On February 1, a state court in Massachusetts ruled that the November 2, 2010 election failed to elect anyone in the State House, Worcester 6 district. The judge determined that the November vote was a tie, so the state will hold a new election in May. In the meantime, the Democratic incumbent will be permitted to serve. See this story. The race had only two candidates on the ballot in November.
Ever since 1974, when the District of Columbia started holding elections for its city officials, the primary for the partisan offices has been in September of even-numbered years. But last year Congress passed a law that virtually requires that all partisan primaries involving federal offices must be held no later than August. City councilmember Mary Cheh has said she will introduce a bill to move the D.C. primary to July. She doesn’t want an August primary because many people are on vacation on August.
However, many D.C. voices are opposed to a July primary, because the Democratic Party is so overwhelmingly dominant in District of Columbia elections that the Democratic Party primary effectively chooses the winner in virtually all the contests. Having the primary in July would leave a long period between the point at which winners are virtually determined, and the point at which they would begin to serve in office (January of the following year).
Mark Jordan has this article in Greater Greater Washington, advocating that Washington city elections be converted to non-partisan elections, with only a single round in November, using Instant Runoff Voting.
The D.C. presidential primary date is also up for a change. In 2008 the presidential primaries in D.C. were on February 8, but the major party national committees won’t recognize such an early date for presidential primaries in most places. Some would like to combine the D.C. presidential primary with the primary for other office, but the two major parties also insist that presidential primaries be held no later than June.
On February 1, the Democratic National Committee announced that the party’s 2012 presidential convention will be in Charlotte, North Carolina. This is the first time that any party, major or minor, has ever held its presidential convention in North Carolina. Charlotte is the state’s largest city.
North Carolina is the nation’s ninth most populous state, and yet no presidential candidate in the general election has ever been a North Carolinian. This is peculiar, because North Carolina is one of the 13 original states.
The Democratic convention will be held the week of September 3-7, 2012. The Republican Party had already announced that it will hold its 2012 convention in Tampa; and the Libertarian Party had already announced that it will hold its convention in Las Vegas. Tampa and Las Vegas, like Charlotte, have never before been the location of a presidential convention. The Constitution Party will meet in Nashville, a city that has previously had presidential conventions. The Green Party hasn’t chosen its location yet.
On January 14, attorneys for groups that wish to circulate petitions on interior post office sidewalks filed this brief. The case is Initiative and Referendum Institute v United States Postal Service, 10-5337, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. This case is more than ten years old. The brief is only 20 pages and contains a clear summary of what has happened so far. The purpose of this brief is to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals to allow full briefing and oral argument. This brief is a response to the post office’s earlier brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, which argues that the case should be summarily dismissed.
Attached to the brief are pages from the transcript in front of the U.S. District Court in 2006, in which the U.S. District Court asked both sides to help create a survey of postmasters, to determine if interior postal sidewalks are indeed commonly used for First Amendment activity. Both sides worked together to do this survey, and it showed that, yes, interior postal sidewalks are commonly used for First Amendment activity. The results of this survey ought to be helpful to the people who challenged the postal ban on petitioning, because they show that interior post office sidewalks are a traditional public forum. However, the U.S. District Court Judge, who had himself suggested the survey, then sat on the case for four years and finally ruled in favor of the post office, in a ruling that belittled the survey evidence.
Field v Bowen is the lawsuit pending in the California Court of Appeals over two particular aspects of Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation. The case challenges the policy that says candidates who are members of qualified parties may have a party label on the ballot, but candidates who are members of unqualified parties may not. On January 31, the California Court of Appeals said that Michael Chamness may not intervene in the case, but the Court invited him to submit an amicus curiae brief, which he will do and which will contain the same information that would have been in his briefs if he had intervened.
Michael Chamness is registered in the Coffee Party, and he is on the ballot in the upcoming special election for State Senate in the 28th district. The ballot will say “no party preference” next to his name, even though Chamness wants “My party preference is the Coffee Party.”
On January 31, the West Virginia House Committee unanimously passed HB 2853, which sets up a primary for this year’s special gubernatorial election, and also sets rules for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. Policy committees in both houses have now passed bills to hold primaries. If no bill passes, the three qualified parties will nominate by convention. The Senate bill is SB 261. The two versions differ, and one of the differences is that the House bill requires a smaller number of signatures for minor party and independent candidates.