On September 20, the Illinois gubernatorial nominees of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Conservative Parties debated each other. The debate is described in this National Public Radio news story.
2
The U.S. Supreme Court has put Citizens for Fair Representation v Padilla, 18-123, on its September 24 conference. This is the case in which plaintiffs argue that the population of California legislative districts are so huge that, effectively, ordinary Californians have no chance to communicate or interact with their state legislators. State Senators have almost 1,000,000 constituents, and Assemblymembers have almost 500,000.
The plaintiffs had asked for a 3-judge court. Initially the U.S. District Court said she was granting the motion for a 3-judge court. Then later she changed her mind, apparently because the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit told her not to do give the case a 3-judge court. Plaintiffs are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that it is not proper for the U.S. District Court Judge, who has presumably read the evidence and briefs, to let another judge (who presumably has not read the briefs or participated in any oral argument) to make this decision. This is a very arcane point.
Tom Campbell, a former Republican member of the U.S. House from California, and a former Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, wants to start a new centrist party. He and others working on this idea have not chosen a party name, but they are thinking perhaps “Center Party” or “Bear Flag Party.” See this story. The proposed party would be just for California, not the entire nation. Thanks to Politico for the link.
On September 21, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed a lower state court and said a statewide initiative dealing with campaign finance and redistricting can be on the ballot. The lower court had removed it for violating the single subject rule. See this story.
Slowly, the various states with unresolved disputes about who and what should be on the November ballot are getting finality.
On September 18, the Missouri State Appeals Court ruled that a lower state court was correct when it kept a statewide initiative on the ballot. Bradshaw v Ashcroft, 820-75. The initiative had been challenged by individuals who testified that the circulator was not always present when the initiative had been signed. Copies of the petitions had been posted on bulletin boards, and some voters signed them when no circulator was present. But the Appeals Court said state law does not allow the Secretary of State to invalidate initiative petitions if the petitions on their face appear in good order, and the petition was signed by the required number of registered voters.
The subject of the initiative was medical marijuana. There will now be three initiatives on the ballot on the subject of marijuana.