Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission, Randomly Selected Panel of Voters, Opposes Oregon Top-Two Initiative by Vote of 14-5

Posted on by August 21, 2014
Reply

On August 20, the Oregon Citizens Initiative Review issued these findings about Oregon’s Measure 90, the top-two primary initiative. The group voted to oppose the measure by a vote of 14-5. The group acknowledged the positive points about top-two, but concluded that the harm done by limiting choices in the general election to just two candidates outweighs the good. The report will be printed in the Oregon Voters Handbook, which is mailed to all Oregon voters before the election.

The Oregon Citizens Initiative Review was established by the legislature in 2011. In July 2014, the administrators of the panel announced that this year, the Review would investigate Measure 90, and also the initiative for genetically moderated foods. The process for Measure 90 was conducted August 17-20 in the Salem Convention Center, and anyone could attend. Members of the panel had been selected from ordinary voters in a process that started when 5,000 voters were randomly sent a postal letter, asking if they wished to participate. Those who wished to participate were then chosen randomly, with demographic characteristics of the panel matched to the state’s demographics, for ethnicity, sex, income, residence, and age.

Here is an Oregonian newspaper story about the outcome. The reference in the report to the disqualification of certain political parties refers to the Constitution Party and the Progressive Party. If the measure passes, it is overwhelmingly likely they will lose qualified status, because they are far short of having registration membership of one-half of 1% of the state total. The measure would eliminate the alternate 1% vote test because parties would no longer have nominees.

The Commission hasn’t worked yet on the initiative for genetically modified foods. Thanks to Blair Bobier for the link to the newspaper story.

Washington Post Story Lists Instances of One Major Party Trying to Influence the Outcome of the Primary of the Other Major Party

Posted on by August 20, 2014
2

Philip Bump has this list of instances when one major party, or its adherents, tried to determine the nominee of the other major party, via advertising. The examples cover the last twelve years, and are mostly gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races. Bump also includes one U.S. House race, and one presidential race, the Democratic contest in 2004. There are many other recent examples involving state legislative races and U.S. House races, especially in California and Washington. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Alabama Ballot Access Lawsuit on Special Elections Transferred from One Judge to Another

Posted on by August 20, 2014
Reply

On August 20, the Alabama ballot access lawsuit Hall v Bennett was transferred from U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller to Judge Myron Thompson. This is the case on whether states must reduce the number of signatures, or extend the deadline, for independent candidates in special elections. The basis for arguing that the Constitution requires such an action is rooted in due process, because in special elections, the amount of time to collect signatures is invariably far shorter.

Alabama is in the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled in 1982 that Georgia must either extend the deadline, or reduce the number of signatures, in a legislative election in which the Citizens Party was trying to get on the ballot. The normal petitioning time was reduced in that case, not because the election was a special election, but because the district boundaries had been drawn so late in the season that the normal 6-month petitioning period was not available.

Despite the 1982 Eleventh Circuit precedent, last year Judge Fuller refused to give injunctive relief to James Hall, an independent candidate for U.S. House in Alabama’s First District. Hall had made a good attempt, but because the petitioning period was only two or three months (the calculation is ambiguous), instead of the normal unlimited time period for collecting signatures, he was only able to collect about half the needed signatures. Approximately 6,000 valid signatures were required.

The case is still pending because Judge Fuller had not yet ruled on the constitutionality of refusing to reduce the requirements when the time period is shortened. Now that the case has been assigned to Judge Thompson, the chances for a victory seem enhanced. In 2002, in Campbell v Bennett, 212 F.Supp.2d 1339 (M.D.Ala.), Judge Thompson ruled that it violates due process for the state to increase the petition requirement from 1% to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote only a few weeks before the petition was due.

The Hall case was transferred away from Judge Fuller because all of his cases have been transferred to other judges, because last week he was arrested on a charge of physically injuring his wife.

Alaska Holds Contested Primary for Libertarian, Alaskan Independence Parties

Posted on by August 20, 2014
Reply

Alaska held primaries on August 19. For U.S. Senate, three Libertarians appeared on the ballot, and two members of the Alaskan Independence Party appeared on the ballot. Here is a link to the unofficial returns.

The vote for the three Libertarians was: Thom M. Walker 2,588; Mark S. Fish 1,038; Scott Kohlhaas 560. Therefore, Walker is the party’s nominee.

The vote for the two Alaskan Independence members was: Vic Kohring 2,090; Zachary Kile 1,483. Kohring is now the AIP nominee.

Alaska holds a blanket primary for all qualified parties except the Republican Party. The Republican Party has its own separate semi-closed primary. Only Republicans and independents may choose the Republican primary ballot. All voters are free to choose the ballot used by the other parties.