U.S. Senate Unanimously Passes Bill, Making it Possible for Certain Government Employees to Run for Partisan Office

Posted on by December 2, 2012
4

On November 30, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S2170, which makes it possible for certain government employees to run for partisan office. Under existing law, if a state or local government employee’s salary is paid in part by federal government money, that employee cannot run for partisan office, just as federal employees under civil service can’t run for partisan office.

The bill changes the rules for state and local government employees. If it is signed into law, only state and local government employees whose salary is entirely paid by the federal government will be barred from running for partisan office.

The bill also says that employees of the District of Columbia government should no longer be treated as though they were federal employees, for purposes of the prohibition in running for partisan office. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

California’s Top-Two Primary Helped Cause the Defeat of a “Blue Dog” Moderate Democratic Congressman by a More Liberal Democrat

Posted on by December 2, 2012
3

The wealthy and influential backers of California’s Proposition 14, the top-two open primary, constantly argued that a top-two system would result in the election of more moderate politicians, and would decrease the number of liberal Democratic and conservative Republican politicians. However, the top-two system was responsible, in part, for the defeat of one of California’s “blue dog” Democratic member of Congress, Joe Baca. See this list of the 25 members of the “Blue Dog” Democratic caucus in the U.S. House, just prior to the November 2012 election. “Blue dog” Democrats hold themselves out as moderate Democrats.

Here is a Sacramento Bee story about how Congressman Baca lost to a more liberal Democrat in November, State Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, in the 35th district. In the 2012 primary, the only candidates in that district were Democrats Baca and McLeod and a Green Party member, Anthony Vieyra. Baca received 45% of the primary vote; McLeod received 36%; Vieyra received 19%. McLeod won in November because, in October 2012, Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent $3,000,000 in independent expenditures for McLeod and against Baca. Bloomberg desired to defeat Baca because Baca generally voted almost 100% in favor of the National Rifle Association’s agenda, and Bloomberg is a fierce opponent of NRA positions.

Top-two systems produce random election results. Top-two systems are just as likely to help elect an “extremist” as to elect a “centrist.” Louisiana, which has by far the most experience with top-two (37 years for state office), easily demonstrates this, but most political analysts and reporters don’t examine Louisiana’s experience with the system.

Another reason that McLeod beat Baca is redistricting. Half of the 35th district was new territory for Baca, but the district was almost co-terminous with McLeod’s former State Senate district.

Gloria Negrete McLeod is by no means an “extremist”. She is merely a standard California Democrat, in the mainstream of her party. While she was in the State Senate she had a 31.8% ranking by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is fairly standard for a Democratic member of the California legislature. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link to the Sacramento Bee story.

Sixth Circuit Clarifies Remaining Issues in Tennessee Ballot Access Case

Posted on by December 1, 2012
22

On November 30, the Sixth Circuit issued a 20-page opinion in Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 12-5271. The Sixth Circuit sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for further evidence-gathering on the issue of whether Tennessee can require the two largest parties to always appear first on the ballot. The U.S. District Court is also instructed to decide if the number of signatures required for newly-qualifying parties is constitutional or not.

When the case had first been filed, Tennessee had an April petition deadline and required newly-qualifying parties to submit the signatures of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. The U.S. District Court had declared the law unconstitutional. Then, the legislature moved the petition deadline from April to August, but did not lower the number of signatures, so now the case will focus more closely on the number of signatures by itself.

The Sixth Circuit mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 upheld Georgia’s 5% (of the number of registered voters) petition for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. However, even though the Sixth Circuit did not say so, this does not require that the U.S. District Court uphold the 2.5% petition, which currently amounts to 40,042 valid signatures. There are two arguments the Green Party and the Constitution Party can make to the U.S. District Court about the number of signatures. One argument is that Jenness v Fortson did not concern presidential candidate ballot access, and in Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court said states have less interest in restrictive ballot access laws for president than they do for other office.

The other argument is that Tennessee can’t possibly have a legitimate state interest in requiring over 40,000 valid signatures for a new party, when the state only requires 25 signatures for an independent candidate for any office (except that presidential independents need 275 signatures).

On the issue of which parties appear first on the ballot, the Sixth Circuit notes that although the Tennessee law appears to mandate party column ballots, in practice at least one county uses an office-group ballot (actually, many Tennessee counties use an office-group ballot). This apparent anomoly in Tennessee law is confusing, and will require additional evidence before the matter of ballot order can be adjudicated.

The U.S. District Court had struck down a Tennessee law saying no party may include the word “independent” in its name, but the Sixth Circuit said the Constitution and Green Parties don’t have standing to challenge that law, because neither party has the word “independent” in its name.

Escondido, California Voters Reject Electing City Council by Districts, but City Council May Impose Districts Anyway to Settle Lawsuit

Posted on by December 1, 2012
9

Escondido, California, one of the larger cities in San Diego County, is 49% hispanic, but only two hispanics have been elected to the city council in the city’s history, which goes back to 1888. On November 6, city voters defeated Measure P, which would have changed at-large city council elections to district elections. But the city is being sued over minority representation, and the city council is still leaning toward settling the lawsuit by imposing districts.

In various newspaper stories, no one in Escondido seems to be talking about other voting systems, such as Ranked-Choice Voting, Cumulative Voting, or Approval Voting. Here is one story.