Election Data Services has estimated how many seats each state will gain or lose in its U.S. House delegation after the 2020 census. See this article about the findings in Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
3
Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel introduced SB 2613 last month, but because it failed to advance, it is now dead. It would have provided that voter registration cards ask voters to choose a party, or independent status.
McDaniel ran in the Republican primary last year for U.S. Senate. He narrowly lost the runoff primary to incumbent Republican Senator Thad Cochran. McDaniel challenged the results in court, arguing that many people who voted in the Republican runoff primary were Democrats who had voted in the Democratic primary a few weeks earlier. However, he was unable to prove that there were enough such voters to have changed the outcome.
In Arizona, Representative Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) has introduced HB 2268, to require that vote-counting equipment be able to handle ranked-choice voting.
In Georgia, five Representatives have introduced HR 399, which would set up a legislative committee to study alternatives to old-fashioned runoff elections. The Resolution mentions instant runoff voting as something that would be studied.
In New York, State Senator Liz Krueger has introduced SB 2738, which would permit a pilot project for certain local governments to use instant runoff voting in 2019 and 2020, for elections for their own officers. Thanks to Douglas Goodman for the news about Arizona and New York, and to Amanda Swafford for the Georgia news.
On January 21, 2015, Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) re-introduced the proposed Constitutional amendment establishing a right to vote. It is HJR 25 and it now has 24 co-sponsors. Pocan is in his second term. His district is centered on Madison. The Democratic National Committee endorsed the bill on February 21.
The proposed amendment is very short. It says, “Section 1. Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”
If this amendment were to be enacted, it would permit imprisoned felons to vote. But it would do nothing to help residents of the District of Columbia, or the U.S. overseas possessions, obtain voting representation in Congress or in the electoral college. The amendment arguably would require that independent voters be allowed to vote in any partisan primary of their choosing. Already, independent voters can vote in some or all partisan primaries in a majority of states, but they can’t vote in any partisan primaries (unless they join a party) in these fifteen jurisdictions: Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the information about Congressman Pocan’s introduction of the Resolution.
On February 20, a Washington state superior court in Pierce County ruled that pro bono legal assistance to a committee that is trying to recall a public official is not a campaign contribution to the recall.
In 2012, Robin Farris decided to launch a recall of the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer, Dale Washam. Washington state recall petitions cannot begin to circulate until the recall proponents first go to court to establish that they have a good basis for recall. But Washington state law also set an $800 contribution limit to a recall committee. Farris went to federal court to overcome that limit, and she won injunctive relief that the limit can’t be applied to her committee. The Ninth Circuit agreed, although the Ninth Circuit declined to rule the limit unconstitutional for future recall campaigns.
Then, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission tried to take punitive action against Farris, on the grounds that the free legal help she received in her lawsuit against the limit constituted a campaign contribution. Since she hadn’t reported it as a campaign contribution, the Commission threatened her with a fine. But in the new lawsuit, called Institute for Justice v State of Washington, the state court ruled that free legal help to a recall committee for a constitutional challenge, is not a “campaign contribution.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.