On March 7, Texas Representative Ron Reynolds (D-Missouri City) introduced HB 3068. It makes many far-reaching improvements in Texas ballot access laws for independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties, and also makes it easier for a party to remain on the ballot. The bill text isn’t on the legislature’s web page yet, but when it is, a link will be provided.
It has now been over six weeks since the plaintiffs in State ex rel Fockler v Husted asked the Ohio Supreme Court for reconsideration, and the Court still hasn’t reacted to that request. Here is a link to the docket for that case in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Chillicothe, Ohio, has partisan city elections for city council. Incumbent Alicia Gray, who has no opponents, failed to submit a valid petition to get on the Democratic primary ballot. See this story.
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.
