On August 29, Rocky Anderson, Justice Party presidential nominee, was interviewed by Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now.” The interview lasts about four minutes. Anderson put special emphasis on the Pennsylvania system.
1
Two separate opinions this week have resulted in defeats for Texas election laws. On August 28, one 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., invalidated the state’s congressional and legislative district boundaries. And on August 30, another 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., invalidated the Texas law on government photo-ID at the polls.
The redistricting decision doesn’t affect the districts in use this year. The districts in use this year were not drawn by the legislature, but by a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Texas. The redistricting decision is State of Texas v U.S.A., 11-cv-1303. ElectionLawBlog has commentary and a link to the opinion here.
The decision on photo government-ID for voters at the polls is State of Texas v Holder, 12-cv-128. Read more about it, and see a link to the decision, here at ElectionLawBlog. Both decisions are based on the Voting Rights Act.
According to the web page of the Arizona Americans Elect Party, at least 360 voters who are registered members of that party voted in the August 28 primary. The party appears to have nominated two candidates for Congress.
According to this analysis, published in Arizona’s largest daily newspaper, the August 28 Arizona primary results indicate the 2013 session of the Arizona legislature will be more centrist, more closely balanced between the two major parties, and more business-friendly.
This conclusion has some consequences for the ongoing battle over whether Arizona should convert its elections to top-two open primaries. Business has been heavily backing the initiative because it has been so unhappy with the “Tea Party” influence in the 2011-2012 session of the legislature.
On August 30, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman set September 6 for a hearing in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Ruth Johnson. The state has until September 4 to file its response to the Libertarian Party’s brief asking for summary judgment, and then the party can respond the next day. The hearing will be in Detroit at 3 p.m. on September 6. The issue is whether Gary Johnson can be on the ballot. The Libertarian Party is ballot-qualified but the state says it won’t print Johnson’s name because his name appeared on the February presidential primary ballot.
Although the Michigan Libertarian Party’s submission of Johnson’s name asked that, if Johnson can’t appear, that the state party’s presidential second-choice is Gary E. Johnson of Austin, Texas, the state has never responded to that alternate choice, and its web page continues to list no Libertarian for President. The party’s lawsuit does not discuss the alternate Johnson.
The state’s web page also does not list James P. Gray for vice-president. Presumably the state has also disqualified all the Michigan Libertarian Party presidential elector candidates, even though it has not said that formally. In 1960, Michigan permitted voters to cast votes for an unpledged slate of presidential electors, who were running for the Independent American Party, a party that only existed in Michigan.