California Assembly Passes Badge Bill for Initiative Circulators

Posted on by
Reply

On August 15, the California Assembly passed SB 448 by a vote of 51-27. All Democrats who voted, voted “Yes”, although Democratic Assemblymembers Bob Blumenfield and Susan Bonilla did not vote. All of the “no” votes were Republicans. The bill requires petitioners to wear a badge that says “Paid Circulator” if that circulator is being paid. The bill no longer requires unpaid circulators to wear any badge, and the bill no longer requires the circulator’s badge to say if that circulator is registered to vote, and, if so, where.

The bill now returns to the Senate for concurrence in the Assembly amendments. The bill does not pertain to circulators who are working on a petition to get a candidate or a party on the ballot. Thanks to Ballot News for this news.

California Bill Advances, Makes it Illegal to Pay Registration Workers on a Per-Registration Card Basis

Posted on by
Reply

On August 17, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee passed SB 205 by a party-line vote of 12-5. All Democrats voted “yes” and all Republicans voted “no.” The bill makes it illegal to pay registration workers on a per-registration card basis, “directly or indirectly.” The bill now goes to the Assembly floor.

New Hampshire Republican Party State Chair Under Attack for Having Signed Libertarian Party Ballot Access Petition

Posted on by
Reply

According to this story, New Hampshire Republican Party state chairman Jack Kimball is being threatened with removal, just because he signed the petition to put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in 2012.

The attackers are confusing signing a ballot access petition for a newly-qualifying party with an endorsement of that newly-qualifying party. The meaning of a signature on a ballot access petition was explained well by U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pratt, a Nixon appointee, in Hall v Austin, 495 F.Supp.782 (eastern district of Michigan, 1980). He said a petition measures “whether there is enough support for placing a given candidate on the ballot, not whether there is enough support for electing the candidate. A large segment of the public may be determined never to vote for the candidate yet may wish to see them on the ballot and support their efforts to get on the ballot.” Thanks to Eric Dondero for the link.

Nevada Four-Candidate General Election Debate

Posted on by
Reply

On August 17, the four candidates for Nevada’s U.S. House seat, for the upcoming special election in the 2nd district, debated each other. See this story. The four candidates are the Republican, Democratic, Independent American Party nominees, and an independent candidate.

In the general election of 2010 in Nevada, no minor party or independent candidates for Congress or Governor were invited to debate their major party opponents, so the special 2011 election represents a gain for inclusive debates in Nevada.

Reform Party Calls a National Committee Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

The Reform Party will hold a national committee meeting in Bohemia, New York, October 21-23. The committee meeting is combined with a national party building conference. For more information, see www.reformparty.org. The national chair of the Reform Party is David Collison of Texas. The party is ballot-qualified in Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Bohemia is on the south shore of Long Island.

Illinois League of Women Voters Lawsuit Charges Partisan Gerrymandering Violates the First Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

On August 16, the League of Women Voters of Illinois filed a federal lawsuit, charging that Illinois’ new redistricting plan violates the free speech provision of the First Amendment. The case is League of Women Voters of Illinois v Quinn, northern district, 11-cv-5569. The case was assigned to Judge Ruben Castillo, a Clinton appointee.

The complaint says, “Redistricting based on the content of partisan speech or viewpoints of residents, for a partisan purpose, creates an undue, unnecessary or unjustified abridgment of First Amendment rights…By considering the partisan composition of the districts and the political competitiveness of election campaigns in such districts, the General Assembly is unlawfully attempting to control or influence the kinds of views, opinions and speech that residents placed in those districts are likely to hear and receive, and is doing so in a manner that is not narrowly tailored.”

Democrats were completely in charge of Illinois government when the redistricting plan was passed this year. No one disagrees with the observation that the plan was designed to enhance the chances of Democratic nominees. The attorney who filed the case, Thomas H. Georghegan, is a well-known Democratic Party attorney who specializes in labor law. This lawsuit will face an uphill battle, because several times the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that nothing about partisan gerrymandering violates any part of the U.S. Constitution. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about this lawsuit.