it warranted
the dismissal of Villa v. Aichele. As I understand it, candidates and
parties are accepting out-of-district circulators as volunteers in this
cycle. And this is understandable given the case history. While the
State has not opted to post the earlier correspondence that led to that
dismissal, it has been lodged with the federal court as part of the
dismissal papers, and I can provide a copy to anyone that wants it.
While few things can ever be said to be truly "finally resolved," we
view the issue as having been actually litigated and finally resolved,
at least to the extent that any issue can be said to meet those
characteristics. If the state courts decline to follow the AG's
determination in Villa v. Aichele, which determination led to the
dismissal of federal litigation, that is going to create possibly
insurmountable difficulties down the line for settling any case with
Pennsylvania. That is, how can people ever settle a case in the future
with the enforcing officials if there is evidence the state courts will
not honor that resolution. I just do not see it as a plausible outcome;
it would be too embarrassing and dishonorable for more than one branch
of the Commonwealth's government and would make any kind of settlement
negotiations virtually impossible.
My firm represented Plaintiff in the case. Again, if anyone would like
a copy of the full exchange of papers that led to the resolution of this
litigation, please contact me.
Flavio Komuves
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 08:06 AM, Adam Bonin wrote:
While the PA Department of State has confirmed that it no longer
believes the in-district circulator residency requirement is
constitutional and has revised the petition forms to reflect this – see
more here, including the PA Attorney General’s letter on
constitutionality
http://dos.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/information/12709/nomination_petitions_-_circulator_residency/1717287
<http://dos.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/information/12709/nomination_petitions_-_circulator_residency/1717287>
-- they’ve also taken efforts to remind candidates that the statute
itself still contains this requirement, and that if this issue is
presented in Court it might be still be deemed operative: “it remains
possible that individual qualified electors may file objections to
nomination petitions in court on the basis that a circulator does not
reside in the district as required by section 909 of the Election Code.”
I know that at the petition trainings held at the recent state
committee meetings of the PA GOP and the PA Democratic Party, the advice
provided to candidates was to not be dependent upon such signatures for
ballot access, that the ability to have a likely constitutional victory
captioned as In re Nomination Petitions of (You) should be deemed less
alluring than surviving this process without litigation. So we’ll see
if this actually does get litigated this cycle, and the issue finally
resolved.
As to Richard’s post, and I know it’s been mentioned on this list before
(see
http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-November/008141.html
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-November/008141.html>
and other posts in that thread), but the 2010 Pia Varma litigation did
not regard a candidate whose sole issue was the use of out-of-district
circulators as he posits. Because Varma did not appear for her
Commonwealth Court hearing, despite proper service, the objectors only
presented enough testimony (including on the out-of-district
circulators) to demonstrate she didn’t meet the 1,000 signature
threshold (having submitted 1,138). Among other defects, there were an
additional 275 signatures that are invalid based upon the signer (a) not
being a registered voter; (b) not being a registered Republican; or (c)
not being registered to vote within the First Congressional District –
and often a combination of (a) or (b) with (c).
Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002 (w)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
(267) 242-5014 (c)
adam at boninlaw.com <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>
http://www.boninlaw.com <http://www.boninlaw.com/>
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:40 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/23/14
No, Justice Thomas is Not a “Disgrace”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58961>
Posted on February 23, 2014 4:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58961> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I am truly puzzled by Jeffrey Toobin’s blog post
<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/clarence-thomas-disgraceful-silence.html>
in the New Yorker, which goes after Justice Thomas for his silence at
oral argument.
Michael McGough
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-silence-20140221,0,1703665.story>
makes most of the salient points rebutting Toobin. But I will just add
this: Justices should be judged primarily by their opinions. This is the
place in which the Justices’ views are translated into legal binding
pronouncements, or into well thought-out arguments that the Court has
headed off in the wrong direction.
Judging Justice Thomas primarily by his opinions, there is no good
argument that Justice Thomas is a “disgrace.” Quite the opposite. As
Toobin acknowledges, “For better or worse, Thomas has made important
contributions to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. He has imported
once outré conservative ideas, about such issues as gun rights under the
Second Amendment and deregulation of political campaigns, into the
mainstream. Scalia wrote District of Columbia v. Heller, which
restricted gun control, and Kennedy wrote Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin> ,
which undermined decades of campaign-finance law, but Thomas was an
intellectual godfather of both decisions.”
Indeed, I have written an extensive analysis
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/009463.html> of Justice Thomas’s
leadership in conservative thinking in the campaign finance area. There
is virtually nothing Justice Thomas and I agree upon in this area. But
his ideas are respectable, and the intellectual heft in his opinions
formidable.
Even if we were going to focus on oral arguments (which we should not),
how is Justice Thomas any more “disgraceful” at oral argument than
Justice Ginsburg napping
<http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/how_does_a_lady_get_any_sleep.php?page=all>
or Justice Scalia deriding a litigant
<http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-chastises-lawyer-for-reading-from-his-notes-2014-1>
for reading his opening at oral argument?
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58961&title=No%2C%20Justice%20Thomas%20is%20Not%20a%20%E2%80%9CDisgrace%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Will Justice Stevens Call for a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn
Citizens United? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58958>
Posted on February 23, 2014 4:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58958> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Howard <http://howappealing.law.com/022214.html#055079> comes news
of a forthcoming book from Justice Stevens, Six Amendments: How and Why
We Should Change the Constitution.
<http://www.amazon.com/Six-Amendments-Should-Change-Constitution/dp/0316373729/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=>
Early coverage concerns Justice Stevens’ calls to change the Second
Amendment. I am curious to see what he has to say about the First and
campaign finance (and he may have other election law issues in there
too, such as dealing with partisan gerrymandering).
I have been skeptical
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293979> of proposed
amendments to overturn Citizens United.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58958&title=Will%20Justice%20Stevens%20Call%20for%20a%20Constitutional%20Amendment%20to%20Overturn%20Citizens%20United%3F&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> ,
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Nowadays, people think ‘House of Cards’ is a documentary”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58956>
Posted on February 22, 2014 7:50 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58956> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Great Jack Pitney quote
<http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-calderon-elections-20140223,0,1296941.story#axzz2u6zi1Cb2>
in LA Times on Wright, Calderon controversies.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58956&title=%E2%80%9CNowadays%2C%20people%20think%20%E2%80%98House%20of%20Cards%E2%80%99%20is%20a%20documentary%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> , chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Husted: BOE can move, but locals choose early voting site”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58952>
Posted on February 22, 2014 6:58 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58952> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201402212113/NEWS010602/302210123>
from Ohio.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58952&title=%E2%80%9CHusted%3A%20BOE%20can%20move%2C%20but%20locals%20choose%20early%20voting%20site%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58950>
Posted on February 22, 2014 6:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58950> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Fang
<http://www.thenation.com/article/178460/shadow-lobbying-complex?page=full>
in The Nation:
On paper, the lobbying industry is quickly disappearing. In January,
records indicated that for a third straight year, overall spending on
lobbying decreased. Lobbyists themselves continue to deregister. In
2013, the number of registered lobbyists dipped to 12,281, the lowest
number on file since 2002.
But experts say that lobbying isn’t dying; instead, it’s simply going
underground. The problem, says American University professor James
Thurber, who has studied congressional lobbying for more than thirty
years, is that “most of what is going on in Washington is not covered”
by the lobbyist-registration system. Thurber, who is currently advising
the American Bar Association’s lobbying-reform task force, adds that his
research suggests the true number of working lobbyists is closer to
100,000.
A loophole-ridden law, poor enforcement, the development of increasingly
sophisticated strategies that enlist third-party validators and create
faux-grassroots campaigns, along with an Obama administration executive
order that gave many in the profession a disincentive to register—all of
these forces have combined to produce a near-total collapse of the
system that was designed to keep tabs on federal lobbying.
While the official figure puts the annual spending on lobbying at $3.2
billion in 2013, Thurber estimates that the industry brings in more than
$9 billion a year. Other experts have made similar estimates, but no one
is sure how large the industry has become. Lee Drutman, a lobbying
expert at the Sunlight Foundation, says that at least twice as much is
spent on lobbying as is officially reported.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58950&title=%E2%80%9CWhere%20Have%20All%20the%20Lobbyists%20Gone%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> , lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Court dismisses challenge to Arizona congressional maps”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58948>
Posted on February 22, 2014 6:53 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58948> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AZ Star:
<http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/court-dismisses-challenge-to-arizona-congressional-maps/article_21fdc2eb-ea94-556d-a5db-1d5cb9b1e329.html>
Arizona voters have a constitutional right to wrest control of drawing
congressional boundaries from the Legislature, a federal court ruled
late Friday.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow acknowledged the arguments by Peter
Gentala, an attorney for the Republican-controlled Legislature, that the
U.S. Constitution spells out that the “times, places and manner” of
electing members of Congress “shall be prescribed in each state by the
Legislature thereof.”
UPDATE: You can find the 14 page majority opinion and four page partial
dissent embedded in this story
<http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/21/gop-lawmakers-challenge-to-az-redistricting-commissions-existence-tossed/>
at the Arizona Capitol Times. This case is subject to direct appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58948&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20dismisses%20challenge%20to%20Arizona%20congressional%20maps%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58946>
Posted on February 22, 2014 6:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58946> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“People like you, Hasen, are destroying our democracy.”
–A reader commen
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-next-citizens-united-could-bring-more-corruption--but-less-gridlock/2014/02/21/a190d1c6-95ab-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_allComments.html?ctab=all_&>
t on my Washington Post Sunday Outlook piece on McCutcheon, More
Corruption, Less Gridlock.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-next-citizens-united-could-bring-more-corruption--but-less-gridlock/2014/02/21/a190d1c6-95ab-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58946&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> ,
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Calderon indictment could affect other races, supermajority”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58944>
Posted on February 21, 2014 6:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58944> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This CA news
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-calderon-indictment-could-impact-other-races-supermajority-20140221,0,80263.story#axzz2u0kM7Wgw>
was expected, but it is still BIG.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58944&title=%E2%80%9CCalderon%20indictment%20could%20affect%20other%20races%2C%20supermajority%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54> , chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> , conflict of interest laws
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>
“Redistricting Reform in the South”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58942>
Posted on February 21, 2014 6:22 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58942> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New FairVote report.
<http://www.fairvote.org/research-reports/redistricting-reform-in-the-south/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58942&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20Reform%20in%20the%20South%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63> , redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Pennsylvania Circulator Residency Victory”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58940>
Posted on February 21, 2014 6:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58940> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ballot Access News reports
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/02/pennsylvania-circulator-residency-victory/>
.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58940&title=%E2%80%9CPennsylvania%20Circulator%20Residency%20Victory%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62> ,
petition signature gathering <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39> ,
residency <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>
“Four things the District can try to send election turnout through the
roof” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58938>
Posted on February 21, 2014 6:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58938> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Norm Ornstein
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/four-things-the-district-can-try-to-send-election-turnout-through-the-roof/2014/02/21/6ae5efe6-9365-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html>
has good ideas, as always.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58938&title=%E2%80%9CFour%20things%20the%20District%20can%20try%20to%20send%20election%20turnout%20through%20the%20roof%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“How ‘the next Citizens United’ could bring more corruption — but less
gridlock” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58936>
Posted on February 21, 2014 11:18 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58936> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have written this piece
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-next-citizens-united-could-bring-more-corruption--but-less-gridlock/2014/02/21/a190d1c6-95ab-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html>
for the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post. It begins:
An opinion could come as early as this coming week in the Supreme Court
case being called “the next Citizens United,” and groups concerned about
the influence of money in American politics are bracing themselves for
the result. Public Citizen has planned more than 100 events
<http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4082> across
the country in anticipation of a McCutcheon v. Federal Election
Commission
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-case-could-give-wealthy-donors-more-latitude-in-elections/2013/10/03/26a66d82-2ad4-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html>
ruling that further dismantles our campaign finance laws and strikes
down a key federal campaign contribution limit.
I, too, am troubled by the prospect of an awful decision that would
clear the way for more corruption. But I find some solace in the thought
that such a ruling could have a surprising positive side effect:
reducing gridlock in Washington.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D58936&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20%E2%80%98the%20next%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%99%20could%20bring%20more%20corruption%20%E2%80%94%20but%20less%20gridlock%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
-- Rick HasenChancellor's Professor of Law and Political ScienceUC
Irvine School of Law401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000Irvine, CA
92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu
<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
<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/20140223/83f3787a/attachment.html>
View list directory