John Marshall, of Hot Springs, Montana, has filed a proposed statewide constitutional amendment initiative. It would mandate that when legislators are elected, half the seats would be for females, and half for males. Presumably this could be achieved if each district were to elect two legislators. Because it is a proposed state Constitutional amendment, it seems likely that it would be constitutional. It would not violate the U.S. Constitution, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no fundamental right for an individual to be a candidate for state or local office.

Here is an article about the proposal. As the article notes, the author of the initiative was a Libertarian Party nominee for State Senate in 2012. He polled 7.64% in a race with both major parties also in the race. Thanks to Mike Fellows for the link.

On November 1, a Superior Court in San Luis Obispo County, California, declared three California election laws unconstitutional. Section 7210 requires new members of a Democratic Party county central committee to swear that they are not a member of any party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government by force or violence or other unlawful means. Section 7408 was identical, except that it applied to Republicans; Section 7655 was identical, except that it applied to members of the American Independent Party.

The lawsuit had been filed in 2011 by John Barta, a member of the Democratic County Central Committee. Originally the state had defended the constitutionality of the laws, but in October 2013 it switched its position and agreed that the laws are unconstitutional. The court ruling declares the laws unconstitutional, but the court declined to order the state to notify election officials in each county not to enforce the laws. Presumably California county election officials know about this decision and will not try to enforce the laws.

In 2012, the legislature had passed AB 1200, which said that the loyalty oaths should be administered by party officials, not county election officials. The action of the legislature in 2012 implies that the legislature still felt these loyalty oaths should be preserved, because otherwise one would think that the legislature, having noticed the oaths, would have repealed them. Here is the eight-page decision, which is mostly about whether or not the Secretary of State should be ordered to notify county election officials about the result.

The California election code never required oaths for members of the other qualified parties. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The United States is rare in the world for having a campaign finance system that is centered on candidates, rather than parties. In the U.S., for the most part, candidates must take primary responsibility for raising campaign funds. In most democratic countries, parties take on that burden for their nominees. Political Science Professor Raymond J. LaRaja has this article in The Forum. It suggests that U.S. government would work better if campaign finance was more oriented through political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for the current state of federal campaign finance law. The Court has struck down many campaign finance laws, but has left intact the inhibitions on political parties in the McCain-Feingold Law. Political parties have less ability to make independent expenditures than any other type of group. Thanks to The Mischiefs of Faction for the link.