Ballot Access News

On November 2, 2010, the voters of Oklahoma passed a Constitutional amendment to change the state’s Commission on Apportionment. The text of the Amendment, which was question 748 on the ballot, says that the Commission should have as members “One republican and one democrat (sic)” appointed by the Speaker of the House, “one republican and one democrat” appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate, and “one republican and one democrat” appointed by the Governor.

The state already had such a commission, but before question 748 passed, the old commission consisted of the Attorney General, the State Treasurer, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Their party membership, or lack of party membership, was immaterial. In practice, however, the old commission, if it still existed in 2011, would have consisted of three Republicans.

The Commission is to draw boundaries for state legislative districts if the legislature fails to do so in the first 90 days of the legislative session that starts in the years after the census. On January 24, an independent voter who is actually a Libertarian, Clark Duffe, filed a lawsuit against the make-up of the commission. The case is Duffe v State Question 748, et al, and is before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, no. 109127. The State Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some cases that are of importance and that are strictly questions of law, not of facts. A referee will hear the case on February 16 and then prepare a report for the State Supreme Court, which may then either set its own hearing, or else dismiss the case.

It is unusual for any state to pass a law naming two particular political parties and giving them membership on election administration bodies. Generally laws like this don’t name any particular party, but specify that the two largest parties, based on some objective criteria (like the last vote for Governor, or the number of registered voters) should be represented. UPDATE: see this story about the lawsuit.

On January 24, an Illinois State Appeals Court ruled 2-1 that Rahm Emanuel does not meet the one-year residency requirement to serve as Mayor of Chicago. Therefore, he is off the ballot, although it is virtually certain that the State Supreme Court will hear Emanuel’s appeal very quickly. The election is February 22. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news. The majority decision is 24 pages and the dissent is 17 pages.

Although this is a complicated issue, a quick reading suggests that the majority decision is not convincing. Furthermore, as the dissent notes, the case should probably have been certified to the State Supreme Court, and the fact that it wasn’t certified to the State Supreme Court (even though it is bound to go there anyway) will make difficulties for election administrators relating to time.

Several bills have been introduced in the Oklahoma legislature to move the non-presidential primary from the last Tuesday in July, to the last Tuesday in June. They are SB 602, HB 1615, and HB 2138. These bills also all move the deadline for the petition for a newly-qualifying party from May 1 to March 1.

A petition deadline of March 1, for new parties, is very likely to be held unconstitutional. Similar deadlines for new parties have been held unconstitutional in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Thanks to Richard Prawdzienski for the news about these bills.

The difference between HB 1615 and HB 2138 is that the latter bill also moves the presidential primary from February to March. Besides that bill, there are two other bills that move the presidential primary date, but do not move the date for the non-presidential primary. They are SB 808 and HB 1614. Thanks to Josh Putnam for the news about those latter two bills.