Republican U.S. House Members From Top-Two States Vote Similarly to Other Republicans in Key Vote on Hurricane Relief

The most powerful backers of the top-two system in California consistently argued that if California passed the top-two voter measure in June 2010, the type of Republicans elected would change, from “extremists” to “moderates.” These backers included the Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and almost all of the state’s largest newspapers.

On the evening of January 15, the U.S. House voted on whether to increase the Hurricane Sandy relief fund from $17 billion to $50 billion. The Senate had already passed the $50 billion figure, which included $20 billion to repair bridges and roads, $4 for the Army Corps of Engineers, and $6.5 billion for the disaster relief fund. The roll call vote on increasing the bill to $50 billion passed narrowly, with virtual unanimous Democratic support, and the votes of some Republicans. Among the Republicans in the House, the vote on this amendment, the Freylinghuysen amendment, was 38 “yes”; 190 “no”; and 4 not voting.

Among the 24 Republicans in the House from top-two states, the vote was 4 “yes”; 19 “no”; and one not voting. For the entire roll call, see here. The ratio of “yes” votes to “no” votes for Republicans from the top-two states was virtually identical to the ratio of “yes” and “no” votes for all Republicans in the House.

Nothing in this blog post should be taken as expressing any opinion on whether the Freylinghuysen is good public policy or bad public policy. Nor should anything in this blog post be taken to indicate agreement with the terms “extremist” or “moderate” as applied to members of Congress. The purpose of this post is to rebut the idea, pushed by so many influential Californians in 2010, that the top-two system was a magic device to change the behavior of California’s politicians. Only one of the fifteen California Republican U.S. House members, Jeff Denham, voted for the Freylinghuysen amendment.

Montana Legislative Hearing on Election Law Bill Goes Well

On January 16, the Montana House State Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 120, the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill. The Committee won’t vote on the bill for several days. The bill contains several ballot access improvements: (1) it moves the non-presidential independent candidate deadline from March to May; (2) it lets all qualified parties hold a primary if more than a single candidate files for any office in that party’s primary; (3) it eases the requirements on who can be an independent candidate for President and Vice-President. No one testified against any part of the bill, and no legislator objected to any of these changes. The deadline change is required because the old deadline was held unconstitutional last year.

Niki Zupanic (the ACLU lobbyist), and activist Steve Kelly both testified that the deadline portion of the bill should be amended to set the non-presidential independent candidate deadline later than May. The Secretary of State and her top policy assistants were at the hearing and indicated willingness to have the bill amended, so that the deadline would be in mid-July. The bill’s sponsor said she is willing to make any changes to the bill on this point that the Secretary of State requests.

New Hampshire Legislative Committee Hears Testimony For and Against Restoring the Straight-Ticket Device

On January 15, a New Hampshire House Committee heard testimony for and against a bill to restore straight-ticket voting. See this account of the hearing. The story does not mention any witness who raise the point that if enacted, the bill would only give a straight-ticket device to parties that had polled 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator in the last election, and would not give a straight-ticket device to groups that had completed the party petition.

Americans Elect Has One Registrant in Oklahoma

On January 15, the Oklahoma Election Board released a new statewide registration tally. See this story. One person in the state is registered “Americans Elect.” Americans Elect is no longer a qualified party in Oklahoma, because Oklahoma removes parties from the ballot if they fail to poll 10% for the office at the top of the ballot (president in presidential years, governor in midterm years). However, because the Libertarian Party won a lawsuit against Oklahoma in 1998 (Atherton v Ward), voters are permitted to register into parties that recently went off the ballot.

So although all 18 Americans Elect registrants from 2012 were automatically converted to independent voters at the end of last year, voters are free to register Americans Elect during 2013 and 2014, and one person in Comanche County has done so. But assuming Americans Elect does not re-qualify in 2014, after the November 2014 election, the Americans Elect registrants will again be converted to independents.

Oklahomans who wish to send a message that they are unhappy about their limited political options might join the lone voter in Comanche County, and, like him or her, also re-register into the Americans Elect Party.

York Daily Record Article on Legal Status of Pennsylvania Libertarian Party

The Daily Record of York, Pennsylvania, has this article explaining the legal status of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party. Because, in 2012, the party met the vote test for “political party” status, it has a few advantages, as the story explains. In particular, for an upcoming special legislative election, the Libertarian Party can choose a nominee without any need for a petition.

Until 1986, if a party in Pennsylvania met the 2% vote test and became a “party”, that meant it was automatically on the ballot for all partisan office. But in 1986 the legislature passed a law that said parties are not automatically on the ballot in regularly-scheduled elections unless they have registration membership of at least 15% of the state total (which would be over 1,000,000 registered voters). If that law were in effect in Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Utah, or Idaho, one or the other of the two major parties would not be on the ballot.

The 1986 law change did not change procedures for special elections.