Texas Representative Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) has introduced HB 1061, which would add a question to the voter registration form, asking for the applicant’s party. The bill would also not permit parties to nominate candidates who are not registered members, a policy that the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party would be unconstitutional.

The bill also does not permit party members to sign a petition for an independent candidate. The only other states that ever had that restriction were Louisiana before 1948, and Arizona 1993-1999. The Arizona restriction was held unconstitutional in Campbell v Hull in 1999.

The bill also does not permit party members to sign for a new party, unless they are registered independents. That policy was held unconstitutional in New Mexico in Workers World Party v Vigil-Giron in 1988, and in Kentucky in Libertarian Party v Ehrler in 1991.

The bill is ambiguous as to whether voters would be allowed to register into an unqualified party. Thanks to Jim Riley for the news.

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.