Rand Paul Hopes to Change Kentucky Law that Prevents Candidates from Running for Two Offices Simultaneously

According to this article, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, whose term expires in 2016, will try to change a Kentucky law that says a candidate cannot appear on the ballot as a candidate for more than one office.

The article says that some of Paul’s allies believe that the Kentucky law is unconstitutional, and they base this on the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, which struck down state laws that imposed term limits in congressional elections. However, courts have generally upheld “resign to run” laws, even when the plaintiff who challenged such laws wanted to run for federal office. Courts have ruled that if someone is unwilling to give up his or her old office in the middle of the term, in order to run for Congress, Article One is irrelevant. They say that it is the candidate’s own decision whether or not to run for Congress (and sacrifice the elected position already held). The state law is not prohibiting someone from running for Congress.

By analogy, then, if Paul challenged Kentucky’s law against running for two offices simultaneously, the courts would probably say that he is free to run for re-election to the Senate, so Article One has no bearing. The Kentucky primary is in May, and candidates file for a place on the primary ballot in January. Paul could file for the U.S. Senate and skip running in Kentucky’s presidential primary, and yet run in presidential primaries in other states.

Dan Schnur, Former Campaign Consultant and Advisor to California Republican Politicians, Will Run for Secretary of State as an Independent

Dan Schnur will run for California Secretary of State as an independent candidate in 2014. He was active in Republican Party politics in California in the past, and became a registered independent in 2011. See this story. He will be the first independent candidate for Secretary of State in the history of government-printed ballots in California, which began in 1891. Here is another story.

Schnur has been a supporter of Proposition 14, the top-two system, ever since it passed in 2010. I have tried to communicate with Mr. Schnur over the past year about the deficiencies of Proposition 14, including the point that Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation deprived independent candidates of the ability to have “independent” on the ballot. He and other independent candidates must have “no party preference” on the ballot, which is less appealing than “independent.” Research from around the U.S. was published in the August 1, 2013 B.A.N., showing that independent candidates who have the label “independent” do better than independent candidates who use other terms, such as “no party preference”, “non-partisan”, “unaffiliated”, or no label at all.

California Turnout in Special Elections Has Declined by One-Third Since Top-Two Rules Came into Force

Many large newspapers in California are bemoaning the very low turnout in special U.S. House and legislative elections recently. Some newspapers are editorializing in favor of eliminating special elections for the legislature, and advocating that the Constitution be changed to let the Governor appoint legislators to fill vacant seats. See this Los Angeles Times editorial, and this Santa Rosa Press Democrat editorial.

The newspapers are correct that voter turnout in recent special elections has been low. Ever since the top-two rules were in force, starting in 2011, the median voter turnout in California special legislative and U.S. House elections has been 13.84%. The average has been 15.80%. There have been 19 special elections under top-two rules.

If one looks at special elections for U.S. House and legislature in the period just before top-two rules went into effect, one notes that the median turnout was 20.27% and the average turnout was 21.93%. That covers the special elections held in 2009 and 2010, and also the special election held January 4, 2011, because it was held under the old rules.

Thus, whether one uses the median turnout, or the average turnout, turnout is approximately one-third lower under the top-two rules than in the corresponding period of time before it went into effect. One reason for lower turnout is that top-two makes it impossible for minor party candidates to get into the run-off, if there is one. Under the old rules for special elections, which were blanket primary elections, the top vote-getter from each party went into the run-off, if there was one (and there usually was a run-off). This encouraged minor party members to run, because they could campaign for a longer period of time. Also, under the old rules, minor party members only needed 150 signatures to avoid paying the filing fee, but now they need either 3,000 or 1,500, depending on whether they are running for U.S. House/State Senate, or Assembly.

The new rules also discourage independent candidates. Under the old rules, they were always included in the run-off, if there was one. Also, under the old rules, they could have the word “independent” on the ballot; now they have the less-appealing “no party preference.” And under the old rules, write-in space was on the run-off ballot, but that is no longer true.

Minor parties sometimes did well in special elections, under the old rules. An American Independent Party nominee got 10.2% in the State Senate 37th run-off held June 8, 2010. A Peace & Freedom Party nominee got 8.45% in the State Senate 26th run-off held May 19, 2009. A Green got 6.2% in the Assembly 72nd run-off on January 12, 2010. A Libertarian got 5.2% in the US House 32nd run-off on July 14, 2009.

The calculations above do not include the two instances in which a special election was held simultaneously with a regularly-scheduled general election, because obviously the turnout for that special election was unusually high simply because it was held on a regular election day.

Lawsuit Filed to Remove Montana Top-Two Ballot Measure from 2014 Ballot

On December 19, a lawsuit was filed in the Montana Supreme Court to remove the ballot measures that would establish a top-two system in Montana, and repeal election-day voter registration. See this story. Thanks to Mike Fellows for the link.

The top-two measure is on the ballot because the Republican majority in the legislature placed it on the ballot. The sponsor of the bill for top-two is quoted as saying that he has a problem with elections in which the winner does not receive a majority of the vote. He seems not to have read about the California U.S. House election in 2012 in the 31st district. Two Republicans were the only candidates on the ballot in November, even though the district is strongly Democratic. So 23.1% of the voters who cast a ballot left U.S. House blank. Therefore, the winner, Congressman Gary Miller, did not get a majority of the people who cast a ballot.

Hawaii Improves Ballot Access For Presidential Candidates of Unqualified Parties

The Hawaii Attorney General has prepared a formal opinion that improves ballot access for the presidential nominees of unqualified parties. The opinion says that when an unqualified party uses the independent presidential petition procedure, the party label should be printed on the ballot, instead of just “non-partisan.”

The Hawaii independent presidential petition procedure has a September deadline, one of the latest deadlines of any state. Therefore, as a result of the decision, it can be said that Hawaii has a September petition deadline for unqualified parties to appear on the ballot, but for president and vice-president only.

As a result, Alabama now has the nation’s earliest petition deadline for a new or previously unqualified to qualify for the presidential ballot with the party label. This fact will be helpful to the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties in their ongoing litigation against that Alabama March petition deadline. The case is pending in the Eleventh Circuit.