Two Massachusetts Ballot Access Bills to be Introduced on January 28

Posted on by January 25, 2013
Reply

On January 28, Massachusetts Representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk) will introduce two bills to improve ballot access. One lowers the number of signatures for candidates for federal and state office, by cutting the current requirements in half. That bill affects candidates seeking a place on a partisan primary ballot, or candidates petitioning directly onto the general election ballot. The statewide petition requirement for the more important statewide offices (U.S. Senator, Governor) would fall from 10,000 signatures to 5,000. Currently candidates seeking a place on a presidential primary ballot don’t need any signatures, but the bill would lower the presidential general election petition from 10,000 to 5,000.

The other bill eases the definition of “political party.” Current law requires a group to have polled 3% for any statewide race at the last election for any statewide office, or to have registration of 1% of the state total. The bill would change both the vote test and the registration test to one-half of 1%. If the bill were to pass this year in that form, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party would both regain their status as qualified parties, because both parties polled over one-half of 1% for President in 2012.

The Massachusetts registration method for qualifying a new party has existed since 1991, and it is so difficult, no group has ever used it. The Libertarian Party was a qualified party during the period 2008-2010 because it polled over 3% for U.S. Senate in 2008. The Green Party lost its qualified status in November 2012, because it didn’t meet the 3% vote test for either President or U.S. Senate. Neither party ran a U.S. Senate candidate in 2012.

If the one-half of 1% vote test for any statewide race had existed continuously during the last 25 years, the only parties that would have been ballot-qualified, but which were not actually ballot-qualified, other than the Libertarian and Green Parties, would have been the New Alliance Party, which polled over one-half of 1% for U.S. Senate in 1988.

California Superior Court Issues Procedural Ruling in Case Against Top-Two; Wants a More Up-to-Date Complaint Filed

Posted on by January 25, 2013
Reply

On January 25, the Alameda County, California, Superior Court issued a procedural ruling in Rubin v Bowen, RG11-605301. This is the lawsuit filed by the state Peace & Freedom Party and Libertarian Party, and the Alameda County Green Party, that challenges the top-two system on the grounds that it violates the rights of voters who wish to vote for minor party candidates in the November election.

The ruling says that the last complaint, which was filed before the 2012 election, needs to be re-written, to take account of what happened in the 2012 election. In that election, all minor party candidates who ran for either branch of Congress failed to place first or second in June, and therefore did not appear on the November ballot. The only minor party candidates for state office that placed second in the June primary were three Peace & Freedom Party candidates, and the only reason they succeeded is that only one person had filed to be on the June primary ballot, so the PFP members filed as write-in candidates in the primary and managed to place second.

The next hearing in this case is a status conference to be held on March 4, 2013.

California Bill to Increase the Number of One-Candidate Congressonal and Legislative Elections

Posted on by January 25, 2013
Reply

California Assemblymember Jeff Gorell (R-Thousand Oaks) has introduced AB 141, which would increase the number of congressional and state legislative elections with only one candidate, instead of two, on the November ballot.

Current law says the top two vote-getters, for congress and state partisan office, appear on the November ballot. But AB 141 would say that a write-in candidate in the June primary could not appear on the November ballot, even if he or she places second in June, unless the candidate received a number of write-ins equal to 1% of the total vote cast for that office in the last general election.

If this law had been in effect in November 2012, there would have been eight U.S. House or state legislative races with only one person on the ballot in November (the November ballot doesn’t contain write-in space). In reality, in 2012, there were eight races in which only one person filed to be on the primary ballot, but in six of those races, a write-in filed in the primary, and appeared on the November ballot. None of the June write-in candidates came close to polling as much as 1% of the vote cast in November 2010, so if this bill had been in effect, all eight races would have had only one person on the November ballot.

The only minor party members who appeared on the California November ballot for state legislature were three Peace & Freedom Party members who had filed as primary write-ins in these races. Obviously when only one person is on the June ballot, it’s easy for a write-in candidate in June to place second, and they did so.

The Gorell bill appears to violate the California Constitution, which says, “The top two candidates, as determined by the voters in an open primary, shall advance to a general election.” Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for this news.