Arizona Law, Requiring All Cities to Use Non-Partisan Elections, Upheld by Court

On March 4, 2010, an Arizona Superior Court upheld a law passed last year that requires all cities in Arizona to use non-partisan elections for their own city elections. See this story. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.

Tucson had been the only city in Arizona that used partisan city elections. Generally speaking, Democrats have won city elections in Tucson most of the time. In the legislature last year, Republicans had been in favor of the bill that required non-partisan elections, and Democrats had mostly been against the idea.

ACLU Expands Lawsuit Against South Dakota for Improperly Removing Certain Kinds of Voters from the Registration Rolls

Back on February 18, 2009, the ACLU Voting Rights office sued South Dakota election officials for removing two voters from the voter registration rolls, in apparent disregard of state law. South Dakota, like most states, does not permit felons to vote while they are imprisoned. The lawsuit charged that two voters had their names removed from the rolls after they were convicted of a felony, even though they were not sentenced to prison. This apparently happened because communication between federal courts and elections officials is faulty. The federal court e-mails a message to the Secretary of State when someone is convicted of a felony in federal court in South Dakota. But the e-mail does not disclose whether that individual was sentenced to prison or not. Elections officials assumed the two individuals were sent to prison (even though they weren’t sentenced to prison), and removed them from the rolls.

On February 8, 2010, nearly a year after the initial case was filed, the ACLU expanded the case, and seeks to make it a class action. This is because the ACLU believes the problem involves hundreds of individuals, not just two individuals. Here is the amended complaint. The case is Janis v Nelson, 09-5019.

Illinois Bill Would Make Ballot Access Worse for Candidates for Chicago Alderperson

On February 23, the Illinois House Elections & Campaign Reform Committee passed HB 6000, which makes ballot access substantially worse for candidates for Chicago Alderperson (the office that in most cities is called City Council). The committee vote was 5-4. The bill hasn’t received a vote on the House floor yet.

The office is non-partisan. Existing law requires a petition signed by 2% of the last vote cast, which now varies between 87 signatures and 428 signatures. The bill would required 500 valid signatures. Also, the bill says that no voter may sign for more than a single candidate. Current law has no such restriction.

The ban on signing for more than a single candidate is particularly damaging when the party organization backs one particular candidate and puts its muscle behind that candidate. The organization is capable of getting thousands of residents of one particular ward to sign for its favored candidate. This means that other candidates are deprived of a pool of eligible signers. The Illinois Green Party is publicizing this bill and spearheading opposition. Thanks to Patrick Kelly for this news.

New York U.S. House Seat May be Vacant for Nine Months

On March 6, U.S. House member Eric Massa, who represents New York’s 29th district, said he will resign from the House on March 8. New York election law does not require a special election for a member of the House who resigns at this point in the election cycle. The Governor has discretion as to whether to call a special election. See this story.

The U.S. Constitution does not permit appointments to the U.S. House. If there is no special election, the seat will be vacant until after the November 2010 election.