Subject: [EL] thanks to everybody who chimed in on the meaning of that sentence
From: Richard Winger
Date: 4/27/2011, 10:53 AM
To: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>, "David A. Holtzman" <David@HoltzmanLaw.com>
Reply-to:
"richardwinger@yahoo.com"

I e-mailed every Florida legislator an individual e-mail (my aching wrists), but not about this problem.  I pointed out that the Florida constitution since 1998 has said, "Article 6, section one.  The requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate's name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters."

Now that is a clear sentence.  And I pointed out that HB 1355, by requiring the presidential candidate of a new party, to submit a petition of about 335,000 signatures (with 10,000 from each of 14 US House districts), whereas the Democratic Party nominee needs zero signatures, violates the Florida Constitution (the Democratic Party has the largest number of registered voters in Florida).

Does anyone think I am wrong when I say the bill contradicts the Florida Constitution?  The bill doesn't say "new parties"; it says parties not recognized by the FEC as national committees.  But the FEC won't give "national committee" status to a party until after it has been through a presidential election.  It wouldn't give the Green Party that status until it had been through two presidential elections, and it wouldn't give it to the Reform Party until that party was three years old.

--- On Tue, 4/26/11, David A. Holtzman <David@HoltzmanLaw.com> wrote:

From: David A. Holtzman <David@HoltzmanLaw.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] what do people understand this sentence to mean?
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Cc: "Richard Winger" <richardwinger@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 11:23 PM

It's not a statute yet.  It's proposed statutory language in a bill that is still in the legislature.
Perhaps Richard could get in touch with the legislature and suggest that the word "calendar" be removed from "calendar year" to remove the ambiguity.  - dah

On 4/26/2011 5:42 PM, Jon Roland wrote:
That would not be a "general" election contemplated by the statute framers, on which the nominees of parties appear with their party affiliations indicated, and there are nomination primaries or conventions at which cross-over or nonaffiliate participation is to be excluded. A special election in January would almost necessarily have to be nonpartisan, since there would not be time for parties to conduct a nomination process.

On 04/26/2011 06:33 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote: 
what about a special election held in January?
-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david@holtzmanlaw.com

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.