Iowa HF 516 is a large election law bill that abolishes the straight-ticket device, and changes many other Iowa election laws. It was introduced March 2 by the House Committee on State Government, so it is very likely to pass that committee. Thanks to John Deeth for this news.
On March 6, attorneys for the California Secretary of State filed this brief in the Ninth Circuit, in Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. The issue is the California law that lets some candidates for Congress and state office have their party of registration printed on the ballot, but does not let other candidates do this. The plaintiff is a registered Socialist.
The overwhelming bulk of the state’s lengthy brief is to make the point that the ballot is not a free speech forum. But that is irrelevant. The state has chosen to allow some candidates to have their party printed on the ballot. Nowhere in this brief does the state explain why the state allows party labels on the ballot for any candidates at all. If the state were to set forth why some candidates have a party label, whatever the rationale set forth surely would apply to all candidates.
The state’s brief also says that the November election in California is a “runoff”, which it is not. A “runoff” is not permitted for Congressional elections except after November of even-numbered years. If the California election for Congress were a true “runoff”, it would be illegal under a federal law that has existed since 1872. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified this in 1997 in Foster v Love, which stopped Louisiana from electing members of Congress in September.
California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Los Angeles) has introduced SCA 11 and SB 691. They would provide that every candidate for local office in California (county, city, special district) would have his or her party of registration printed on ballots.
The does not cover judicial elections, or elections for Superintendent of Public Instruction. Those would be the only offices with no party labels on the ballot.
The bill, if enacted, would not alter the characteristic of local California elections that the first election is an election and can (and usually does) elect someone.
The bill could not take effect unless the voters approve the change, because the nonpartisan nature of local elections is currently in the state Constitution. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for this news.
Republican writer Bruce Bialosky has this commentary about California’s top-two system, at Townhall. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.
The Iowa bill to abolish the straight-ticket device, SF 60, did not make any headway this year, and it has now missed the deadline for bill to have passed their first committee.
