The June 8 Portland (Maine) Press Herald has this editorial, asking the legislature to make it possible to implement ranked choice voting by amending the Maine Constitution. Thanks to IVN for the link.
1
On June 7 and June 8, Maine LD 1571 passed second reading in both houses of the legislature. The bill says a newly-qualifying party has two elections, not just one, to satisfy the requirements to remain on the ballot. It also slightly improves the deadline for a newly-qualifying party, from December of the year before the election, to January of the election year.
The United Utah Party will hold its first state convention on June 17, in Draper, to select party officers and also to select a nominee for the special election for U.S. House. See this story, which says that if the state elections office won’t recognize the nomination, the party will sue.
On June 8, the North Carolina bill that moves the primary for all office from May to March was supposed to get a vote in the House. It had already passed the Senate. But instead, the bill was removed from the House calendar and sent to the House Rules Committee. The bill is SB 655.
Texas law permits a voter at the polls to bring an interpreter to the polls. However, the law says the interpreter must live in the same county. On June 8, the Fifth Circuit heard arguments in a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the law. The case is Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston v State of Texas, 16-51126. The individual voter-plaintiff, Mallika Das, brought her son to the polls with her in order to translate. However, he was not permitted to be the interpreter because he lived in a next-door county.
The U.S. District Court had invalidated the law. The three judges on the Fifth Circuit panel are James E. Graves, Jr. and Stephen A. Higginson (Obama appointees), and Patrick E. Higginbotham (a Reagan appointee). The state defends the law mostly by saying the plaintiffs lack standing. The only voter-plaintiff died before the U.S. District Court ruling, although there are some organization plaintiffs in the case as well. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about this case.
UPDATE: anyone can hear the 28-minute oral argument at this link. One of the most interesting facts brought out in the oral argument is that the law not only prohibits residents of other counties from acting as interpreters; it also bans any interpreter who is not a registered voter in the same county. This means that elderly persons who rely on their teen-age grandchildren to interpret for them can’t use their grandchildren to interpret for them at the polls, because someone under age 18 can’t be a registered voter.
The first 36 seconds are silent, so if you choose to listen, just wait for the first 36 seconds to pass, and then you will hear the argument.