On February 8, the state of Georgia, in response to a lawsuit, agreed to ease its procedures for handling new voter registrations. Under the old practice, if a new voter registration form was submitted, election officials checked it against the data in the state drivers’ license records, and also checked Social Security records. If there was the slightest discrepancy, such as the use of a maiden name when the applicant first received a Social Security card and use of her married name when she registered to vote, or the slightest spelling deviation, including apostrophes, the voter registration form was rejected.

Under the settlement, such voter registration applications will be processed, with a notation “pending”. When the applicant shows up to vote the first time, he or she will be required to show certain kinds of government I.D. and if that satisfies the discrepancy, the applicant will be able to vote and be considered a normal registrant. The case is Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v Kemp, n.d., 2:16cv-219. The lawsuit had been filed September 14, 2016. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

On February 7, Nevada State Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) introduced SB 103, which converts Nevada partisan elections into top-two elections. This is the second session in which Senator Settelmeyer has introduced the bill.

The bill is ambiguous as to whether persons registered into unqualified parties could have their party label on the ballot.

On February 9, the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized against the bill.

The legislature’s bill summary misuses the term “blanket primary.” The analysis describes the bill as a blanket primary, but a blanket primary puts the top vote-getter from each party on the general election, and this bill does not do that. The editorial is also weak on vocabulary; it refers to a top-two system as an “open primary”, but for over 100 years, “open primary” has been defined in political science textbooks and U.S. Supreme Court opinions as a system in which each party has its own primary ballot and its own nominees, but any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.

One Nevada activist who has worked to get SB 103 introduced says he does not really believe top-two is a good system, but he believes that having a top-two system will make it easier to transition into a system using ranked-choice voting. However, history shows that the best way to gt ranked-choice system passed is to first have a system in which strong minor party or independent candidates compete, leading most people to then deplore the results of “spoiling.” This is how Maine was persuaded to pass ranked-choice voting.

The U.S. District Court debates decision Level the Playing Field v FEC came down on February 1. Most large media did not mention the decision. Now, there is greater attention. See this very interesting and lengthy Real Clear Politics story, which has details about what comes next. Also see this story at AntiMedia.org, noting the lack of press attention to the decision. Thanks to Jack Dean and Phil Berg for the links.