Paul Jacob, head of Citizens in Charge, which works to protect and expand the initiative process, has this column in Fox and Hounds. The column pokes fun at the California bills to force everyone who circulates an initiative, referendum or recall petition to wear large badges on their chests. Thanks to Tom Jones for the link.
The Economist has this article about the upcoming British vote on Instant Runoff Voting (called Alternative Voting in Britain, or “AV” for short). Toward the end of the article, one reads that the University of Essex studied exit polls and opinion polls from the last election, and predicted what would have happened if Britain had been using IRV in that election.
The actual results were: Conservative 305 seats, Labour 258 seats, Liberal Democrats 57 seats (the article doesn’t mention the seats won by other parties). Under IRV, the study predicts the results would have been: Conservative 283, Labour 248, Liberal Democrats 89. Thanks to Jerry Kunz for the link.
Both houses of the Oklahoma legislature have passed SB 91, which requires birth certificates for presidential candidates running in a presidential primary. However, the House amended the bill, and on May 3, the Senate refused to accept the House amendment. Therefore, the bill has been sent to a conference committee.
The House amendment says that a certified copy is sufficient, for a candidate born abroad who is a child of a citizen of the United States. The original bill demands the original, and does not permit a certified copy.
On March 29, the Illinois House had passed HB 2009 by a vote of 75-38. It restricts who can be an independent candidate. Specifically, anyone who either lost a primary, or who won a primary but then withdrew from that primary nomination, would be barred from running as an independent candidate in November.
On April 27 the bill was sent to the Senate Executive Committee, and it is still there. Often, bills not supported by the legislative leadership are sent to this commitee, which has a tradition of killing bills.
On May 4, the Florida Senate tabled SB 2086, and passed HB 1355 on second reading. These are similar (but not identical) bills that revise many election laws. Both bills make it almost impossible for a new party, or an old minor party that doesn’t have FEC recognition, to place a presidential nominee on the ballot. However, the House bill is worse. It requires a petition signed by 335,630 signatures to place a presidential candidate on the ballot, whereas the Senate bill requires 167,815.
It seems likely that the Senate will pass HB 1355 on Thursday, May 5. The legislature adjourns on May 6. It is difficult to believe that Florida’s Republican legislators can pass a bill like this, given that the Florida Constitution says, “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.” That provision is in Article VI, section 1. The voters passed it in November 1998. All Florida legislators took an oath to support their state’s constitution when they were sworn in.
On May 3, the Maine Joint Committee on State and Local Government passed LD 545 by a vote of 9-4. This bill lowers the number of signatures for a member of a small qualified party to get on the primary ballot of that party for Governor. The existing law requires 2,000 signatures of party members, no matter how many or how few members that party has. Only party members may sign. The original bill changed this to the lower of 2,000 signatures, or 2% of the number of registered voters in the party.
The committee amended the bill. Now it requires the lower of 2,000 signatures or 2% of the number of registered voters in the party, but no matter how the percentage works out, the candidate would still always need a minimum of 750 signatures.
The other Maine ballot access improvement bill, LD 142, also is making headway. This bill eases the requirement that a party must have municipal caucuses in each county in the state, in the spring of even-numbered years. Maine has 16 counties. The original bill said a party needed such caucuses in at least 12 counties, but the bill is being amended to require meetings in 14 counties. It will probably receive a vote in the House on May 5.