The Election Law Journal is letting anyone read the contents of Volume 12, Number 4, the current issue. Use this link. The Election Law Journal is a peer-rviewed quarterly journal which ordinarily is not available to non-subscribers.

The current issue includes an outstanding article, “The Incompatible Treatment of Majorities in Election Law and Deliberative Democracy”, by Law Professor James A. Gardner. Gardner makes a very simple and persuasive point that severe ballot access laws sabotage the goal of deliberative democracy. He points out that deliberative democracy depends on exposing voters to opinions and beliefs they do not already hold. Yet severe ballot access laws inhibit candidates from expressing such new and so-far unpopular ideas.

California Assemblymember Tim Donnelly has completely revised one of his election law bills, AB 1170, so that all the contents are new. The new contents alter the definition of “political party”, so that the 2% vote test (which is only applied in midterm years) is now applied in the June primary instead of the November election. The bill has a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee on Wednesday, January 15, at 9 a.m.

The reason this change makes it easier for parties to remain ballot-qualified is that under the top-two system, it will be almost impossible for minor party members to ever be on the November ballot for a statewide race in midterm years.

By coincidence, another California legislator has also been planning to introduce a bill to make it easier for a party to remain ballot-qualified, but that other bill isn’t introduced yet. It is expected that the other bill, when it is introduced, will lower the number of registered voters for a party to be ballot-qualified from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to one-third of 1% of the total state registration. That would lower the registration requirement from approximately 110,000 members to 60,000 members. That bill would also provide that the 2% vote test (which is an alternative to meeting the registration test) could be met in either June or November.

The American Political Science Association has appointed a task force to study negotiating agreement in politics. A sub-group, charged with investigating the causes and consequences of polarization, has issued this 35-page report. It is authored by Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty.

The report examines various explanations for polarization, including: (1) a polarized electorate; (2) southern realignment; (3) gerrymandering; (4) primary elections; (5) economic inequality; (6) money in politics; (7) media environment; (8) changes internal to Congress, such as rules changes, majority party agenda control, party pressures, and the breakdown of bi-partisan norms.

Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty are both at Princeton University. Barber is a PhD candidate whose dissertation, “Political Ideology, Campaign Contributions, and Legislative Polarization” is in the process of becoming a book. McCarthy is a political science professor and has written the book, “Polarized America: the Dance of Political Ideology and Unequal Riches”. He is the author of several other books as well.

The conclusion to the APSA sub-group study includes this sentence: “The evidence undermines the common arguments that reforming legislative districting or primary elections will materially reduce polarization.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.