Maine Inititiative Petition for Ranked-Choice Voting Will Start Circulating Next Month

Posted on by October 27, 2014
11

Two Maine state legislators are sponsoring an initiative petition for ranked-choice voting for gubernatorial elections. The petition drive will begin immediately after the November 4, 2014 election. See this story. The first line of the story describes the move as a “referendum”, but it is obviously an initiative. A referendum asks voters if they wish to retain or repeal a new law that had just passed a legislature.

The state that has come closest to using ranked-choice voting for state office is Vermont, but even though the legislature passed such a measure a few years ago, the Governor vetoed it. Vermont doesn’t have the initiative process. Thanks to Rob Richie and Thomas MacMillan for the link.

British Politics Analyst See Possibility of Seven Important Political Parties in Great Britain

Posted on by October 27, 2014
2

Peter Franklin, a British politics analyst, here foresees rapid change in the British political party system. Already, the Scottish National Party has made great gains in the last few months, as has the Green Party. Better known is the rapid rise of UKIP, and the decline of the Liberal Democratic Party. Franklin sees further changes ahead.

The consequences of these dramatic changes make it likely that Britain will do as New Zealand did some years ago, and switch to proportional representation, or at least think about it seriously. If that happens, Canada may follow.

Conflicting Court Rulings on Whether Independent Candidate Should be on Ballot Create Crisis in Virgin Islands

Posted on by October 27, 2014
1

Early voting in the U.S. Virgin Islands started on October 21. Among the offices on the ballot are candidates for the territory’s unicameral legislature, which is called the Senate, and which has 15 members, all with two-year terms.

On October 24, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ordered incumbent independent Senator Alicia “Chucky” Hansen removed from the ballot, even though early voting had already started. Bryan v Fawkes. The Court said her name should be covered up with stickers on all the ballots that hadn’t been distributed yet. See this newspaper story, which says election administrators have now halted early voting.

Hansen failed to file income tax returns for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004. She was convicted of three misdemeanors. The Virgin Islands charter says senators must not have been convicted of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude. Hansen was elected to the Senate in 2010 and re-elected in 2012. She filed to run for a third term this year, but on August 28, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ruled that failure to file income tax returns is a crime of moral turpitude, and that she is not eligible to run for re-election, even though the Virgin Islands charter says the legislature itself shall be the “sole” judge of the qualifications of its members.

On September 2, the Governor of the Virgin Islands pardoned her, but a Virgin Islands superior court (a territorial court, not a federal court) refused to order election officials to put her back on the ballot. Some of Hansen’s supporters then filed a federal lawsuit on September 7, Payne v Fawkes, 1:14cv-53, saying their voting rights were being violated by keeping Hansen off the ballot. On September 12, the federal court put her on the ballot. At first the superior court blocked that, and on October 6, the federal court said that it could not interfere with a territorial court order. But on October 10, the superior court agreed that she should be on the ballot. Ballots were then printed with her name on. But, surprisingly, on October 24, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court (which apparently really dislikes Senator Hansen) said she should not be on the ballot. Thanks to Derek T. Muller and his Excess of Democracy blog for this story. Professor Muller thinks Senator Hansen and her voters may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Virgin Islands Supreme Court.

Ohio Libertarian Party Files Brief on Why Current Ballot Access Law, Passed in 2013, is Unconstitutional

Posted on by October 26, 2014
5

Last week, the Ohio Libertarian Party filed this brief in its ongoing ballot access lawsuit, which was filed in 2013 to overturn the 2013 law that altered the definition of a “political party.” The case is Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, s.d., 2:13cv-953.

The brief argues that the Ohio Constitution requires that all parties nominate by primary. The 2013 law says newly-qualifying parties must nominate by convention.

The brief also argues that it is unconstitutional for a state to let voters register into qualified parties, but not unqualified parties. Ohio voter registration forms do not ask voters to choose a party (or independent status). Instead, Ohio considers a voter to be a member of a party when that voter votes in that party’s primary. With no more primaries for newly-qualifying parties, voters won’t be able to join those parties in the eyes of the state. Courts that have ruled that if states let voters register into a qualified party, they must let voters into active unqualified parties, include the Second Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, a U.S. District Court in Oklahoma, and a state appeals court in New Jersey.

According to this news story, the current Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, who is running for re-election, supports the 2013 law. The Democratic nominee, Nina Turner, opposes it. The third candidate in the race, Libertarian Kevin Knedler, also opposes the 2013 law, although the news story does not mention him.