California Senate Passes Bill to Replace “Disobedient” Presidential Electors

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.

Minnesota Senate Passes Amendment to Outlaw Use of Ranked Choice Voting by Cities and Other Local Governments

On April 27, the Minnesota Senate amended the State Government Omnibus bill, SF 1831/HF 1952, to add an amendment banning local governments from using ranked choice voting. Thanks to Fairvote Minnesota for this news.

The Minnesota Senate has a Republican majority. The Minnesota House has a Democratic majority. The bill will pass, but the House will appoint conference committee members who will try to delete the amendment.

U.S. District Court Won’t Give Relief to U.S. Citizen Who Moved from Hawaii to Guam

On April 27, U.S. District Court Judge Jill A. Otake, a Trump appointee, issued an opinion in Reeves v Nago, 1:20cv-433. This is a voting rights case filed by a U.S. citizen who formerly lived in Hawaii, but then moved to Guam. When he moved, he lost his ability to vote in federal elections. If he had moved to a foreign country, he could have continued to vote absentee in Hawaii elections.

The judge said she lacks the authority to issue relief. Here is the 22-page opinion. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.