[EL] US Supreme Court in past hasn't hesitated to add names to ballots very close to an election
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Oct 14 11:04:44 PDT 2014
I don't think ordering names on or off a ballot raises the same election
administration issues as the kinds of changes at issue in the OH, WI, TX
and NC cases---though certainly there may be a risk of voter confusion
in both types of cases.
On 10/13/14, 5:36 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
> Four times, the US Supreme Court has ordered that names of certain
> candidates and parties be added to a general election ballot very
> close to that election.
>
> In Norman v Reed, 502 US 279 (1992), the Court ordered that the Harold
> Washington Party be added to the November 1990 ballots in Cook County,
> on October 25, 1990. That was only 12 days before election day
> (November 6, 1990). Cook County had to reprint 3,000,000 ballots.
>
> In Hadnott v Amos, 394 US 358 (1969), the Court ordered several
> Alabama counties to add the nominees of a predominantly black
> political party on October 19, 1968. That was only 17 days before
> election day of November 5, 1968. The parties were called the
> "Lowndes County Freedom Association" (and similar names in different
> counties).
>
> In McCarthy v Briscoe, 429 US 1317 (1976), the Court ordered Texas to
> put independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy on the ballot,
> after the 5th circuit had kept him off. The US Supreme Court order
> came on September 30, 1976, only 33 days before election day of
> November 2, 1976.
>
> In Davis v Adams, 400 US 1203 (1970), the Court ordered Florida to
> print the name of a Democratic candidate on the Democratic primary
> ballot. The order came on August 5, 1970, and the primary was
> September 8, 1970, a duration of only 34 days. This was a filing fee
> case and the Florida Supreme Court had earlier kept the candidate off.
>
> The Fifth Circuit itself put Eugene McCarthy on the Florida ballot on
> October 7, 1976, only 26 days before the election of November 2. Back
> then the Eleventh Circuit didn't exist and Florida was in the Fifth
> Circuit.
>
> A U.S. District Court in Mississippi used the Voting Rights Act to put
> a candidate on the Mississippi general election ballot only 13 days
> before the election, and in Allen v State Board of Elections, 393 US
> 544 (1969), the US Supreme Court said the US District Court had done
> the right thing. The Mississippi US District Court order was on
> October 26, 1966, and the election was November 8, 1966.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *To:* "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:07 AM
> *Subject:* [EL] Justice Alito’s Disturbing Statement in Wisconsin
> Voter ID Case
>
>
> Justice Alito’s Disturbing Statement in Wisconsin Voter ID Case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66784>
>
> Posted onOctober 13, 2014 1:06 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66784>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> Last week <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66601>the Supreme Courtvoted
> 6-3<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A352-Wisconsin-voting-order-10-9-14.pdf>to
> stop ahorrendous <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66413>7th Circuit
> court order allowing Wisconsin to immediately put its voter id law
> into effect. Regardless of where you stand on the desirability of
> voter id laws (I oppose these tough state laws but support a national
> voter id program coupled with universal voter registration done by the
> federal government with the government picking up all costs of
> verifying identity), the Supreme Court made the right call. Wisconsin
> had an 8 month plan to implement ID which was going to have to be done
> within 8 weeks; the state conceded that up to 10 percent of eligible
> voters might not be able to get ID in time for the election; and the
> parties agreed that some WI voters born out of state who had to get
> out of state birth certificates were going to have a very difficult
> time getting their documentation in time. On top of that, there were
> absentee voters who had already voted before the ID law was in effect,
> and they were going to be disenfranchised unless they followed up with
> getting additional documentation to WI election officials in time.
> Faced with all of this, the majority put WI’s voter id law on hold for
> this election, so that it may be rolled out in a smoother way over
> time. But Justice Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas,
> dissented. They seemed to acknowledge the disenfranchising risks and
> the “Purcell principle
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/supreme_court_voting_rights_decisions_contradictions_in_wisconsin_ohio_north.html>”
> that courts should not change election rules just before an election,
> but they saw a bigger principle at stake:
>
> There is a colorable basis for the Court’s decision due to the
> proximity of the upcoming general election. It is particularly
> troubling that absentee ballots have been sent out without any
> notation that proof of photo identification must be submitted. But
> this Court “may not vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals
> unless that court clearly and‘demonstrably’ erred in its
> application of ‘accepted standards.’”/Planned Parenthood of
> Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs./v/. Abbott/, 571 U. S. ___,
> ___ (2013) (slip op., at 1) (SCALIA, J., concurring in denial of
> application to vacate stay) (quoting/Western Airlines,
> Inc./v./Teamsters/, 480 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1987) (O’Connor, J., in
> chambers);some internal quotation marks omitted). Under that test,
> the application in this case should be denied.
>
> The bigger principle Justice Alito recognizes is deference to the
> Court of Appeals. Of course, the Supreme Court showed no deference in
> Purcell itself, when the Ninth Circuit issued a stay stopping use of
> Arizona’s law. No deference to the Courts of Appeal in the Ohio or
> North Carolina cases either, both cases in which Courts expanded
> voting rights. So why deference here? Because the 7th Circuit was
> clearly right? Well that’s belied by the 7th Circuit’s 5-5 split over
> whether to rehear the Wisconsin case en banc.
> Further, why should a principle of deference which is applied as a
> matter of equity trump the actuality, and not merely the risk, of
> voter disenfranchisement in Wisconsin? Simply put, Justices Alito,
> Scalia and Thomas do not value the right to vote as strongly as the
> other members of the Court (which is also shown in their separate
> opinion in the 2008 Crawford Indiana voter id case, where Justice
> Scalia wrote for these Justices that so long as most people would not
> be disenfranchised by a voter id law, then no one could challenge that
> law—even those people who would have special difficulty getting an ID.)
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66784&title=Justice%20Alito%E2%80%99s%20Disturbing%20Statement%20in%20Wisconsin%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> --
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> 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
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141014/cb0db689/attachment.html>
View list directory