Utah Legislature Adjourns, Leaves Presidential Primary in Early February

The Utah legislature adjourned for the year on March 10. It did not pass any bill to move the 2012 presidential primary, which is scheduled for February 7. Utah is thus in defiance of the national Democratic and national Republican Party rules, which forbid any procedure to choose delegates to the national convention that is earlier than March, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for this news.

Utah’s defiance may encourage certain other states to defy the national party timing rules.

New Registration Data Released for California

On March 11, the California Secretary of State released registration data, as of February 10, 2011. Compared to the last tally, which was as of October 18, 2010, the parties that increased their share of the registration are American Independent, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom. The parties that declined are Democratic, Republican, Green, and Reform. Independent registration rose. See here for the new Report of Registration.

The percentage figures below for each party are the October 2010 percent, followed by the February 2011 percent:
Democratic, 44.08%, 44.04%
Republican, 31.02%, 30.88%
American Independent, 2.39%, 2.43%
Green, .6585%, .6582%
Libertarian, .53%, .54%
Peace & Freedom, .33%, .34%
Reform, .14%, .13%
other unqualified parties plus independents, 20.85%, 20.98%

Hawaii House Passes Instant Runoff Voting Bill

On March 8, the Hawaii House passed HB 638 unanimously. It provides that in special Congressional elections, and county elections, Instant Runoff Voting will be used. In Hawaii, current law provides for only a single round in special Congressional elections. Here is the text of the bill. The preamble bill has an explanation of Instant Runoff Voting and mentions some other places that use it.

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds 2% Petition Requirement for Ballot Access for Minor Parties

On March 11, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 5-1 that the petition to put a new political party on the ballot, 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, does not violate the State Constitution. Here is the 17-page opinion, and the 9-page dissent. For 2012, the law requires 85,379 signatures. Except in California and Florida, there is no instance in U.S. history in which any political party, or independent candidate, has ever overcome a signature petition requirement that high.

The decision seems to assume, without any discussion, that the State Constitutional provision “All elections shall be free” (Article I, section 10) doesn’t give any more protection for ballot access than the U.S. Constitution does. Nor does the decision discuss the North Carolina Constitutional provision that says “Every qualified voter, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office.” The decision depends on the unfavorable ballot access decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued over the last 40 years, not on decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court that interpret the State Constitution.

The decision erroneously implies that many other states do not let primary voters sign a petition for a new party. The decision mentions an Ohio election law that refers to petitions to place a candidate on a party’s primary ballot, and says that Ohio is therefore a state in which only party members may sign a petition to place a party on the ballot. This is a factual error. The decision also mentions that California once wouldn’t let primary voters sign for an independent candidate, but that has nothing to do with petitions to create a new party; furthermore California abandoned that restriction in 1976. Texas is the only state in the nation that won’t let primary voters sign a new party’s petition. Thanks to Mike Munger for the link.

Tennessee Senate Committee Hearing Set for Ballot Access Bill

The Tennessee Senate State and Local Government Committee will hear SB 935 on Tuesday, March 15, at 10:30 a.m., in room 12. SB 935 makes some very small improvements in the law on how groups qualify as political parties in Tennessee. The bill improves the filing deadline for new party petitions slightly. Existing law seems to require the petition to be filed in March (although the law is vague). The bill changes the deadline to the first Thursday in April. An identical bill in the House, HB 794, hasn’t been given a hearing date yet.

Besides improving the deadline slightly, the bill also liberalizes the law by providing that the petition to qualify a new party no longer must say that the signers are members. And the bill would provide that newly-qualifying parties would not need to set up primary election boards.

However, parties would still need a petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. They would still nominate by primary. Candidates in the new party’s primary would need to submit their petitions to run in the primary of that new party on the first Thursday in April, before they knew if their own party’s petition would be sufficient. The bill says that candidates who file to run in a new party’s primary would be put on the November ballot as independents if it turns out that their own party’s petition doesn’t contain enough valid signatures.

This bill only exists because last year a U.S. District Court struck down the Tennessee procedure for a party to get on the ballot. SB 935, if signed into law, would probably still be unconstitutional. The Tennessee primary (for office other than president) is in early August, so SB 935 would still require a very difficult petition, to be submitted four months before the primary. One of the main reasons the old law was declared unconstitutional was that the 6th circuit had invalidated the Ohio procedure for new parties, and Tennessee is bound by the Ohio decision, because both states are in the 6th circuit. The Ohio petition for a new party, which was held unconstitutional, was four months before the primary, and required a petition of 1% of the last vote cast. If the 6th circuit thought a 1% petition, due four months before a primary, was unconstitutional, it seems likely that SB 935 would be unconstitutional.

Another bill in Tennessee, SB 617, which is far better, has not been given a hearing date. This is probably because it doesn’t have a companion bill in the House.