U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch says he will rule on Friday, July 13, in Mazzilli v Townsley. This is the lawsuit over whether registered voters who aren’t Democrats will be permitted to vote in the August Democratic primary, for Miami-Dade County States Attorney, a partisan post.
Both the Peace & Freedom Party, and the American Independent Party, first qualified for the California ballot in January 1968. Both parties will choose presidential nominees in August. Peace & Freedom will hold its convention in Los Angeles August 4-5, and American Independent will hold its convention in Sacramento August 11. At this point, no one knows which candidate will receive either party’s nomination.
Recently, Reverend Wiley Drake of Orange County, California, said that he will seek the AIP nomination. He was the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2008.
On July 10, Roseanne Barr sent an e-mail to the state chair of PFP, saying she is seeking the nomination of PFP. On the evening of July 11, Barr was in attendance at the Green Party national convention in Baltimore and participated in a forum there.
On July 23, the Illinois State Board of Elections will hear Rob Sherman’s objections to the ballot status of Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson, Stewart Alexander, and Michael Hawkins. Sherman is free to withdraw his objections to their petitions at any time up until July 23. Sherman challenged the petitions because they lack enough signatures, but in Illinois, candidates who file a petition with a smaller number of signatures than the legal requirement still go on the ballot, if no one challenges.
Virgil Goode is the Constitution Party nominee. In 2008 the Illinois Constitution Party filed a petition with only a small amount of signatures on it for President, but no one challenged, so the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, Chuck Baldwin, appeared on the November ballot. Rocky Anderson is the Justice Party nominee; Stewart Alexander is the Socialist Party nominee; Michael Hawkins is an independent candidate using the label “Together Enhancing America.”
Here is a news story about the challenge, which focuses on the fact that Sherman is chair of the Cook County Green Party.
On July 10, opponents of the Arizona top-two open primary initiative, or jungle primary, held a press conference. Bill Montgomery, the County Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona, will lead the opposition. That opposition will be a campaign to defeat the measure at the ballot box and also in court. Opponents believe the initiative violates the state Constitutional provisions that require initiatives to be on a single subject, and also the provision that all initiatives must include a funding source in case the effect of the initiative is to increase government spending. See this story. The opposition group uses the name “Save Our Vote Committee.”
The initiative abolishes elections for party office. It does not seem to follow logically that a state that enacts a top-two system must also abolish elections for party office. All three of the other states with a top-two system, California, Washington, and Louisiana, continue to elect party officers.
The Arizona press seems to have no consensus about the name of the type of primary being proposed by the initiative. The article linked to calls it a “non-partisan primary”, although other Arizona articles call it an “open primary.” For over a century, “open primary” has been defined as a system in which each party has its own primaries but any voter can choose any party’s primary ballot, so “open primary” is not a good name for a system in which parties don’t have nominees. On the other hand “non-partisan primary” isn’t a good term either, because traditionally, “non-partisan” means an election with no party labels on the ballot. Arizona has true non-partisan elections for city office everywhere except in Tucson.
The Washington state press always uses the term “top-two primary”, and the California press alternates between calling it a “top-two primary” and an “open primary.” The Louisiana press calls the Louisiana system a “jungle primary.”
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on July 25 in the case on whether a referendum should remain on the ballot or not. See this story. The State Court of Appeals had put it on the ballot even though the font size of the petition was slightly too small. The State Court of Appeals used a substantial compliance standard. Proponents of the referendum do not concede that their petition’s font size was too small. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
