California Democratic Legislators Amend One of the Budget Bills to Make it More Difficult for Recall Petitions to Succeed

California Democratic legislators have amended one of the budget bills to alter procedures for recall petitions. SB 96 was introduced on January 11 and was strictly a budget bill. It passed the Senate on May 11. But on June 9, it was amended to include some provisions changing the law relative to recall elections. It says that signers may remove their names during the 30 days after a recall petition is submitted, and also extends the time for a recall to appear on the ballot, relative to when the petitions were submitted.

There is currently a recall underway against Democratic State Senator Josh Newman. Recall proponents have already submitted 31,000 signatures. If the bill is signed into law, it goes into effect immediately and would alter the rules for this recall. Provisions that allow signers to remove their names on petitions after it is too late for proponents to gather more signatures are fundamentally unfair. Proponents of petitions can never know if their petition will succeed, if signers can remove their names after the petition has been submitted. No one can predict how many signatures will be removed.

Extending the time between submission of a recall petition, and the date of the recall election, would have a different effect on the Newman petition. It would make it more likely that a recall would be held at the time of the regular June 2018 primary, instead of earlier as a stand-alone election.

Henry Grabar, Slate Journalist, Points Out Implications for U.S. of French 2017 Elections

Henry Grabar, a writer for Slate, and author of many books, here points out how stunning it is that France elected a president this year who had founded his own political party just a year previously. Furthermore, that party now appears likely to win a huge majority in the French Parliament. Grabar ends his piece by asking why something like that hasn’t happened in the United States.

Pennsylvania Files Brief Explaining Why it was Correct to Bar Rocky De La Fuente from November 2016 Ballot

Rocky De La Fuente petitioned in Pennsylvania to be on the November 2016 ballot as an independent presidential candidate. Even though he appeared to have enough signatures, and even though no one challenged his petition, the Pennsylvania Department of State refused to put him on the ballot, because he had also appeared on the Democratic presidential primary in 2016.

De La Fuente sued over that in August 2016, and the case is still alive. Here is the state’s brief, explaining its action. The brief was filed June 8. The case is De La Fuente v Cortes, m.d., 1:16cv-1696. Most of the brief raises procedural objections; the only substantive discussion about whether sore loser laws can apply to presidential primaries starts on page 21. The brief does not mention that Pennsylvania counted John Anderson’s write-ins in the 1980 Republican presidential primary, and also allowed Anderson to be on the November ballot as an independent.

Michigan Bill that Eliminates Party Logos Passes Senate Committee

On June 12, the Michigan Senate Elections & Government Reform Committee passed HB 4177. It had already passed the House. It removes party logos from the ballot. Passage of this bill is expected to help the state win the pending lawsuit over whether the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from eliminating the straight-ticket device. The connection between logos and the straight-ticket device may seem nebulous. But evidence from other states has shown that when a state repeals the straight-ticket device, but leaves logos on the ballot, some confused voters think they can cast a straight-ticket vote by drawing a circle around the logo for one particular party. Thus if Michigan removes logos, that will remove one justification for the straight-ticket device to be retained.