Kesha Rogers, Candidate of the LaRouche Organization, Qualifies for Texas Democratic Run-off for U.S. Senate

Posted on by March 5, 2014
Reply

Texas held the nation’s first primary on March 4. In the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, Kesha Rogers placed second. Because no one got as much as 50%, a run-off primary will be held on May 27.

Rogers is the candidate backed by Lyndon LaRouche’s organization. See this story about her, written before the results were known. The preliminary Democratic primary results for U.S. Senate are: David Alameel 47.06%, Rogers 21.72%, Maxey Marie Scherr 17.69%, Harry Kim 8.93%, Michael Fjetland 4.57%.

The Texas primary for both major parties had low turnout. Texas had 13,445,285 registered voters as of November 2013. Although not all the 2014 primary returns have been counted, so far the total vote cast for Governor in the Republican primary is 1,333,010, and the total vote cast for Governor in the Democratic primary is 546,480. By contrast, in 2010, there were 1,484,542 votes in the Republican gubernatorial primary and 680,548 in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.

The low turnout is good news for the 1787 Party, which hopes to petition for a place on the November ballot. Voters who voted in the primary cannot sign for a new party or an independent candidate. Texas is the only state which doesn’t let voters sign for an independent or a new party if the voter voted in the primary.

Opponents of North Carolina Voting Restrictions Win Procedural Order for State to Produce More Internal Documents

Posted on by March 4, 2014
Reply

On March 3, a U.S. District Court Magistrate ruled that opponents of North Carolina’s 2013 voting restrictions must reveal internal government messages for the period August 12, 2013, to the present, that were between the Governor’s Office, the State Board of Elections, and legislators. The order came in the combined lawsuits filed by the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking to overturn 2013 changes in the voting process. Specifically, the plaintiffs are challenging the reduction in early voting days, the loss of same-day voter registration, and the elimination of out-of-precinct provisional voting.

The state argued that the messages between these branches of state government for the period after August 12, 2013, are irrelevant to the lawsuit, because the bill that made those election law changes (HB 589) had been signed that day. The state had already agreed to reveal such messages made prior to August 12, 2013. But the court ruled that the messages for the period after the bill was signed might be just as relevant to the lawsuit as the earlier messages.

The reason the internal government messages are relevant to the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs are trying to show that the 2013 changes were motivated by a desire to discriminate against certain kinds of voters. The lawsuit argues that the changes violate the federal Voting Rights Act, and the 14th amendment. The lawsuit is North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v McCrory, middle district, 1:13cv-658. See this story.

Utah Bill to Hold Presidential Primary Earlier than Any Other State

Posted on by March 4, 2014
Reply

On March 4, the Utah House Committee on Political Subdivisions passed HB 410. This bill, introduced by Representative Jon Cox (R-Ephraim) would instruct the Lieutenant Governor (who functions as the head of Utah election administration) to set the date of the presidential primary earlier than any other state’s presidential primary or caucus.

The bill also permits the presidential primary to be conducted as an on-line primary. This would be cheaper than an ordinary public election, and also provide for flexibility when the state sets the date. New Hampshire is famous for not setting the date of its presidential primary until shortly before the actual date of the primary, and has a similar law, mandating that it hold the first primary. Thanks to Josh Putnam of FrontloadingHQ for this news.

Arkansas Trial Court Strikes Down Six Restrictions Relating to Initiative Petitions

Posted on by March 4, 2014
Reply

On February 28, an Arkansas Circuit Court declared that six new restrictions on the petitioning process that relate to initiatives and referenda violate the State Constitution. The State Constitution says, “No law shall be passed…in any manner interfering with the freedom of the people in procuring petitions.” Here is the eleven-page opinion. The case is Spencer v Martin, Pulaski County, cv-13-4020. The restrictions had been passed in 2013.

The laws held to violate the State Constitution are: (1) the signer must fill out all blanks himself or herself, which includes printed name, signature, address, birth date, and date of signing; (2) when the sponsors submit a batch of signatures, the petitioning process must stop until the signatures are checked, and then it can start again; (3) the sponsor must submit a list of all paid circulators in advance, with the address of the circulator, and a picture of each petitioner that was taken less than 90 days ago; (4) an entire sheet is invalid if voters from two different counties signed that petition, unless all the signatures from residents of one of those counties are lined out; (5) the law that says a “paid circulator” means a circulator who was given anything of value.

Some of these laws might have been upheld if they weren’t so vague. There are many restrictions on paid circulators that are not applied to volunteer circulators, but plaintiffs argued that under the definition of “paid circulator”, even a volunteer who is given a bottle of water or a T-shirt (with a message about the initiative petition) would perhaps be considered “paid.” Also the law requiring voters to fill in all the blanks doesn’t apply if the voter is “disabled”, but that term is not defined. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.