On May 28, the Texas legislature passed SB 5, which eases the existing Texas law requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID. The bill allows people who don’t have such ID to vote anyway. However they must sign a statement explaining that they don’t have such ID, and if they are found to have not told the truth, are subject to serious criminal penalties.
On June 1, the North Carolina House Elections Committee passed SB 655, which moves the primary for all office from May to March. The bill had already passed the Senate unanimously. The House Elections Committee did not consider any other bill at its June 1 meeting. The bill also moves a reference to the South Carolina presidential primary date.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Andrew Brock (R-Mocksville), the same Senator who is also sponsoring the ballot access bill.
On May 18, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, upheld Texas’ sore loser law as applied to presidential candidates. Kennedy v Pablos, w.d., 1:16cv-1047. The case had been filed in 2016 by Rocky De La Fuente, who had appeared on the Texas Democratic presidential primary ballot in March 2016, and then wanted to be an independent presidential candidate in Texas in November.
Although De La Fuente also complained about the May petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, and the number of signatures, the decision did not consider those aspects of the Texas law, on the grounds that since De La Fuente was barred by the sore loser law, he doesn’t have standing to challenge the independent petition characteristics.
The decision is only fifteen pages and ignores the more sophisticated arguments that De La Fuente had made. De La Fuente argued that in November, the true candidates are the presidential elector candidates, and they aren’t sore losers. The decision also doesn’t mention that the true candidates in the presidential primary are the candidates for delegate. The decision doesn’t discuss U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, which said that states can’t add to the constitutional qualifications for federal office. Sore loser laws bar candidates because of their recent past political behavior. A presidential candidate’s past political behavior (running in a partisan primary) is no different than the political behavior of a member of Congress who desires to run for a fourth term. Because the term limits decision said states can’t bar candidates from the ballot because of their past political behavior, the Texas presidential sore loser law is inconsistent with the term limits decision.
Minnesota has a law making it illegal for a voter at the polls to wear anything that has political associations. The Minnesota law is far harsher than the normal state laws that make it illegal to wear anything at the polls suggesting support or opposition to any person, party, or ballot measure that is on the ballot.
The lower federal courts have consistently upheld the Minnesota law. A group called Minnesota Voters Alliance is hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its case against the law. In December 16, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused a similar case, but it had procedural problems. The new case is Minnesota Majority v Mansky, 16-1435.
The Maine joint Veterans & Legal Affairs Committee will hear two bills concerning ranked choice voting on Friday, June 2, at 9 a.m.
LD 1624 would amend the Maine constitution to make it clear that ranked-choice voting is permitted. LD 1625 would repeal the law the voters passed last year that implements ranked choice voting.
