California Special Election Results, U.S. House, 36th District

Posted on by
15

On May 17, California held an election to fill the vacant seat in the 36th U.S. House district. All candidates appeared on a single ballot and all voters received that ballot. The ballot listed sixteen candidates: 6 Republicans, 5 Democrats, 3 independents, one Libertarian, and one Peace & Freedom Party candidate.

UPDATED May 19 with final unofficial results — for the five Democrats: Hahn 24.62%, Bowen 21.05%, Winograd 9.30%, Adler .56%, Goodwin .50%. For the six Republicans: Huey 22.24%, Gin 7.86%, Webb 6.14%, Bobko 3.61%, Eisele 1.23%, Newberry .36%. The Libertarian, Steve Collett, received 1.41%. The Peace & Freedom Party candidate, Maria Montano, received .51%.

The three independents placed at the bottom: Matthew Roozee .25%, Katherine Pilot .20%, Michael Chamness .17%. This result tends to support the arguments made in the pending lawsuits Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen. Those two cases, one in state court and one in U.S. District Court, argue that independent candidates, and members of unqualified parties, are injured by being forced to have “no party preference” on the ballot next to their names. The term suggests that they have no political convictions.

Before Proposition 14 was in effect, independent candidates, and members of unqualified parties, were permitted to have the word “independent” on the ballot next to their names. “Independent” is a much more appealing label. The last time “independent” was on the ballot in a California special election was in 2010, when the independent candidate for State Senate, 15th district, Jim Fitzgerald, received 5.89% in the first round and 4.99% in the second round. Also in the November 2010 regularly-scheduled election, California had three U.S. House candidates with the “independent” label. They received 7.7% in the 47th district, 8.4% in the 37th district, and 2.9% in the 23rd district.

The next round in the 36th district special election will be on July 12.

Americans Elect California Petition Sets New Record for Number of Signatures Gathered

Posted on by
10

Americans Elect, which is trying to qualify as a party in California using the 10% (of the last gubernatorial vote) petition method, now has over 500,000 signatures. This already sets a new record for the largest number of signatures ever collected in one state to place a new party on the ballot. The previous highs had been set by the American Independent Party in Ohio in 1968, which collected 451,000 signatures; and the Independent Progressive Party in California in 1947-1948, which collected 464,000.

Libertarian Party Continues to Fight in Court for Presidential Substitution

Posted on by
4

Until 2009, every court that had ever heard a case on whether an unqualified party could list a stand-in vice-presidential candidate, or a stand-in presidential candidate, on its ballot access petition, had always approved the idea. Because some states require petitions to put a new party on the ballot to list their nominees, and because these petitions sometimes must be circulated before the party chooses its presidential and vice-presidential candidates, listing a stand-in is the only practical solution for minor parties that wish to choose their national tickets in the late spring or summer of election years.

Unfortunately, in 2009, a U.S. District Court Magistrate in New Hampshire ruled that states can block stand-ins, and in 2010 the First Circuit also ruled against stand-ins, in cases from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Both lawsuits had been filed by the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is in the process of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the First Circuit opinions. George Phillies is generously funding half the printing costs for the cert petition involving the Massachusetts case.

Procedural Victory in Vermont Petition Deadline Lawsuit

Posted on by
1

On May 9, a Superior Court in Vermont again rejected the state’s request to dispense with the trial, in Trudell v State of Vermont. This is the lawsuit, filed last year, against Vermont’s June petition deadline for independent candidates. The Superior Court Judge had already ruled twice before in this case that the state cannot prevail unless it submits evidence that the June deadline is needed for a legitimate state purpose. Vermont had always had September petition deadlines for independent candidates until 2009. The state so far has been unwilling to present evidence. First it tried to get the case dismissed without hearing any evidence, and then it had sought to appeal to the State Supreme Court in advance of the trial.

Of course, after the trial, the state will be free to appeal to the State Supreme Court if it loses and if it wishes to appeal. The case is in Washington County, 612-8-10. The plaintiff does not argue that the deadline should again be in September. A rational deadline would be in August, simultaneous with the primary (for office other than President). Here is the 2-page decision.

California Special U.S. House Election, May 17

Posted on by
9

California voters choose a replacement for Congresswoman Jane Harman on May 17. Harman had been representing the voters of the 36th U.S. House district in western Los Angeles County, but she resigned. Most observers believe that none of the 16 candidates will poll as much as 50%, so there will be a run-off on July 12.

Jon Fleischman has this commentary about the election.

Texas Bill Advances, Would Improve Most Petition Deadlines

Posted on by
1

The Texas House will soon vote on SB 100, which moves the primary (for all office, president and other office as well) from the first Tuesday in March, to the first Tuesday in April. The bill also moves the run-off primary to the third Tuesday in June.

If this bill is signed into law, the petition deadline for new parties, and for non-presidential independent candidates, will improve. Currently, the petition deadline for new parties is in late May, but the bill would cause that deadline to move to late June. Also, currently the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates is in early May, but it would move to late July.

A peculiarity in the bill is that the independent presidential petition would continue to be in early May. Texas already has the nation’s earliest independent presidential petition, by far. If that deadline is challenged in court in the future, it will be very difficult for Texas to explain why it needs an independent presidential petition deadline that is more than two months earlier than the petition deadline for other independent candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1983 in Anderson v Celebrezze that the Constitution requires states to have easier ballot access for presidential candidates than for candidates for other office. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for the news about SB 100.