On July 3, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 696, which says that no party can have “independent” as part of its name. The vote was 5-1. Five witnesses were there to oppose the bill. Assemblymember James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) was the only “no” vote; he predicted that the bill would be held to violate the First Amendment.

Although this bill had previously passed the State Senate, it was an entirely different bill then. If it passes the Assembly, it will then need to return to the State Senate.

California AB 681 passed the Senate Elections Committee on July 2, after having been amended. Originally it provided that election officials must send three notices in advance of a primary, telling them how they are registered, and explaining which parties let independent voters vote in their presidential primary. The bill now has the same provision, but it also lets voters change partisan affilation at the polls on primary election day.

On July 1, U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore, a Clinton appointee, enjoined a Houston, Texas requirement that city initiatives can only be circulated by registered voters in Houston. Pool v City of Houston, s.d., 4:19cv-2236. Here is the 20-page order.

The city argued that it doesn’t enforce the requirement, and also that the particular initiative being circulated by the plaintiffs would itself be unconstitutional (the initiative concerns campaign finance). The city also argued that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the case is not ripe. Judge Gilmore wrote that these arguments are unconvincing. Thanks to Trent Pool for this news.