On June 6, Hawaii Governor Josh Green signed HB 134. It directs the state elections office to develop a system by which candidates may file nomination petitions electronically. The bill does not try to set forth the details of how that would work. This is not quite the same as allowing signatures to be collected electronically; instead it relates to submitting the petitions after they are finished.
On June 8, the Louisiana legislature passed HB 342. It increases filing fees for statewide state office from $750 to $3,500 for U.S. Senator; $2,500 for statewide state office; and $1,500 for U.S. House.
However, the bill decreases the number of signatures in lieu of the filing fee. Statewide office drops from 5,000 signatures to 2,500 signatures. U.S. House drops from 1,000 signatures to 750, but only for the primary.
Starting in 2026, Louisiana uses partisan nominations for congress, but continues the old system of no party nominees for state and local office. Oddly, the bill does not change any filing fees or petition requirements for congressional candidates who are not running in a party primary. This may have been an oversight. It would be strange for a state to have different filing fee amounts (for the same office) in the primary, compared to the general election.
Maine Governor Janet Mills still hasn’t acted on LD 1666, which passed the legislature on June 11. It would extend ranked choice voting to general elections for state office. Currently the system is very peculiar. Maine has ranked choice voting for all federal office, in primaries and general elections both. But for state office, it has ranked choice voting for primaries but not general elections. See this story.
On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Virginia state government to derail a new type of attack on the state’s ban on ex-felon voting. In 1870, when Congress passed a bill readmitting Virginia to the union, it included a provision that Virginia’s Constitution “must never be changed so as to deprive any citizen or group of citizens the right to vote”, except that it said Virginia could continue to bar voting by persons who had committed a common law felony.
Back in 1870, there were no drug laws. Two Virginia voters, who had been convicted of a drug felony, brought a federal lawsuit saying that because their crimes were not felonies in 1870, therefore under the terms of the readmission act, Virginia could not deprive them of the ability to vote. The lower courts agreed to let the case move forward. Virginia tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to short-circuit the lawsuit, saying that the 1870 readmission law cannot be enforced by a lawsuit brought by individuals. But the U.S. Supreme Court refused Virginia’s request.
If the lawsuit eventually wins, similar lawsuits will probably be brought against several other southern states whose re-admission law had a similar provision. The case is O’Bannon v King, 24-964.
The U.S. Supreme Court conference of June 18 did not decide whether the Court will hear Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-621. The is the lawsuit that aims to have certain restrictions on political party spending declared unconstitutional. The Court will consider whether to hear the case at its June 26 conference. The case is unusual because both sides agree the law is unconstitutional, although the Democratic Party will be allowed to intervene in the case to defend the law.
