The September 14 New York Times has this article, which suggests that Great Britain’s coalition government (between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party) has lasted longer, and been more successful, than expected. No party got a majority of the seats in the last House of Commons election, so the government depends on alliance of one of the two major parties, and Britain’s largest third party.

In the United States, one must go all the way back to 1930 to find an election in which neither major party held a majority in the U.S. House. The various minor parties that elected members of the U.S. House in 1930 formed a coalition with the Democratic Party, to elect the House speaker.

The city of South Portland, Maine, prohibits any city employee from running for a seat on the School Board, or any city elective office. The city also bans city employees from circulating petitions for any candidate for any city elective office. On September 10, the Maine Supreme Court ruled that these rules are too restrictive. The 5-1 opinion lets the two plaintiffs run for seats on the School Board. One of the plaintiff-candidates is a part-time librarian; the other one only works four hours per week for the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. Callaghan v City of South Portland, 2013 ME 78.

The city tried to defend its policy by mentioning that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Hatch Act, which is a federal law banning federal employees from running for partisan elected office. But the Maine Supreme Court pointed out that the Hatch Act does not interfere with federal employees who want to run for non-partisan office. South Portland, and virtually all Maine cities, have non-partisan city elections.

The Maine Supreme Court said that it is appropriate for some types of city employee to be prevented from running for city office, but said the city must re-write its policy so that it isn’t so drastic.

On September 6, U.S. District Court Judge Richard L. Young, a Clinton appointee, cleared away all procedural hurdles in the lawsuit Common Cause Indiana v Indiana Secretary of State, 1:12cv-1603. The lawsuit challenges the system for electing trial court judges in Indianapolis. Indiana judicial elections at this level are partisan elections. The law does not permit any party to nominate candidates for more than half of the available seats.

The lawsuit argues that this system doesn’t give voters any realistic choice in the general election, because invariably the only parties that run candidates for trial court judge are the Democratic and Republican Parties. In 2012, when twenty seats were up, there were ten Democratic nominees on the ballot and ten Republican nominees on the ballot. So, realistically, there was no role for the voters to play; the outcome was automatic.

Other jurisdictions that don’t permit parties to run nominees for all the available seats are Washington, D.C., several cities in Connecticut, and Philadelphia.

The lawsuit was filed last year. The state argued that the plaintiffs lack standing, and made other procedural objections, but Judge Young ruled that the lawsuit may proceed to the merits. One of the reasons that Common Cause filed the lawsuit is that, apparently, candidates for judge are expected to contribute large sums of money to the major parties, as an incentive for the major parties to nominate them. See this story.

Because the Libertarian Party has been ballot-qualified for all partisan office in Indiana since 1994, one wonders why the Libertarian Party never runs nominees for trial court judge in Indianapolis. In 2012, if the party had exercised its right to nominate, there would have been ten Libertarians, ten Democrats, and ten Republicans running, with the top twenty being elected. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news about this lawsuit.