Alabama U.S. House Special Election Results

Posted on by
1

On December 17, Alabama held a special election for U.S. House, First District. Although independent candidate James Hall put up a strong legal fight to win a spot on the ballot, he was not on the ballot. The only two candidates on the ballot were Republican Bradley Byrne and Democrat Burton LeFlore. With a few precincts still not reporting from Mobile County, the vote was: Byrne 32,506; LeFlore 13,989.

When this district had last voted, in November 2012, Jo Bonner, the Republican incumbent, had been the only name on the ballot. He had polled 196,374 votes, with 4,302 miscellaneous write-ins for others.

It is startling that the new member of Congress from the First District was elected with only 32,506 votes, plus the few that remain to be counted. Turnout was exceptionally low for a U.S. House election.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Review Minnesota Law Banning Wearing Any Political Message at Polls on Election Day

Posted on by
3

On December 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Minnesota Majority v Mansky, 13-185. The case concerned a Minnesota law that says, “A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” The law is interpreted to cover the area around the polling place, up to 100 feet. The case has been filed in 2010 by individuals who wanted to wear buttons. Some of the plaintiffs were election day monitors who wanted to wear buttons that said, “Please I.D. Me.” Other plaintiffs wanted to wear buttons that said “Tea Party Patriots.”

Here is the 8th circuit opinion upholding the law, which was 2-1 and which had been issued on March 6, 2013. That decision conflicts with a U.S. District Court decision from Arizona in 2010, which said that voters were free to wear a tea shirt that said, “Flagstaff Tea Party.” Thanks to several readers for the news.

Peter Aldhous Essay Says U.S. Polarization is a Function of the Structure of our Constitution

Posted on by
4

Peter Aldhous, a freelance journalist who covers science, social science, and journalism, writes here at Medium that polarization and partisanship in the United States has been the rule, not the exception, for most of U.S. history. His analysis determines that the U.S. Constitution is the reason, especially the separation of powers. Thanks to The Mischiefs of Faction for the link.

Arizona Supreme Court OK’s Higher Contribution Limits to Candidates for State Office

Posted on by
Reply

On December 17, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a brief order, reversing the State Court of Appeals and approving the new higher contribution limits for individuals who give to candidates for state office. The Court said it would explain its reasoning later. The case is Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission v Bennett, cv13-0233-SA.

The 2013 legislature had increased the contribution limits. The Clean Elections Commission then sued, arguing that because the bill did not pass with 3/4ths majorities in each house of the legislature, it is invalid. The public funding law says that the legislature can’t amend the public funding program without a 3/4ths majority in each house. Therefore, the issue was whether the contribution limits are intrinsically part of the public funding program or not.

The Commission that administers the public funding program does not like higher contribution limits because the Commission believes that will discourage candidates for state office from using the public funding program. See this story.

U.S. House Passes Bill to Eliminate Public Funding for Presidential Conventions

Posted on by
11

On December 11, the U.S. House passed HR 2019, which repeals public funding for presidential conventions. The vote was 295-103. The bill is now in the Senate.

The only party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, that ever received public funding for its presidential conventions was the Reform Party in 2000. The funding is limited to parties that polled at least 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election.

Oklahoma House of Representatives Invites Public Commentary on How to Improve Oklahoma Laws

Posted on by
3

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has established a web page, SpeakUp Oklahoma, which invites readers to suggest improvements for Oklahoma laws. Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform is publicizing this, and is asking Oklahomans to use the site, to suggest ballot access reform.

Oklahoma voters have not been permitted to vote for anyone for President, other than the two major party nominees, in each of the last three presidential elections. There are only two other instances of any other state that ever gave voters such restricted choice for President, for three or more elections in a row. One was Ohio in the years 1952 through 1964. The other was Nebraska, 1940 through 1964.

Although certain other states also had several years in a row in which only the two major party presidential nominees were on the ballot, those other states always permitted and counted write-in votes. Thanks to E. Zachary Knight for the link.