All the major party presidential candidates who filed petitions to be on the Illinois presidential primary ballots have survived the challenge process. That includes six Democrats and eleven Republicans. The 2016 Illinois Republican presidential primary has never before had more than nine candidates.
An Ohio state court will hear Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted on April 5, 2016. The issue is whether the ballot access bill passed in late 2013 violates the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution, Article V, sec. 7, says “All nominations for elective state, district, county and municipal offices shall be made at direct primary elections or by petition as provided by law.”
The 2013 bill says that newly-qualifying parties need not submit their petitions until July of election years. Because Ohio primaries are in March in presidential election years and May in other years, newly-qualifying parties can’t nominate by primary, because the primary has already occurred.
The 2013 session of the Ohio legislature ought to have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment, providing that Article V, sec. 7, only applies to large political parties, or only applies to already-established parties. If the legislature had done that, by now the Ohio Constitution might have already been changed and the state wouldn’t have this problem. Ohio is the only state with a Constitution that mandates that all parties nominate by primary. The Oklahoma Constitution says the legislature is free to provide that all parties nominate by primary, but the Oklahoma Constitution does not require the legislature to do that. The California Constitution once required that all parties nominate by primary, but that was repealed in the early 1970’s. In 1951, the National Municipal League’s “A Model Direct Primary System”, authored by Dr. Joseph P. Harris, the nation’s leading expert on election administration, recommended that primaries be given only to parties that had polled 10% of the vote in the last election.
Three Arizona Republican legislators have introduced HCR 2009, a proposed state constitutional amendment. It would provide that voters elect members of the Redistricting Commission every ten years, in partisan statewide elections. The elections would be in the same years in which the census is held, for example, 2000, 2010, 2020. Here is the text of the bill. If the legislature passes it this year, then the votes would decide in November 2016 whether to pass it.
Arizona already has a redistricting commission. Republicans tend to be unhappy with it, because they feel the existing commission is prejudiced in favor of Democrats. The commission draws districts for both U.S. House, and legislative seats. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
As reported earlier, on November 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit struck down Tucson’s system of city council elections, in Public Integrity Alliance v City of Tucson, 15-16142. The vote was 2-1 and the city asked for en banc rehearing. On January 5, 2016, the state of Washington filed an amicus brief on side of the city of Tucson. But on January 15, the state of Arizona filed an amicus against the city of Tucson.
The issue is the city’s system of electing city councilmembers. The city uses partisan elections. In the partisan primaries, parties nominate with primaries that are based entirely on a particular ward. But, in November, the party nominees run against each other in citywide elections. The Ninth Circuit says this violates equal protection for the voters inside each ward. The Washington state brief belittles this conclusion and says that the Ninth Circuit might not have been aware of how common the Tucson system is. The Washington state brief points out that this system is used for many local elections in Washington state.
The Arizona amicus, which opposes Tucson and doesn’t want the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, says that the Arizona Supreme Court is about to hear a case that might settle the matter, so the federal court should not do anything further.
West Virginia Delegates Pat McGeehan (R-Chester) and Isaac Sponaugle (D-Franklin) have introduced HB 4356. It eases the definition of a qualified political party. Current law says that is a group that polled 1% for Governor. The bill would say that it is a group that polled 1% for any of the statewide state offices, and alternatively that it is also any group with at least 5,000 registered members. Thanks to John Buckley for this news.
