On February 12, the Democratic National Committee announced that the July 2016 national Democratic convention will be in Philadelphia. The last party that chose its presidential nominee in Philadelphia was the Republican Party, which met there in 2000.
On January 30, a trial court in San Diego County, California, refused to enjoin the city of Del Mar from holding an internet election on an advisory ballot measure. The court allowed the election to go ahead, despite the California election code, because the measure is only to gage public opinion and has no legal effect. The case is Mohns v City of Del Mar. Here is a link to commentary by the attorney for the voter who tried to stop the election, decrying the outcome. Here is an article that explains how the city is conducting the election. Every resident of Del Mar receives a unique passcode from the city. The election asks voters to indicate a preference for one of three proposed designs for a new city hall. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link to the commentary.
Andrew Gripp, adjunct professor of political science at Delaware County Community College in Media, Pennsylvania, has this essay posted at IVN. It contrasts how much freedom voters have in an open primary, with how much freedom they have in California’s top-two system.
Greg Orman, the independent candidate last year for U.S. Senate in Kansas, has this article in The Hill. The article points out the extreme disparity between how much an individual can give to an independent candidate for federal office, versus how much an individual can give to a political party.
As already noted, on January 29, the Ninth Circuit heard 35 minutes of oral argument in Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, 13-16254. The issue is the Arizona paper voter registration form, that lists only the two largest parties and gives each of them a checkbox. Anyone who wishes to register into any other party, even though it is qualified, must write-in the choice in the “other” box. Before 2011, the part of the form asking about choice of party just had a blank line.
Here is a link to the oral argument, from the Ninth Circuit’s web page. The attorney for the government seemed to contradict himself when, on the one hand, he argued that forcing applicants to write-in the names of some parties is a very minor burden; but on the other hand he quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court opinion Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party which said that states have an interest in a “healthy” two-party system and they can write laws that discriminate against other parties.
