On April 10, U.S. District Court Judge David Nuffer refused to enjoin a Utah law that permits candidates to appear on a primary ballot even if they did not have significant support at the party’s caucus. Utah Republican Party v Herbert, 2:14cv-876. Although the constitutionality of the law has not been decided, it will remain in effect while the case proceeds. The Constitution Party is a co-plaintiff with the Republican Party. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
Oregon uses all-postal ballots. On April 8, the Oregon House Rules Committee heard HB 3500, which says that independent voters would automatically receive a primary ballot for all three parties that are entitled to a primary (the Democratic, Republican, and Independent Parties). An independent voter could then choose one of the three primary ballots, vote on it, and return it by postal mail. However, the ballot would not be counted unless that voter signed a statement of affiliation with the party whose ballot had been chosen.
In Oregon, legislative committees don’t generally vote on bills at the hearing. Therefore, the bill has not yet been either advanced or defeated. Here is a news story about the bill.
On Friday, April 10, U.S. District Court Judge David Nuffer, an Obama appointee, will commence a trial in Utah Republican Party v Herbert, 2:14cv-876. The Republican Party is challenging a law passed in 2014 (SB 54) that allows candidates to petition onto the primary ballot even if that candidate had not shown much support at the party’s caucus. Until SB 54 passed, Utah had been the only state in which it is impossible for a candidate for all partisan office to get on a primary ballot, without showing support at the earlier party caucus.
The Republican Party had tried to force Governor Gary Herbert to testify, but on April 9, the judge ruled against that. Herbert is a Republican. A judicial order issued on April 9 says, “the Utah GOP is required to identify specific defects in SB 54 by line number of subsection, the constitutional provisions or case law supporting the alleged defects, and facts in the record in support of the Utah GOP position…Utah GOP will not be allowed to offer facts on the following points: evidence attempting to show a compromise between the Utah legislature and other parties, as this does not appear to be relevant under case law; and evidence attempting to show the general intent of the legislature. No case law appears to support the argument that a legislature may not impair associational rights of a political party. They may not do so in an unconstitutional manner.”
On April 9, the Peace & Freedom Party of California, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Green Party of Alameda County filed this reply brief in Rubin v Padilla, the case pending in the State Supreme Court on whether the California top-two system injures voting rights.
Doug Goodman, the Nevada activist most responsible for the Nevada bill for a top-two system, here writes in his blog that he has been told that the bill will not advance in this session. There is some reason to believe that the bill’s top-two provisions will be amended out of SB 499, and replaced by provisions moving the deadline for new parties to submit petitions from April to a later month.
