California Bill, Lowering the Number of Signatures for Petitions in Lieu of Filing Fee, is Amended Favorably

On September 1, California bill AB 469 was amended.  It somewhat eases the petition in lieu of filing fees.  The number of signatures for a statewide office drops from 10,000 to 7,000.  The number for U.S. House and State Senate drops from 3,000 to 2,000.  The number for Assembly drops from 1,500 to 1,000.

These changes had already been in the bill, but the September 1 amendment says that the petition forms will be available 60 days, instead of 45 days, before the date for filing the other (mandatory) petition to be on the primary ballot (that other mandatory petition is only 65 signatures for statewide office and 40 for district office).  This is to compensate for the other aspect of the bill, which sets an earlier deadline for the petition in lieu of filing fee and abolishes the ability to get more signatures on the in lieu of petition if the first submission shows that not enough valid signatures had been turned in.

The California in lieu of filing fee petition helps reduce the amount of the filing fee, even if it isn’t completed.  Every valid signature on an in lieu of petition reduces the amount of the filing fee.  Thanks to Mike Feinstein for the link.  The fact that this bill exists in its present form is due to skillful lobbying on the part of the Peace & Freedom Party and the Green Party.

Pennsylvania Legislature Returns from Recess; May Pass Bill Eliminating Some Partisan Statewide Judicial Elections

The Pennsylvania legislature is about to return after its summer recess.  HB 111 has seventeen sponsors and is considered fairly likely to pass.  It would eliminate statewide partisan judicial elections for Superior Court and Commonwealth Court.  Those courts would be filled by gubernatorial appointment.  The voters would continue to elect State Supreme Court justices on a partisan basis.

The bill amends the state constitution.  If it passes, then the voters would be asked to approve the idea.

New Jersey State Trial Court Won’t Unseat Democratic Primary Winner, Even Though He Had Told the Public Before the Primary That He Wouldn’t run in General

On August 29, a Burlington County (New Jersey) Superior Court ruled that the winner of the June 2017 Democratic primary did not disqualify himself when he said publicly before the primary that if he won the primary, he would resign as the Democratic nominee and let the party replace him.  Daniels v Williams, L-1250-17.  See this story.  The decision said that just because he said he wasn’t running in November doesn’t mean that he wanted people not to vote for him in the primary.