South Carolina Bill to Require Candidates Nominated by Convention to Pay Filing Fees

Three South Carolina Representatives have introduce HB 3557, which would require that candidates nominated in convention must pay filing fees. The authors are Brandon Newton (R-Lancaster), Fawn Pedalino (R-Manning), and Bill Taylor (R-Aiken).

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Lubin v Panish (1974) that filing fees are unconstitutional unless they are needed for the purpose of keeping ballots from being too crowded. There is no problem with crowded primary ballots when parties nominate by convention. South Carolina lets each party decide for itself whether to nominate by primary or convention, but the two major parties always use primaries and all the minor parties always use conventions.

North Dakota Legislative Committee Hears Bills that would Ban Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting

On January 30, the North Dakota House Government & Veterans Affairs heard testimony on HB 1297 and HB 1307. The first bill would ban Approval Voting and ranked choice voting. The second would say that no charter city could have any election rules that vary from state election rules. The Committee has not taken any action on either bill. See this story.

New Jersey Legislature Passes Bill Increasing Petition Requirements for Independent Candidates and the Nominees of Unqualified Parties

On January 30, the New Jersey legislature passed AB 5117, which increases the number of signatures for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. The Governor signed it on February 3. The bill passed on a party-line vote in each house, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposed.

U.S. District Court in Washington State Issues Injunction Against President Donald Trump’s Order on Birthright Citizenship

On February 6, U.S. District Court John Coughenoour, a Reagan appointee, enjoined President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. State of Washington v Trump, w.d., 2:25cv-127. Here is the decision. There is an extensive discussion of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of”, starting on page six.