The May 22 Sacramento Bee, the largest newspaper in California’s capital city, has an op-ed advocating that the California top-two system be abolished. It is by Steve Maviglio, a Democrat, and Ron Nehring, a Republican. Here is a link, but it is behind a paywall. It demonstrates that the top-two system has not helped moderates to get elected, and points out that the California legislature is still one of the most polarized in the nation. It lists instances when a major party incumbent sponsored advertisements referring to that incumbent’s most feared opponent in a way to boost another potential opponent who would be weaker.

It doesn’t mention the flaw that the system has blocked all minor party candidates from the general election ballot, except in races when one of the two major parties didn’t run anyone. It does mention that the system has not helped independent candidates, as the top-two backers expected. Thanks to Eric Wong for the link.

On May 20, the Third Circuit issued a three-page order in Migliari v Lehigh County Board of Elections, 22-1499, that 257 disputed mail-in ballots case in a Pennsylvania election last year should count. The judges relied on the “materiality” language in the federal Voting Rights Act, which says that states many not “deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote in such election.”

This is a powerful law, which was originally known as 42 U.S.C. 1971, and has since been re-codified as 52 U.S.C. 10101(c)(2)(B). In the past it has sometimes been used to prevent states from disqualifying petitions for trivial errors.

In this case, the Third Circuit ruled that the Pennsylvania law requiring mail-in ballots to contain the signing date, next to the voter’s signature, on the outer envelope of a postal ballot is not “material”. Because it is obvious that the voter cast the ballot in time (because the elections office received it in time), the judgment is that the date is not important enough to invalidate the ballot.

The judges have not yet written an opinion explaining their reasoning, but will do so soon. The judges are Theodore McKee and Joseph Greenaway (Clinton appointees), and Paul Matey (a Trump appointee). The lower court had ducked the issue on procedural grounds.

The Pennsylvania state courts have not been clear about their attitude toward the date requirement.

On May 19, Vermont HB 744 took effect. Governor Phil Scott declined to sign it, but he didn’t veto it either, so it has become law. The bill lets Burlington use ranked choice voting for its own elections. Thanks to Fairvote for this news.