On December 19, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 1, the tax bill. There are eighteen Republicans in the U.S. House from the two states that use the top-two system. Of those eighteen Republicans from California and Washington, all but two voted “Yes” on the bill. Here is the roll call. The two Republicans who voted against it are Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa, both from southern California.

The vote must be re-done, due to a problem with the bill. The re-vote will be December 20. All Democrats voted against the bill.

Supporters of top-two system argue that in a top-two system, elected politicians vote without regard to the will of “party bosses” and instead vote in accordance with popular opinion. However, generally, that did not happen on December 19. All of the Republicans in open primary states voted for the bill. In New York, which has closed primaries, five Republicans voted against the bill; in New Jersey, which has closed primaries (except independents can join a party on primary day if they wish to vote in a primary), four of the five Republicans voted against the bill; in North Carolina, which has semi-closed primaries, one Republican voted against the bill.

This outcome confirms what political science research has shown: type of primary system does not change how elected politicians behave.

A hearing was held on December 19 in Republican Party of Texas v Pablos in federal court in Austin. The issue was whether Congressman Blake Farenthold could remove his name from the March 2018 Republican primary ballot. He is an incumbent member of Congress. He filed for re-election, but the next day he decided to withdraw. However, he was one day too late to withdraw, so the Republican Party filed the lawsuit to enable him to withdraw.

In court, attorneys for the Texas Secretary of State said if the Republican Party leaves Farenthold off its list of candidates, then Farenthold will not appear on the primary ballot. The Secretary of State hasn’t yet received the official list of Republican Party candidates; it is due December 19 (today). So the Republican Party withdrew its lawsuit, and presumably is submitting a list that excludes Farenthold.

On December 19, U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier issued a 26-page opinion in Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Krebs, 4:15cv-4111. The issue is the March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. The state argues that the early deadline is necessary, because the state has a strong interest in providing that newly-qualifying parties nominate by primary. The South Dakota primary is in June, so the state argues the March deadline is necessary.

The plaintiff parties, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, argue that the March petition deadline forces them to submit a hefty petition (2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, tied for the second highest percentage requirement for mandatory new party petitions in the nation) and collect many, if not most, signatures in the winter months. As is well known, South Dakota has severe winter weather that makes petitioning outdoors difficult.

The December 19 decision says that a trial will be needed to weigh whether the state really needs to provide newly-qualifying parties with their own primary. The state is in a somewhat awkward position because in South Dakota, all parties (even the Republicans and Democrats) don’t use a primary to nominate for any statewide state executive office except Governor. So since the state already has procedures in place for all parties, big and small alike, to nominate for some offices by convention, one wonders why the state has any interest in preventing newly-qualifying parties from using their conventions to nominate for all office, instead of just some offices. The decision says on page 21, “The questions here are whether South Dakota has a compelling state interest in having certain candidates participate in a primary election while others an be selected by convention.”