Kentucky Senate Passes Bill on U.S. Senate Vacancies

Posted on by March 9, 2021
12

On March 2, the Kentucky Senate passed SB 228. It changes procedures for U.S. Senate vacancies. Under current laws, as in most states, if a U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant, the Governor appoints a replacement who serves until the next regularly-scheduled congressional election. The bill changes this, so the Governor can only appoint one of three names suggested by the political party that had held the seat before the vacancy occurred. However, that would be followed by a special election that would occur sooner than under current law. Here is the text. If the vacancy was created by the death or resignation of a U.S. Senator who wasn’t a member of a qualified party, then the Governor would be free to appoint anyone.

Press reports say that U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, who was re-elected in 2020, is considering retiring before the 2022 election, and Kentucky has a Democratic Governor, so under current law, if McConnell retired in 2021, the Democratic Governor would probably appoint a Democrat to fill his seat until the 2022 election.

There is another bill, HB 400, which is much simpler, and which says if there is a U.S. Senate vacancy, a special election would be called very quickly. But that bill is not moving along.

New Mexico Ranked Choice Voting Defeated by a Tie Vote in State Senate Rules Committee

Posted on by March 8, 2021
1

On March 8, the New Mexico Senate Rules Committee voted on SJR 22, a proposed constitutional amendment. If the legislature had passed it, then the voters would have been asked in November 2022 whether to alter the state constitution to provide for ranked choice voting for all elections, partisan and non-partisan. But the measure lost on a tie vote. It is sponsored by State Senator Bill Tallman (D-Albuquerque). Thanks to Rick Lass for this news.

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Opinion That May Help Certain Ballot Access Cases Avoid Mootness

Posted on by March 8, 2021
2

On March 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Uzuegbunam v Preczewski, 19-968. The case does not concern election law, but it could be helpful in future ballot access cases that otherwise would be rejected as moot. In the March 8, 2021 decision, a student had been prevented from speaking on the campus of Georgia Gwinnett College, except in small “free speech zones.” He sued, and then the college greatly expanded the “free speech zone”, so then the lower federal courts ruled his case was moot. The plaintiff had asked for nominal damages, but the lower courts said that didn’t save his case from being declared moot. He asked for rehearing en banc in the Eleventh Circuit, but no judge was willing to rehear the case. Thus, his case had been rejected for mootness by a dozen federal judges who had participated in the case.

However, the 8-1 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court says his case was not moot, because he had asked for nominal damages. “Nominal damages” can be as small as one dollar. The decision is by Justice Clarence Thomas. The lone dissenter is Chief Justice John Roberts.

This precedent would have been helpful in Florida in 2020, when the Party for Socialism & Liberation sued Florida over the law that says a ballot-qualified party can’t be on for president unless it is either recognized by the Federal Election Commission as a “national committee”, or unless it submits a petition signed by over 100,000 voters by July of the election year. The party failed to get injunctive relief, but it wanted to try to win declaratory relief. But then the Secretary of State surprisingly put the party’s presidential nominee, Gloria La Riva, on the November 2020 ballot, so the party dismissed the case, believing that if it maintained the case, it would be told that the case was moot.