On October 25, the California Attorney General released this summary of a proposed initiative to repeal the top-two system. The proponents are now free to print up petitions and circulate them. The summary says that if the initiative passed, there would be no significant increase in election administration costs.
On October 25, a trial court in Alberta ruled that the Canadian election law, requiring candidates for House of Commons to pay a fee of $1,000, is unconstitutional. See this story. The law also requires 100 signatures, and that part of the law was upheld.
Jennifer Rubin, who writes the “Right Turn” blog for the Washington Post, here speculates that both major parties may break up.
As a result of other states having eased their ballot access laws in 2016 and 2017, Ohio now requires more signatures to get a new party on the ballot than any other state. For 2018, Ohio requires 54,965 signatures. The only state with a higher requirement is California, which requires the group to persuade approximately 60,000 people to register into the party.
The third highest number for statewide new party ballot access in 2018 is Georgia, at 51,912 signatures.
When the current Ohio ballot access law was passed in 2013, the House passed a version of SB 193 that set the petition at one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. If that were the law, the Ohio 2018 requirement would be 27,483 signatures. Unfortunately there was a drafting error in the House version of the bill. The Senate sponsor of SB 193, Senator Bill Seitz, originally said he was satisfied with one-half of 1%. But by the time the drafting error was caught and fixed, Senator Seitz changed his mind and insisted on 1%. This does show that there was some sentiment in the Ohio legislature for an easier requirement, and if Ohio activists contact state legislators and ask for relief, that might help to get a better law.
The fate of the Michigan straight-ticket device is currently pending in U.S. District Court in Detroit. In early 2016 the state had repealed the straight-ticket device. The Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute and Common Cause had then filed a lawsuit to retain the device. The lawsuit argues that repealing the device injures African-American voters. The U.S. District Court ordered the state to leave the device in place for the 2016 election, and the Sixth Circuit upheld that order.
Now that the 2016 election is over, the case is getting closer to a decision. On October 16, the state filed this 66-page brief, asking for Summary Judgment. The brief has hundreds of pages of attachments. The state argues that the straight-ticket device causes voter confusion and results in ballot errors, and therefore the state has an interest in eliminating the device. The state also argues that there is no evidence that the device was repealed for discriminatory purposes. The state also says that the plaintiffs have not been injured by repeal of the device, and therefore they don’t have standing.
