Oregon Committee Hears Bill on Providing Partisan Primary Ballots to Independent Voters

Posted on by April 10, 2015
4

Oregon uses all-postal ballots. On April 8, the Oregon House Rules Committee heard HB 3500, which says that independent voters would automatically receive a primary ballot for all three parties that are entitled to a primary (the Democratic, Republican, and Independent Parties). An independent voter could then choose one of the three primary ballots, vote on it, and return it by postal mail. However, the ballot would not be counted unless that voter signed a statement of affiliation with the party whose ballot had been chosen.

In Oregon, legislative committees don’t generally vote on bills at the hearing. Therefore, the bill has not yet been either advanced or defeated. Here is a news story about the bill.

Trial Opens on April 10, in Utah Republican Party’s Lawsuit Against Letting Candidates without Support at Party Caucuses Run in Republican Primaries

Posted on by April 10, 2015
1

On Friday, April 10, U.S. District Court Judge David Nuffer, an Obama appointee, will commence a trial in Utah Republican Party v Herbert, 2:14cv-876. The Republican Party is challenging a law passed in 2014 (SB 54) that allows candidates to petition onto the primary ballot even if that candidate had not shown much support at the party’s caucus. Until SB 54 passed, Utah had been the only state in which it is impossible for a candidate for all partisan office to get on a primary ballot, without showing support at the earlier party caucus.

The Republican Party had tried to force Governor Gary Herbert to testify, but on April 9, the judge ruled against that. Herbert is a Republican. A judicial order issued on April 9 says, “the Utah GOP is required to identify specific defects in SB 54 by line number of subsection, the constitutional provisions or case law supporting the alleged defects, and facts in the record in support of the Utah GOP position…Utah GOP will not be allowed to offer facts on the following points: evidence attempting to show a compromise between the Utah legislature and other parties, as this does not appear to be relevant under case law; and evidence attempting to show the general intent of the legislature. No case law appears to support the argument that a legislature may not impair associational rights of a political party. They may not do so in an unconstitutional manner.”

Proponent of Nevada Top-Two Bill Believes that the Bill Will Not Advance This Year

Posted on by April 9, 2015
5

Doug Goodman, the Nevada activist most responsible for the Nevada bill for a top-two system, here writes in his blog that he has been told that the bill will not advance in this session. There is some reason to believe that the bill’s top-two provisions will be amended out of SB 499, and replaced by provisions moving the deadline for new parties to submit petitions from April to a later month.

National Journal Article Explains Why North Carolina Presidential Primary Date is Tough to Predict

Posted on by April 9, 2015
1

Current North Carolina law says the presidential primary should be the Tuesday following South Carolina’s presidential primary. However, in 2016, the South Carolina Republican primary will be February 20, and the Democratic presidential primary will be February 27. The North Carolina law is therefore ambiguous. If it means the Tuesday after the South Carolina Republican primary, then the 2016 North Carolina presidential primary is February 23. If it means the South Carolina Democratic primary, then it means March 1.

Adding to the uncertainty is the existenced of a North Carolina bill, HB 457, which would move the North Carolina primary to the second Tuesday in March, which would be March 8. No one knows if the bill will pass. It was introduced April 1 and hasn’t moved yet.

This National Journal article says that HB 457 is likely to pass the House, but that it faces severe obstacles in the Senate because Senator Bob Rucho is chair of the committee that handles election law bills (the Senate State and Local Government Committee) and he is the author of the existing law. He doesn’t want the existing law changed. Thanks to Josh Putnam for the link.