This USA Today article says that vote-counting machines across the U.S. are aging, obsolete, and that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has been unable to develop standards for new technology. The article also explains that Los Angeles County is spending $42,000,000 to build its own vote-counting technology. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
The Federal Election Commission has obtained permission from the U.S. Supreme Court to delay its response in Free Speech v FEC, 13-772. The FEC’s response was originally due February 3, but now it is due March 5.
The issue is whether a group of 3 Wyoming residents, who formed a group called “Free Speech” in order to run ads that comment on various federal political candidates and issues, must register as a Political Committee (“PAC”). The individuals do not want to form a PAC because a PAC must file periodic reports of total operating expenses, cash on hand, receipts and disbursements (except for most transactions below $200). Also, a PAC must have a treasurer and a separate bank account, and must also disclose in regularly scheduled reports the date and amount of each independent expenditure made involving a candidate for federal office. Free Speech says it is willing to disclose information about any independent expenditures and electioneering communications it makes, but the reporting requirements for a PAC are unnecessarily burdensome.
Free Speech argues that the rules on whether a group is a PAC or not are too vague. In order to decide whether a group is a PAC, a determination must be made about whether its major purpose is to influence federal elections; what type of speech qualifies as “express advocacy”; and what type of speech involves “solicitations for contributions.” Free Speech says that even the FEC Commissioners cannot agree on the these terms, and that it is necessary for groups to read thousands of pages of regulations and FEC rulings to understand them. The lower courts refused to give Free Speech any injunctive relief.
Idaho has released new voter registration data. The percentages for each party are: Republican 32.42%, Democratic 7.63%, Libertarian .46%, Constitution .23%, other or independent 59.27%.
UPDATE: here is a newer state compilation, dated Feb. 1, 2014: Republican 32.45%, Democratic 7.64%, Libertarian .46%, Constitution .23%, other or independent 59.23%.
In November 2012, the percentages were: Republican 25.02%, Democratic 4.62%, Libertarian .17%, Constitution .07%, other or independent 70.13%. Idaho did not have partisan registration until mid-2011, and in the beginning, all voters were deemed independent, until they took actions to register into a party. That is why the percentage of people registered in parties is so much higher now than it was in 2012.
Idaho Democratic Party registration is still so low, that if Idaho had Pennsylvania’s election laws, the Democrats would be off the ballot. Pennsylvania only gives automatic ballot access to parties that have 15% of the state registration total. Thanks to Michael for the link.
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.
