The New York Times has this story about Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to eliminate the Wilson-Pakula law. The article is badly titled. The name of the article is “A bid to limit each candidate to one ballot line is stirring debate.” Actually the article does not mention one person or group who is advocating eliminating fusion, although the article does quote one political science professor who hints that would be a good idea. Thanks to Richard Grayson for the link.
On April 18, the Oregon House passed HB 3077, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. The bill had passed the House Rules Committee on April 17. The vote in the House was 38-21. Democrats supported the bill 31-2. Republicans mostly opposed it, but their votes were not overwhelmingly against the bill; Republicans opposed it 19-7.
The Oregon Senate also has a bill for the National Popular Vote Plan, SB 624, but it hasn’t moved so far.
On April 17, the Tennessee Senate Fiscal, Ways & Means Committee passed SR 37. It provides for a legislative study of ballot access for minor parties, and proposes that the committee, besides legislators, will include a representative of each of the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties. The bill will probably pass the Senate on consent on April 18.
On April 17, the New Hampshire Senate Election Law and Veterans Affairs Committee passed HB 521, a bill to “study all current New Hampshire election laws and procedures and review all options to increase participation and access to the ballot.” Unfortunately, the committee also amended the bill, at the request of the sponsor, to delete the subject of ballot access. The sponsor said the subject of ballot access is too complicated for a committee that will have few members and won’t have much time to make for its study.
New Hampshire badly needs ballot access reform. It is the only state in the east in which the Green Party has never been on the ballot for President, except in 2000. It is one of only three states which hasn’t had any ballot-qualified parties on the ballot, except for the Democratic and Republican Parties, at any time since November 1996 (the other two states are New Jersey and Pennsylvania). It is unfortunate that the study won’t deal with ballot access.
On April 15, the Federal Election Commission asked U.S. District Court Robert L. Wilkins to change his mind about his March 18 ruling that said the Libertarian Party is entitled to a hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals in its bequest lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in 2011, complained about federal campaign laws that don’t permit a political party to receive a large bequest all at once. Judge Wilkins had said the case is strong enough that it deserves to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Wilkins had also said, “the anti-corruption interests that would be implicated by allowing the Libertarian National Committee to receive the entire bequest all at once may be minimal.”
The FEC request for rehearing says that it isn’t proper for any federal court to consider whether any particular large donation to a political party should be allowed on the grounds that the donation doesn’t appear to be needed to prevent corruption. It says if the court allows a special hearing on this one type of request, that will open the door to many more future cases in which parties will try to argue that other proposed large donations also deserve an exemption. The FEC also points out that this particular case is no longer very important, because it has been delayed so long already, by 2014 the Libertarian Party will have received the last part of the bequest in any event. The bequest was left in 2007.
