On April 29, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 446 unanimously. It reduces the petition to recognize a new or previously unqualified party from 10% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 3%. While this sounds like a huge improvement, the procedure to create a new party by petition is almost never used, because there is an alternate procedure (to persuade voters equal to .33% of the registration to register into the party).

If a new party wants to qualify for 2022 by using the petition method, and this bill is signed into law, the requirement would be 373,928 signatures, due in January 2022. Such a petition can begin to circulate at any time. In the entire history of ballot access laws in the United States, there is no instance when a party overcame a requirement greater than 275,970 signatures, except for the Americans Elect petition in 2011 in California, which overcame a requirement of 1,030,040. That drive was funded by Peter Ackerman, a multi-millionaire.

AB 446 also somewhat eases the procedure for a new party to qualify by obtaining registrations. It allows a group to carry out a registration drive using a party name that another past party had also used. Thus, if someone wanted to qualify a party named “Reform Party” in California in the future, it could do so, notwithstanding that the Reform Party under previous officers had existed 1995-2002.

On April 21, the U.S. Supreme Court requested a response from Indiana in Tully v Okeson, 20-1244. This is the case in which some voters challenge their inability to vote early. The state lets voters age 65 and over vote early. The 26th amendment says no state shall “deny or abridge” the right to vote on account of age. The voters argue that their right to vote is being abridged, relative to older voters. The lower courts had upheld the law.

The response is due May 21.

On April 26, the California State Senate unanimously passed SB 103. IT provides that presidential electors who do not vote for the candidate they are expected to vote for will be replaced immediately after casting their vote in mid-December. It also requires political parties, independent presidential candidates, and write-in presidential candidates to file not only the normal 54 elector candidates, but another 54 alternates.

This will be especially burdensome for declared write-in candidates, because their candidates for presidential elector are each required to file a notarized declaration of write-in candidacy. Already it was quite burdensome for write-in candidates to submit this paperwork. But under the bill, they will now be required to have notarized statements from 108 individuals (54 candidates for elector, and another 54 alternates). Here is the text of the bill.

Oddly, the bill does not require independent presidential candidates to include alternates on their petition. Under the existing law, all the candidates for presidential elector must be printed on the petition, which is quite cumbersome. Their address must also be included. This makes the petition form quite unwieldy, and is not necessary.