On May 5, Alberta held an election for the provincial legislature. For the first time, the New Democratic Party won a majority in that body. See this story. The Alberta government been controlled by the Social Credit Party 1935-1971 and by the Progressive Conservative Party ever since, until today’s election. Thanks to Rick Kissell for the link.
The New York State Board of Elections’ web page is reporting election returns, as various precincts report their results for the special elections of May 5. Here is the link. As of 9:15 p.m., only fragmentary results are in, but they suggest that the Republican nominee is winning the U.S. House race in the 11th district, and the Working Families Party is winning the Assembly race, 43rd district.
To see the 43rd Assembly results, use the box in the upper left corner that now defaults to the U.S. House race. In the 43rd race, the “LYP” Party stands for “Love Yourself Party.”
The Oregonian has this op-ed by two leaders of the Independent Party. The op-ed defends the party’s decision to let independent voters vote in the Independent Party’s primary. An earlier op-ed had criticized the Independent Party, on the grounds that the party’s decision will cost money.
The op-ed by the Independent Party leaders also highlights a peculiarity in Oregon election law. Although Oregon permits fusion, and although it is easy for a major party to jointly nominate a candidate with a minor party (i.e., a party that nominates by convention, such as the Libertarian Party or the Pacific Green Party), it is very difficult for two parties that both have primaries to jointly nominate the same candidate. Such a candidate can’t have his or her name printed on the primary ballot of two different parties. The only way two parties that nominate by primary can jointly nominate a candidate is to have that candidate win one major party primary via write-in votes.
That Oregon policy is almost certainly unconstitutional. A bill to fix the problem, HB 3287, has not made any progress in the legislature this year. In 1999, the Third Circuit ruled that if a state permits fusion for certain kinds of parties, then it must permit fusion for all qualified parties. Also in 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that states must let parties nominate non-members if they wish.
According to this interview with reporter Jeremy Duda, there will be an initiative in 2016 in Arizona to convert all elections (except president) to non-partisan elections, although the wording is still not public. Duda says specifically that there will be no party labels on the primary ballot, and he implies there won’t be any party labels on the ballot in November either.
The U.S. Supreme Court will issue full decisions on just seven more calendar days, before going on summer recess. Those dates are May 18, May 26, and all five Mondays in June (1, 8, 15, 22, 29).
Only one election law decision is still pending: Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 13-1314. However, another decision from Arizona may have some impact on election law: Reed v Town of Gilbert, 13-502. That case involves a city ordinance that provides different rules for different types of outdoor signs.
