Puerto Rico holds a Republican presidential primary on Sunday, March 6. Several weeks ago, the Republican Party put these candidates on the ballot: Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki, Paul, Rubio, Santorum, and Trump. Candidates had until January 7 to withdraw. It is not known if any of the candidates who have dropped out have withdrawn. Those candidates are Graham, Jindal, and Pataki. Thanks to Juan Jose Nolla for this news.
Two Arizona legislators have introduced a bill that would allow independent voters to vote in presidential primaries. Although Arizona law already requires that independent voters be allowed to choose any primary ballot for office other than President, the law allows Arizona parties to close their presidential primaries to members only. No party in Arizona now lets independents vote in its presidential primary.
The sponsors are Senator Martin Quezada (D-Phoenix) and Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale). The bill was introduced on January 11 and has an emergency clause.
This Toronto Sun column explores what is likely to happen next if Canada changes its electoral system. The column summarizes the views of Canadian Green Party leaders and Conservative Party leaders who oppose Instant Runoff Voting and who worry that the government (which is controlled by the Liberal Party) will switch to Instant Runoff Voting and might not even hold a referendum. Greens, of course, want proportional representation.
On January 15, the Utah Republican Party filed a new lawsuit over how the party nominates candidates. The new lawsuit is Utah Republican Party v Herbert, 2:16cv-38, and is assigned to Judge David Nuffer.
The party had filed a lawsuit with the same name on December 1, 2014, in the same court, before the same judge. That lawsuit ended with a decision that the party could not be forced to let independent voters vote in its primaries. And it resulted in an interpretation that when candidates petition to get on the Republican primary ballot, only registered Republicans may sign such petitions.
The party would rather eliminate the ability of candidates to petition onto the party’s primary ballot entirely, and let all nominations be made at party caucuses, with a provision that when someone doesn’t get nominated by the caucus, but gets at least 35% of the caucus vote, then there would be a primary between the two candidates who got at least 35%. That is the method used in Utah for many decades before 2014.
The new lawsuit argues that the party has a right to eliminate the petition method to get on a party primary ballot. But it also argues that if the state is going to have a petition procedure, the number of signatures required in the law is too high. The law says candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot need exactly 28,000 signatures; U.S. House candidates need 7,000; State Senate candidates need 2,000 signatures; State House candidates need 1,000 signatures. The lawsuit points out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that petition requirements can’t be higher than 5% of the number of eligible signers. Because the first lawsuit resulted in a decision saying only party members can sign these primary petitions, these petition requirements violate U.S. Supreme Court precedent that limits how difficult petitions can be. The party points out that in a few legislative districts, the number of signatures is more than 50% of the number of eligible signers!
This lawsuit will almost certainly be expedited, because some Republican candidates are already petitioning to get on the 2016 primary, and they need to know whether their petitions are wasted effort or not. This lawsuit is the first lawsuit in U.S. history in which a major party has complained about the difficult requirements for candidates to get on their own primary ballots. Minor parties with primaries have had this problem in several states, and have had mixed success in overturning them in court. Massachusetts, Maine, and South Dakota are states in which when minor parties become entitled to their own primary, they have great trouble placing their candidates on the party’s own primary ballot.
On January 15, a Kansas state trial court issued an opinion in Belenky v Kobach, Shawnee Co. 2013-cv-1331. The Secretary of State had promulgated a regulation saying that voters who registered to vote in Kansas using the federal voter registration form can only vote for federal office. He set up a dual registration list, one for voters who used the state form, and one for voters who used the federal form.
After the lawsuit was underway, the Secretary of State put the plaintiff-voters in this lawsuit on the roster to vote in all elections, not just federal elections. That was his attempt to derail this particular lawsuit. But that didn’t work, and the state court ruled that the Secretary’s dual registration roster does not comply with Kansas statutes. Here is a link to an ACLU press release that has a link to the opinion.
The reason the Secretary of State set up a dual registration system is that he doesn’t like the federal form, because the federal form does not require applicants to attach proof of citizenship. Applicants sign under penalty of perjury that they are citizens. The state form does require documents to be attached. See this news story about the decision.
