On April 3, a Maine state trial court issued an opinion in Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting v Dunlap, Kennebec Co., cv-18-24. See this story, which has a copy of the opinion. The opinion says the state must use ranked-choice voting for the upcoming June primary for all federal and state office. Thanks to Jacqui Deveneau for the link.
On April 3, the voters of Wisconsin voted by a 61%-39% margin to continue electing a partisan state office, Treasurer. The legislature had put a ballot measure on the ballot to abolish the office.
Having the Treasurer’s election continue in existence makes it somewhat easier for parties to retain their status as qualified parties. Wisconsin defines a political party to be a group that polled 1% for any of the statewide offices. The only other partisan statewide state offices in Wisconsin are the team of Governor-Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.
The Alabama legislature adjourned for the year on March 29. The bills to abolish special U.S. Senate elections (except special elections held in November of even-numbered years) failed to pass. HB 17 had passed the House on January 23, and had passed the Senate committee on February 15, but made no further progress. The identical bill in the Senate, SB 18, made no headway.
The Montana Democratic Party challenge to the Green Party petition will be heard in a state trial court on Tuesday, April 24. See this story.
On April 2, the Fourth Circuit issued this opinion in North Carolina Democratic Party v Berger, 18-1150. The North Carolina legislature last year cancelled primaries for 2018 partisan judicial elections, and said all candidates for judge would only run in November. The Democratic Party sued last year, and won an injunction in U.S. District Court early this year, saying the suspension of judicial primaries for statewide judicial races likely violated the U.S. Constitution. But on February 9, 2018, the Fourth Circuit stayed that order. The Fourth Circuit has now explained why it did so.
The Fourth Circuit feels that the state has an interest in consistency, and that because there were not going to be primaries for local judicial races, it would confuse the voters if there were primaries for statewide judicial elections. The vote for the April 2 opinion is 3-0, whereas on February 9 it had been 2-1. Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, who changed her vote, explained in the April 2 opinion why she changed her mind. Back in February the only individuals defending the 2017 state law were state legislative leaders, but later, the state itself had associated itself with the arguments of the legislative leaders, and that made a difference to Judge Motz. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
