California Supreme Court Asks Attorney General to Respond in Case that Challenges Ballot Label Discrimination in Proposition 14

On November 29, the California Supreme Court asked California’s Attorney General to file a response brief in Field v Bowen, S188436.  This is the case that challenges two particular problems with the implementing law for California’s top-two system.  One of those problems is that the law does not let all candidates print their party label on the ballot.  The other problem is that the implementing legislation says write-ins should not be counted, yet it leaves in place many old state laws that say write-in space must be permitted on November ballots and that write-ins candidates may file a declaration of write-in candidacy for November elections.  The recent filing by the plaintiffs only emphasizes the party label discrimination, not the write-in problem.

Here is a Sacramento Bee story about this lawsuit.

Illinois House Kills Bill to Convert Open Primary to a Secret Open Primary

Illinois has always had an open primary.  Illinois has never asked voters to choose a party when they fill out voter registration forms.  Illinois primary rules require voters at the polls on primary day to publicly ask for one party’s primary ballot.

Earlier this year, Governor Pat Quinn rewrote HB 4842, to convert it into a bill that says Illinois should switch to a secret open primary.  A secret open primary is one in which each voter decides in the secrecy of the voting booth which party’s primary to vote in.  The Governor rewrote the bill under a process that is called an “Amendatory Veto.”

The Illinois legislature is currently meeting in its veto session.  The Illinois House took no action on the Governor’s version of HB 4842, so it has now died, and the Illinois primary will remain one in which a voter must publicly choose a primary ballot.  In an Illinois veto session, when the Governor carries out an amendatory veto, that bill is sent back to the house of origin.  If that house simply does nothing, the bill dies, because it is never sent over to the other house.

The news media of the United States have no consistent definition of “open primary”.  The term means something different in almost every state, if one only reads the newspapers.  In Pennsylvania, “open primary” means a closed primary in which the party organization makes no endorsement.  In Illinois, “open primary” means a secret open primary.  In California, “open primary” means a top-two system.  In Florida, “open primary” means a blanket primary.  In Kentucky, “open primary” means a closed primary in which independents can choose any party’s primary to vote in.  Because of this inconsistent terminology, Illinois newspapers are reporting that Governor Quinn’s “open primary” idea has been killed.

Joe Miller Lawsuit to Stop Alaska Vote Certification is Moved to State Court in Juneau

On November 29, a lower Alaska state court in Fairbanks held a hearing in Joe Miller’s lawsuit against the state of Alaska.  Miller, the Republican Party nominee for U.S. Senate,  had filed the lawsuit to stop the state from certifying Lisa Murkowski as the winner in the U.S. Senate race.  The judge in Fairbanks ruled that the case should have been filed in state court in Juneau.  See this story.  The next step will be for the new judge to decide whether Murkowski should be allowed to intervene in the case.  Only then can the case get to the merits.  A hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 1.

Potential Candidates in Two Upcoming California Special Elections Ask California Supreme Court for Relief on Ballot Labels

As of November 29, two potential candidates for upcoming California special legislative elections asked the California Supreme Court for judicial relief, to give them accurate ballot labels, instead of the label “no party preference.”

The upcoming California special legislative elections are the first elections in which California’s top-two system will be in effect.  The candidates are Michael Chamness in the 28th State Senate election, and Carol Winkler in the 17th State Senate election.  Chamness is a registered member of the Coffee Party, and he wants to run with “My party preference is the Coffee Party” on the ballot next to his name.  Winkler’s voter registration card is filled out to show that she is an Independent (not just a normal Declines to State voter).  She wants “Independent candidate” on the ballot next to her name.  But under the implementing law for California’s new election system, they cannot have those labels on the ballot.  Yet, members of the six ballot-qualified parties can have their parties identified on the ballot.

The proposed intervenors wish to become part of the lawsuit Field v Bowen, which has this case number in the State Supreme Court:  S188436.  Here is the brief of the original plaintiffs in the State Supreme Court.

Massachusetts Libertarian Party Will Ask for Rehearing in Presidential Substitution Case

The Massachusetts Libertarian Party will ask for a rehearing before all the judges of the First Circuit, in Barr v Galvin.  This is the case over whether Bob Barr should have been on the ballot in Massachusetts in November 2008 as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee.  The only way that unqualified parties ever place nominees on the ballot in Massachusetts is with petitions that name the party’s candidates.  In 2008 the Massachusetts Libertarian Party wanted to complete its petition early, so it listed George Phillies on the ballot as its presidential candidate.  In 2007 the Secretary of State had told the party that it could list a stand-in, and replace him with the actual presidential nominee after the party’s national convention was over.  When the party followed this advice, it was shocked to be told in 2008 that it could not replace Phillies with Barr.

The party had then sued, and the U.S. District Court had ruled that Massachusetts’ behavior violated the Equal Protection part of the 14th amendment, because Massachusetts and all states let qualified parties revise their national tickets.  The U.S. District Court ordered Massachusetts to list Barr on the ballot instead of Phillies.  But on November 16, 2010, the First Circuit had reversed the U.S. District Court decision.  Obviously the First Circuit’s decision doesn’t impact what has already happened, but it makes a bad situation for future presidential campaigns.  The decision also impacts Maine and New Hampshire, two other states in the First Circuit that don’t permit presidential stand-ins.

The Libertarian Party request for a rehearing is due December 14.