The voters of Puerto Rico will vote on Sunday, June 11, 2017, whether to seek statehood, or whether Puerto Rico should have a more independent status relative to the United States. Those are the only two options on the ballot. Although Puerto Rico has voted on its status four times previously (1967, 1993, 1998, and 2012) past referendums always included the status quo, Commonwealth status, as a choice. This will be the first time that the status quo is not a ballot choice.

If statehood wins, the Puerto Rico will pass a bill providing for elections of two U.S. Senators and five U.S. House members for later in 2017.

If statehood loses, there will be another referendum in a few months, asking voters to choose between total independence, or status as a free nation associated with the United States. That latter choice might or might not continue to provide that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, and might or might not provide that the U.S. dollar would continue to be Puerto Rico’s currency.

The Governor strongly supports statehood. But if statehood wins, then it would be up to Congress to decide whether to admit Puerto Rico as a state. Thanks to Juan Jose Nolla for this information.

On March 16, the New Jersey legislature passed SB 3048, which adds a ballot access restriction for presidential candidates in the general election. Presidential candidates must file copies of their personal income taxes for the proceding five years, or they cannot have their names on the ballot. Also, presidential electors are not permitted to vote for anyone for president who has not filed his or her income tax returns.
Here is a copy of the bill. Most observers expect the bill to be vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. If it becomes law, it will almost surely be challenged in court. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton that neither states, nor Congress, may add to the U.S. constitutional requirements for eligibility for congress, which include age and residency. The Constitution also has age and residency requirements for president. The argument that the states can add qualifications for president, but not Congress, is not logically consistent nor convincing.

In 1992 the Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Lyndon LaRouche could not be kept off the Democratic presidential primary just because because he was a felon.

The part of the bill that tells presidential electors whom they can or cannot vote for will stand or fall on the four pending federal lawsuits filed by Democratic presidential electors last year, over whether they had the right to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton in the electoral college in December.

On March 16, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat, vetoed HB 100. The bill converts judicial elections, for local judges, from non-partisan to partisan. The message says that non-partisan elections are better than partisan elections for judges. It also says that the requirement that independent judicial candidates, who would need a petition of 2% of the number of registered voters in their district, would have a difficult time getting on the ballot. See the veto message here.

Ironically, HB 100 provided easier petition requirements for independent judicial candidates than for independent candidates for other district office. For all other district office, independent candidates need a petition of 4% of the registered voters.

The veto was expected, because in the legislature, Republicans supported the bill whereas Democrats opposed it. The Republican majority in each house of the legislature exceeds 60% of the membership, and vetoes can be overridden in North Carolina with a 60% vote in each house, so there will be an attempt to override the veto. Thanks to Kevin Hayes for this news.