Connecticut Voter Who Sued Over Being Expelled from the Republican Party Fails to get Any Relief in Federal Court

In 2015, Jane Miller, a former Republican nominee for public office and a registered Republican, was expelled from the Republican Party. She therefore was unable to vote in the closed Republican presidential primary in early 2016. She filed a federal lawsuit in April 2016 charging that the Republican Party violated her rights. However, on March 29, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Thompson, a Clinton appointee, ruled against her. Miller v Dunkerton, 3:16cv-174.

The federal court ruled mostly on procedural grounds, arguing that her state court case (which she had lost) prevents the federal court from re-litigating the matter. Miller had been expelled because she had temporarily changed her affiliation to “independent” in order to be nominated by the local Democratic Party for a local partisan office. She did not win that election, and after it was over re-registered Republican, but then her new Republican registration was cancelled. Connecticut state law permits parties to block people from registering if they are deemed to be insincere. New York has a similar law. Last year, though, she was readmitted to the Republican Party.

Maine Bill that Moderately Improves Ballot Access Becomes Law

Maine LD 1571 makes moderate improvements in ballot access for newly-qualifying parties. It says that the deadline for a group to obtain 5,000 registered members is January of the election year, rather than December of the year before the election.

More importantly, it says that a newly-qualifying party has two elections before it must meet the requirements for a party to remain on. The standard for a party to remain on is that it have 10,000 registered members who actually cast a ballot in a general election.

Finally, the bill clarifies that the Libertarian Party is a qualified party for 2018. But in November 2018, if the law remains unchanged, the Libertarian Party must have more than 10,000 registered voters, because it must have 10,000 registered members who cast a ballot in November 2018.

The new law is still subject to court challenge. The deadline of January of an election year is still preposterously early. Also the law on how a party remains on the ballot is not sensible. If a party has enough support to be recognized in its first year if it has 5,000 registrants, why should it have more than 10,000 to remain on, several years later? If Maine would let a party keep its registrants when it goes off the ballot, a party that went off the ballot for not having 10,000 registrants could instantly come back into legal existence, because it would have had at least 5,000, so it could instantly again be qualified. The problem with that is that when a new party ceases to be qualified in Maine, election officials convert all its members instantly to independents, a policy that itself is probably unconstitutional. Courts in Colorado, New York, New Jersey, and Oklahoma have ruled that states must let voters register into unqualified parties as well as qualified ones.

New Political Science Research on Top-Two

Political scientists Eric McGhee and Boris Shor have published “Has the Top Two Primary Elected More Moderates?” Anyone may read the 36-page paper at this link. The authors studied California and Washington, which are the only two states that use top-two (as they explain on page 6 and 16, Louisiana and Nebraska don’t have top-two systems).

They conclude that since top-two started in each state, California Democrats in the legislature have become more moderate, but California and Washington Republicans and Democrats in Congress have not; nor have Republicans in the legislatures of either state moderated. The paper suggests that a strong reason why California Democrats in the legislature have moderated is because of three other changes made almost simultaneously: (1) redistricting reform; (2) term limits were eased; (3) the California budget no longer takes a two-thirds majority in each house of the legislature. But the paper believes that top two has probably had some moderating effect on California legislative Democrats.

Page 27 says, “The results of these analyses suggest virtually no effect of the Top Two in Washington or for Republicans in California.” That page also says that because members of congress are not subject to term limits, whereas members of the California legislature are subject to term limits, therefore term limits is probably the main reason why the results are different for California Democratic legislators, versus California Democratic members of the U.S. House. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

California Republican Assemblymember Declares for Governor in 2018

On June 22, California Republican Assemblymember Travis Allen announced that he will run for Governor in 2018. Another Republican, John Cox, had already announced for Governor. See this story. The Allen candidacy increases the odds that the June 2018 primary will cause only two Democrats to qualify for the November ballot. Allen represents the Huntington Beach area of Orange County.

South Dakota Supporters of Top-Two Will Attempt to Qualify an Initiative for Top-Two in 2018

South Dakota supporters of top-two systems will try to qualify an initiative in 2018 for their system. See this story.

The story is erroneous when it says that Louisiana has a top-two system. Louisiana had a top-two system from 1975 through 1997, but after the Louisiana version of top-two was declared to violate federal law (in the US Supreme Court decision Foster v Love), Louisiana abolished primaries and only has general elections in November (for Congress) and a run-off in December if no one gets 50%. Thanks to Mike Drucker for this news.