On May 6, the Oklahoma House passed HB 2181 by 83-0. It had passed the House on March 10, and had passed the Senate on April 22. But the Senate version was different than the House version, so it had to return to the House to see if the House agreed with the Senate amendments. Now the bill goes to Governor Mary Fallin, who is in her second term.

Assuming she signs it, Oklahoma will require 24,745 signatures for a newly-qualifying party for both 2016 and 2018. Without the bill, the 2016 requirement would have been 41,242. The 2014 requirement was 66,744. The new formula will be 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, whereas the old law is 5% of the last vote cast. Under the old law, the requirement skyrockets for midterm years and is lower in presidential years; this is the “see-saw” effect, but the new bill eliminates it.

UPDATE: here is a video of the House action, which lasts about 5 minutes. It consists of the author of the bill telling the House that he urges that the bill as amended by the Senate be passed by the House. He regrets that the Senate tripled the number of signatures, relative to the original bill, but says that is the best deal he can get. He also said that he would consider a bill in the next session to lower the number of signatures. Thanks to Rick Kissell for the link.

On May 5, Alberta held an election for the provincial legislature. For the first time, the New Democratic Party won a majority in that body. See this story. The Alberta government been controlled by the Social Credit Party 1935-1971 and by the Progressive Conservative Party ever since, until today’s election. Thanks to Rick Kissell for the link.

The Oregonian has this op-ed by two leaders of the Independent Party. The op-ed defends the party’s decision to let independent voters vote in the Independent Party’s primary. An earlier op-ed had criticized the Independent Party, on the grounds that the party’s decision will cost money.

The op-ed by the Independent Party leaders also highlights a peculiarity in Oregon election law. Although Oregon permits fusion, and although it is easy for a major party to jointly nominate a candidate with a minor party (i.e., a party that nominates by convention, such as the Libertarian Party or the Pacific Green Party), it is very difficult for two parties that both have primaries to jointly nominate the same candidate. Such a candidate can’t have his or her name printed on the primary ballot of two different parties. The only way two parties that nominate by primary can jointly nominate a candidate is to have that candidate win one major party primary via write-in votes.

That Oregon policy is almost certainly unconstitutional. A bill to fix the problem, HB 3287, has not made any progress in the legislature this year. In 1999, the Third Circuit ruled that if a state permits fusion for certain kinds of parties, then it must permit fusion for all qualified parties. Also in 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that states must let parties nominate non-members if they wish.