On January 5, five New York Assemblymembers introduced A582. It provides for Instant Runoff Voting in New York city partisan primaries, and repeals the existing provision that requires run-off primaries several weeks after the first primary, if no one gets at least 40% of the vote.
Also, seven New York State Senators have introduced S421, which would let any county or city use Instant Runoff Voting for its own local elections. The bill pertains to both general elections and partisan primaries.
The Third Circuit has tentatively set March 17 as the hearing date in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, et al v Cortes, 10-3205. This is the case that challenges the Pennsylvania system of subjecting petitioning groups and candidates to fees of up to $110,000 if they submit a petition that is found to lack enough valid signatures. The case also challenges the state’s failure to tally write-ins for most write-in candidates, the failure of some counties to count any write-ins, and the law that requires a party to hold registration membership of 15% of the state total, in order to be on the ballot without petitioning.
Here is the 21-page reply brief of the political parties, in response to the judicial defendants. This is the substantive brief, although it discusses only the first issue (the money issue). Here is the 9-page reply brief of the political parties, in response to the executive branch defendants. The U.S. District Court in this case refused to rule on any of the points, so the main thrust of these briefs is to ask the 3rd circuit to send the case back to the U.S. District Court. Most interesting is footnote one in the longer brief, which discusses the real consequences of Pennsylvania’s policy concerning fees.
On January 7, Oklahoma representative Charles Key introduced HB 1058, to lower the number of signatures for a new or previously unqualified party from 5% of the last vote cast, to exactly 5,000 signatures. The bill received publicity; see this story.
Key also introduced HB 1057, to require that political parties that hold a presidential primary pay for that primary. Oklahoma holds its presidential primary early in the year, separate from its summer primary for other office. The only state now in which major parties pay for their own presidential primary is South Carolina. The parties pay for the presidential primary by charging very high filing fees for candidates who run in that primary. UPDATE: since 2007, South Carolina government pays for party presidential primaries. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for the correction.
California is holding two special State Senate elections on February 15. They are the first two elections in which Prop. 14 and its implementing language is in effect. SB 6, the implementing language, says that the Secretary of State’s web page must post “in a conspicuous place, the party preference history of each candidate for voter-nominated office for the preceding 10 years.” See section 8121 of the election code. Under Prop. 14 and its implementing language, a “party preference” must be whatever is indicated on that candidate’s affidavit of registration.
Here is the Secretary of State’s web page for the candidates for State Senate, 28th district. The Secretary of State does not seem to have followed the law, on two points. First, the web page does not give a 10-year history for four of the candidates. Kevin Thomas McGurk’s entry is just, “Democrat” and “2000”, which leaves one wondering what about 2001 to 2011? Martha Flores Gibson’s entry is just, “Republican” and “2010-2011”, which again leaves one wondering about the years 2001-2009. Michael Chamness entries are “No party preference” and “2010”, again leaving the reader wondering about prior years. And Mark Lipman entries are “No party preference” and “2008-present”, again leaving a time gap.
Also, the law says that a candidate’s “party preference” is as disclosed on the candidate’s most recent statement of registration (see sections 7000 and 8002.5 of the election code). Michael Chamness’ affidavit of voter registration says he is a member of the Coffee Party. Although no one had expected the February 15 ballot to say, under Chamness’ name, “My party preference is the Coffee Party”, most people probably thought that the Secretary of State’s web page would include the information that he is registered in the Coffee Party. It is not a true statement that Chamness’ voter registration form says he has ‘no party preference.” The Secretary of State does not seem to be following the law.
The other special election, for the 17th State Senate district, only has two candidates, a Republican and a Democrat, and the web page for that race has no time gaps.
California is holding two special State Senate elections on February 15. They are the first two elections in which Prop. 14 and its implementing language is in effect. SB 6, the implementing language, says that the Secretary of State’s web page must post “in a conspicuous place, the party preference history of each candidate for voter-nominated office for the preceding 10 years.” See section 8121 of the election code. Under Prop. 14 and its implementing language, a “party preference” must be whatever is indicated on that candidate’s affidavit of registration.
Here is the Secretary of State’s web page for the candidates for State Senate, 28th district. The Secretary of State does not seem to have followed the law, on two points. First, the web page does not give a 10-year history for four of the candidates. Kevin Thomas McGurk’s entry is just, “Democrat” and “2000”, which leaves one wondering what about 2001 to 2011? Martha Flores Gibson’s entry is just, “Republican” and “2010-2011”, which again leaves one wondering about the years 2001-2009. Michael Chamness entries are “No party preference” and “2010”, again leaving the reader wondering about prior years. And Mark Lipman entries are “No party preference” and “2008-present”, again leaving a time gap.
Also, the law says that a candidate’s “party preference” is as disclosed on the candidate’s most recent statement of registration (see sections 7000 and 8002.5 of the election code). Michael Chamness’ affidavit of voter registration says he is a member of the Coffee Party. Although no one had expected the February 15 ballot to say, under Chamness’ name, “My party preference is the Coffee Party”, most people probably thought that the Secretary of State’s web page would include the information that he is registered in the Coffee Party. It is not a true statement that Chamness’ voter registration form says he has ‘no party preference.” The Secretary of State does not seem to be following the law.
The other special election, for the 17th State Senate district, only has two candidates, a Republican and a Democrat, and the web page for that race has no time gaps.
Joe Mathews, co-author of California Crack-up, and also author of the The People’s Machine (about the Schwarzenegger governorship) says Californians should support a measure to elect one presidential elector from each U.S. House district. Ted Costa has already announced plans to get such an initiative on the June 2012 ballot (or the February 2012 ballot, if California holds an election then).
See the Mathews column here. Mathews does not really believe it is good policy for California to elect one presidential elector from each congressional district. But he says Californians should support it anyway, at least to the point of putting it on the ballot. His reasoning is that California could use the measure as a bargaining chip to win more federal help for its budget crisis. If the measure were enacted and took effect before the November 2012 election, that would injure the President’s chances of being re-elected, because under current law, he can reasonably expect to win all of California’s 55 electoral votes in 2012. But if the measure were in effect, he would probably receive approximately 20 fewer electoral votes.
Ted Costa has successfully placed other initiatives on the California ballot in the past.