On May 17, the Louisiana Senate passed HB 292, which converts congressional elections to a system in which all candidates run in November. If no one gets 50%, there is a run-off in December.
Louisiana also used this system 1998 through 2006. Generally the incumbent runs for re-election and gets 50% or more, so there is no run-off.
According to this story, the Senate amended the bill so it takes effect this year. Now it must return to the House, to see if the House agrees with that change. The original bill didn’t take effect until 2011.
The Senate also passed SB 796, which is identical to HB 292 but which says the change won’t take effect until 2011. That bill also now goes to the House.
2 U.S. Code Sec. 7
The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 25; Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 130, Sec. 6, 18 Stat. 400; June 5, 1934, ch. 390, Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 879.)
-COD-
CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 25 derived from act Feb. 2, 1872, ch. 11, Sec. 3, 17 Stat. 28.
——
THE day. THE election.
NO mention of any December runoff.
Too difficult for the New Age party hack MORONS in LA to understand ???
Is the U.S.A. Constitution a DEAD document from ancient times ???
This was adjudicated in federal court in Georgia in the 1980’s, and the December run-off was upheld.
#1 READ 2 USC 8
Or for that matter go read the text of the 1872 reapportionment legislation when the uniform date was originally set.
When Obama the non-nbc, non-eligible undocumented and possibly not even US citizen is removed from POTUS/CINC all things are then possible with respect to enforcement of the federal and state constitutions and election law.
Response to #4. Yawn….stretch….zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
#5
Well then, the Lakin military trial beginning next month should help stimulate you.
SOOOO – 2 U.S.C. Sec. 7 is meaningless — i.e. the party hacks can play their standard EVIL games.
Gee — what will happen if a LA gerrymander district is THE district to control the gerrymander U.S.A. House of Reps and no party hack gets a majority in the so-called November election ???
How about spending BILLIONS to win the Dec *election* ??? — to control about $ 3.5 TRILLION in the Fed regime.
More on the LA machinations —
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-670.ZO.html
FOSTER v. LOVE
The U.S.A. Constitution does appear to be DEAD — due to the accumulated EVIL machinations of the gerrymander party hacks and the appointed party hack Supremes — i.e. the U.S.A. is in a state of party hack anarchy — ANY thing goes.
Rigged nomination systems
Rigged election systems.
Even rigged *election* dates.
P.R. and App.V. — to END the EVIL rule of the EVIL party hacks.
#7 After the US Supreme Court decision in Foster v Love, the case was remanded to the federal district court. The court waited for the Louisiana legislature to remedy the situation. After the legislature failed to act, the federal district court imposed the November-December schedule.
The Love party appealed this decision in Love v Foster, which the 5th Circuit upheld, and which the US Supreme Court decided not to hear. That is, the US Supreme Court was cool with the November-December schedule.
After the courts had fashioned their constitutional remedy, Louisiana implemented it into statute.
A few years later, Louisiana tried to go back to the old schedule. They said that if only two candidates filed, there would be no primary, and the two candidates would go directly to the general election. If there were three or more candidates, they would contest the primary in October. If one candidate received a majority, he alone would qualify for the general election in November, otherwise the top two would advance to the general election.
Thus no one would never be “elected” before November. This was blocked by a federal district court in (Daughter of) Love v Blanco. After that decision, the Louisiana legislature made the mistake of switching to partisan primaries beginning in 2008.
Now they are going back to the system that was ordered by the federal district court and upheld by the US Supreme Court.
# 8 One of the obvious purposes of having a uniform *election* date is to avoid last minute EVIL stuff in the *late* elections — blatant bribery, ballot box stuffing, etc.
App.V. nonpartisan elections NOW for ALL judges — get rid of the party hack Supremes especially — with their many party hack cool opinions dreamed up out of thin air.
See the MORON 1974 LA State constitution — hopefully the ONLY MORON party hack State with NO specified general election date — allowing the party hacks to play their EVIL games about an *election*.
#9 States have always been able to require majority election. Before there were government-printed ballots these were not runoffs, but simply a new election, known as a trial (as in trial heat or try down). In at least one case, a congressional seat went unfilled for an entire term, since no candidate could get a majority in any of the trials.
Some states also required majority election for presidential electors, though typically they let the legislature choose the electors when an elector did not achieve a popular majority.
In 1845, when Congress set the uniform appointment date for presidential electors, they made allowance for States that required majority elections. As you probably know, there has always been a uniform date for the presidential electors to meet in each State and cast their votes; but you may not know that there was always a uniform election time for appointing the electors, which was roughly the month preceding the meeting date.
By 1845, all States but South Carolina were appointing their electors on the basis of popular elections. The concern was that the elections in one State would influence the results in others, much as currently happens with the presidential primaries; and that voters might move across State lines to vote in more than one election, an activity known as pipelining.
The uniform appointment time was compressed to a uniform appointment date. The date was chosen to be roughly 5 weeks before the meeting date for the electors. This gave enough time for a statewide canvass, notification of the appointed electors, and time for the electors to travel to the meeting place in their State.
There wasn’t need for such a long period in South Carolina; and it was unlikely that the legislature in South Carolina would be influenced by popular election in other States. Moreover, the end of November was the start of the regular session of the legislature. One of the first items on the agenda would be to appoint South Carolina’s presidential electors. If the appointment time was in early November, South Carolina would be forced to have a special session, or switch to appointment on the basis of the popular vote.
During the debate, it was pointed out that an exception had already been made for States that required a majority vote to appoint electors, and that it seemed reasonable to make an exception for South Carolina.
Ultimately, no accommodation was made for South Carolina, or any other State that might provide for legislative appointment of electors. But the provision for States requiring majority elections was retained.
And that provision is still in federal law. 3 USC 1 sets the uniform date for appointing presidential electors (the voters are deemed to have made their appointment on election day, even if who they had appointed is not yet known with certainty). 3 USC 2 provides an exception for cases when a State has failed to make a choice. If a State requires a majority vote, then if no elector candidate receives a majority, then the state has failed to make a choice.
Massachusetts used the exception in 1848, and Georgia did in 1860. In both cases the manner of appointment was for the legislature to choose between the top two elector slates, with that choice being made on a subsequent date.
Missouri still has a similar provision in case of tie votes. In Missouri, electors are chosen by congressional district, with two chosen at large, based on the statewide popular vote. If there were a Statewide tie, then the legislature would choose the elector for each congressional district between the two tied elector candidates. Other States might choose the elector by lot. They would have failed to choose an appointee on the election day, and they would make an appointment on some later day, in the manner provided by law, which is to determine the winner by lot.
In 1872, when Congress set the uniform election date for US representatives, they made a similar provision for States that required majority election of representatives. They had previously set the time and manner by which senators were elected by legislature. That exception lives on in 2 USC 8 (“… the time for holding elections in any State, … for a Representative to fill a vacancy, [when] such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, … may be prescribed by the laws of the several States … respectively.”)
I have stripped out the irrelevant material to focus on the specific case in which a State fails to elect. The failure may be for any number of reasons, but one reason is where majority election is required.
ps the Texas Constitution does not specify the date for elections. There is one implicit specification related to the term of officials appointed to fill a vacancy.
I like the runoff law.