The Washington Post has this column by Eric McGhee and Paul Mitchell, questioning whether California’s top-two system has changed California state government. McGhee is a political scientist with Public Policy Institute of California, and Paul Mitchell is an analyst for Political Data, California’s largest provider of data about voters. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Here is the opening brief of the Greenville County Republican Party, in the case over South Carolina laws that force the party to let non-members vote in its primaries, even when the party pays to administer those primaries. This brief was filed on January 27, 2014. The case is Greenville County Republican Party v Way, 13-2170, in the Fourth Circuit.
Sean Sullivan has this Washington Post column, arguing that the entry of a Libertarian, Rob Sarvis, in the race is not likely to affect the identity of the winner. The column contains the exit polling data for the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race to support its conclusion.
New Mexico State Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto has introduced SB 125, to move the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties from April to the day after the primary, which is the first week in June. Thanks to Carol Miller for this news.
Traditionally, all across the nation, if an initiative is filed and has enough valid signatures, but opponents believe the initiative is invalid, the opponents sue election officials to remove the initiative from the ballot. However, in 2010, when four initiatives were filed in Boulder City, Nevada, the city government sued the proponents of the initiative instead.
On January 24, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Boulder City should not have sued the proponents of the initiatives. The decision is Jensen v City of Boulder City, 57116. The Court said if the city believed the initiatives were invalid, it should have sued the government agency that put the measures on the ballot. The four city initiatives were on these subjects: (1) whether the city council could go into debt above $1,000,000 without getting voter approval; (2) term limits for members of city commission members; (3) whether the city should own more than one golf course; (4) whether the city attorney should be an elected position. The first two of those passed, but the voters rejected the latter two.
The lower court had ruled that it was proper for the city to sue the initiative proponents. The city was not suing the proponents for monetary damages, but the city was putting the burden of defending the legal sufficiency of the initiatives on the proponents. The lawsuit had been pending since 2010, the year the initiatives were on the ballot. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.
