On September 18, the U.S. House Oversight & Reform Committee held a hearing on HR 51, the bill to create a state that would include almost all of the District of Columbia. See this story.
As of September 18, the bill has 218 co-sponsors, not counting two co-sponsors who are Delegates from Overseas Territories, not voting members of the House. The number 218 is significant because it is a majority of the House, which has 435 voting members.
On September 19, Chris Graveline filed this brief in U.S. District Court in Michigan, in his ballot access lawsuit. He was an independent candidate for Michigan Attorney General in 2018. He sued to overturn the requirement that he submit 30,000 valid signatures. The U.S. District Court enjoined the law, partly because no one had successfully completed the statewide independent petition in Michigan since 2004. Now the case is in the phase in which the courts will determine if the requirement is unconstitutional.
The San Francisco Chronicle has this story about California SB 696, the bill to force the American Independent Party to change its name by October 29, 2019, or it will be removed from the ballot and all its members will be forcibly converted to independent voters. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for the link. As the story points out, Governor Gavin Newsom hasn’t acted yet on the bill.
On September 19, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England issued an injunction against California’s new law that requires presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns. See this story. Two presidential candidates had filed lawsuits against the law, President Trump and Rocky De La Fuente, De La Fuente was in the courtroom so naturally afterwards he spoke to the reporter who wrote the story.
UPDATE: see this story, which has a quote from the bill’s author, State Senator Mike McGuire. He says the judge’s action is “perplexing.”
A proposed Alaska initiative to adopt a top-four system, and also to impose new campaign finance restrictions, is the subject of a second lawsuit. The first lawsuit was filed last month, to overturn a decision by the state that the proposed initiative is invalid because it violates the single-subject rule. That case is pending.
On September 19, a new lawsuit was filed against the state, to stop the state’s decision that the initiative may be circulated while the single-subject lawsuit is pending. The new lawsuit depends on state law that says initiatives can’t circulate until their legality is resolved. See this story. Thanks to Scott Kohlhaas for the link.
