Lou Magazzu, an experienced New Jersey politician and a Democrat, here writes about Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Although Magazzu expects Trump to seek the Republican nomination and to be formidable, Magazzu also expects Trump may run as an independent.
One slight flaw in Magazzu’s column is that he says Trump would be on the ballot in “more” ballots than either John B. Anderson in 1980 or Ross Perot in 1992. But both of them were on all ballots also.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures are not the only state government entities that can write or revise election laws that affect congressional elections. The decision is by Justice Ginsburg and is 5-4. The case is Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 13-1314.
The decision preserves the ability of ballot access activists to qualify initiatives for the ballot that improve ballot access laws. States with the initiative process for state laws and/or state constitutional changes are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Illinois has a procedure that, in practice, is unworkable.
If the decision had gone the other way, the current initiative in Maine to use instant runoff voting for congressional elections would have been threatened, and prior initiatives easing ballot access laws, which have passed in Florida and Massachusetts, might have been at risk. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Kobach v U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 14-3062. The case had been filed by the states of Kansas and Arizona over the federal voter registration forms. Kansas and Arizona wanted to alter the federal forms (that were to be used in those two states) to require applicants to attach proof of citizenship. The Tenth Circuit on November 7, 2014, had ruled that the federal agency responsible for the forms had already held exhaustive fact-finding hearings and had determined that there is no need to amend the forms. The federal agency had determined that the existing form already has enough guarantees against non-citizens using the forms.
The Kansas Secretary of State, who has been a zealot against the federal form, will now probably proceed with plans already underway in Kansas to say that the federal form only registers individuals for the purpose of voting in federal elections, not state and local ones, although that proposed policy may result in new litigation. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) here says he will introduce a constitutional amendment to provide that the voters of the nation could vote to retain or reject U.S. Supreme Court Justices every eight years.
This is a revolutionary idea. The United States has never held a national election. All elections in U.S. history have always been statewide, or lesser geographical units, never national. In presidential elections, each state’s voters choose presidential electors for that state; there is no single election for President in a technical sense. The United States has never had a national referendum or a national advisory vote.
In order to hold a retention election for U.S. Supreme Court justices, one presumes there would need to be a national election law determining voter qualifications. Currently voter qualifications are determined by each state, even for federal office. That is why ex-felons can’t vote in some states but they can vote in other states. That is why 17-year-olds can vote in federal primaries in some states but not other states. It will be interesting to see if Senator Cruz’s constitutional amendment proposes a uniform rule on who is eligible to vote. It would also be interesting to see what the campaign finance rules would be for members of the Court, if they had to run in retention elections. Recently the Court upheld a Florida rule barring state court judges, or candidates for a state judicial office, from asking for campaign contributions.
It is likely that all members of the U.S. Supreme Court would look on this proposed amendment with disdain. And it is not difficult to imagine that many voters who views are utterly different from Senator Cruz would still support his amendment. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
On June 27, the Virginia Republican Party decided to use a presidential primary, rather than a caucus, in 2016. The vote was 42-39. The party also decided to use a convention instead of a primary for the statewide executive positions that are up in 2017. Those positions are Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General. See this story. The 2016 primary will be on March 1.
