John B. Anderson has this op-ed in the October 19 Sacramento Bee, advocating that all states use Instant-Runoff Voting for presidential elections. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
14
Many states badly need ballot access improvements. Many state legislatures have extremely early deadlines for new bills to be introduced. For example, Indiana legislators who wish to introduce bills in the 2013 session of the legislature must introduce them no later than December 2012. Also most states limit the number of bills that any one legislator may introduce, and so many legislators are already planning which bills they will introduce next year. It is common for constituents to ask for a bill early in an odd year, and be told, “Sorry, I already committed to other bills, and I can’t introduce a bill on your subject.”
Also, October is a time when most state legislators are running for re-election, so they tend to be out and about on the campaign trail, and are receptive to requests from constituents.
In certain states, ballot access laws have been held unconstitutional and it should be especially easy to find sponsors, because the legislature has an obligation to write new laws to replace the old void ones. This is true right now in California, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont. Also the South Carolina legislature will surely be ready to amend the ballot access laws, given the large number of Republicans and Democrats who were kept off primary and general election ballots this year due to unclear laws.
Here is the September 20, 2012 decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in the case over whether the Libertarian Party statewide petition is valid. The case name is In Re: Nomination Papers of Margaret K. Robertson for President, no. 507 MD 2012 (the case has that name because Margaret Robertson was the stand-in presidential candidate).
This decision was of course very helpful to the Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania, but it will be helpful in future petition drives all across the United States. The decision interprets federal law to mean that, at least in federal elections, states must accept signatures as valid if the signer had moved, and signed with the new address, but still hadn’t re-registered and is still listed on the voter registration rolls at the old address. The federal law is 42 U.S.C. 1973. That is part of the 1993 federal law nicknamed the “motor voter” law, but formally known as the National Voter Registration Act.
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Court decision will apparently not be reported. It can still be cited as a precedent, and the information in the decision of course can still be used. However, if the decision were reported, it would be easier for attorneys in other, future lawsuits to refer to it. “Reported” means that the decision has been sent in to the private company that prints copies of important decisions in books that are found in law libraries. Pennsylvania state court decisions that are reported are found in the Atlantic Reporter.
This SurveyUSA poll, released October 20, concerns the presidential race in Florida. The poll only names President Obama and Mitt Romney, but gives respondents a chance to register support for “other.” The poll breaks down the results by sex, and it shows that 4% of males prefer an “other” presidential candidate, but only 1% of females prefer an “other” candidate. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
On October 19, the Tennessee Green Party and the Tennessee Constitution Party filed a supplemental brief in the Sixth Circuit, concerning the order of candidates on the ballot. In their 2011 ballot access lawsuit called Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, the parties had also won on the issue of the order in which candidates and parties are listed on the ballot. The U.S. District Court had struck down the law giving the two largest parties the best spot on the ballot.
The Sixth Circuit had then stayed the part of the U.S. District Court decision on the order of candidates on the ballot, but did not decide the issue. The state had argued that the evidence in the U.S. District Court, showing that ballot order affects voting behavior, doesn’t relate to party-column ballots, and the state had asserted, or implied, that all Tennessee counties use a party-column ballot.
The October 19 filing to the Sixth Circuit proves that some counties in Tennessee use an office-group ballot. The brief has a picture of one of these ballots for the 2012 election. Of course, this filing has no effect on the 2012 ballots, but will be persuasive when the issue is decided in the Sixth Circuit. If the Sixth Circuit eventually agrees with the U.S. District Court, Tennessee will in future elections give each party/candidate an equal chance to be listed first on the ballot.