Ohio Could Conceivably Still Move its Primary to April 24

Currently, Ohio is set to have its state office and U.S. Senate primary in March, and its U.S. House and Presidential Primary on June 12. However, according to Frontloading HQ, there is still a chance the Ohio legislature will pass a bill moving both primaries to April 24. See this story.

If this happens, then it would make some sense for the Ohio Libertarian Party to use the presidential primary that it is permitted to have, because April 24 would be earlier than the Libertarian Party’s national convention, which is in early May.


Comments

Ohio Could Conceivably Still Move its Primary to April 24 — 1 Comment

  1. This is a somewhat analogous case from California.

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/15950.htm
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/16252.htm

    A petition for a referendum on the senate districts created by the redistricting commission has been filed, and is now undergoing a sample check count. If the referendum qualifies, the referendum would be held next November. In addition, the senate map would be suspended, just as if it had been created by a bill passed by the legislature.

    Without lawful senate districts, the senate primary next June can not be held. The initial deadlines for the June elections are quite soon, beginning with the initial period for collecting in-lieu-of signatures. Without senate districts, it is unknown which signatures are valid.

    The lawsuit is about what to do if the referendum qualifies. In similar circumstances in 1981, the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision in Assembly v Deukmejian written by Rose Bird, ordered that the districts drawn by the legislature be used as interim districts. In the referendum, the voters rejected the map drawn by the legislature, but the incoming legislature which had been elected using the rejected map, then repassed the map with a 2/3 majority, making it referendum-proof.

    The lawsuit suggests a couple of interim solutions. One is simply to use the existing map for the odd numbered districts. With slowing California growth, they are not horribly out of balance. I suspect there is more disenfranchisement caused by the renumbering of districts, than that due to population shifts.

    Another solution is to use the Assembly districts created by the redistricting commission and nest them within senate districts. The wording of the proposition that created the redistricting commission implied that assembly districts would be nested. But this criteria is of relatively low priority, and for the most part was not followed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.