Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery Will Lead Opposition to Arizona Top-Two Initiative

Posted on by February 18, 2019
6

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.”

Michigan Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Ballot Measure Should Remain on Ballot, Even though Font Size on Petitions was Slightly Smaller than the Law Required

Posted on by July 11, 2012
1

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.

California State Court of Appeals Will Expedite Challenge to New Law that Determines Order of Initiatives on Ballot

Posted on by July 11, 2012
2

On July 10, the California State Court of Appeals agreed to expedite Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Bowen, C071506. This case, filed July 9, is a challenge to the validity of a law enacted last month that puts constitutional amendment initiatives on the ballot before other initiatives. California will have two initiatives on the November ballot raising state income taxes for certain taxpayers. The initiative backed by Governor Jerry Brown is a proposed constitutional amendment, but the other initiative, backed by Molly Munger, is not a proposed constitutional amendment, just an proposed new law.

Without the bill passed last month, initiatives would go on the ballot in the order in which the proponents submitted signatures. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers lawsuit says the new law’s emergency clause is invalid. Without the emergency clause, the new law could not take effect this year. Normally bills need two-thirds in each house to add an emergency clause, but this bill only passed with a simply majority. The legislature says the emergency clause is valid because the bill also contained an appropriation of $1,000, and therefore the bill is a budget bill and doesn’t need two-thirds to take effect immediately. The plaintiffs say the bill is not a budget bill. Here is the State Court of Appeals’ order, requiring the state to respond by July 30. Ballot measure numbers have already been assigned, so the court declined to issue a stay blocking the numbers from being assigned.

Andrew Straw, Green Party Congressional Candidate, Likely to Sue Indiana over Ballot Access

Posted on by July 11, 2012
Reply

Andrew Straw, a Green Party candidate for U.S. House in Indiana’s Second District, and an attorney, is apparently going to sue Indiana over its ballot access laws. He apparently will base the lawsuit on the State Constitution, which requires that elections be free and equal. See this story.

Indiana is the only state with severely repressive ballot access laws in which there has been virtually no activism to change those laws. Indiana is one of only four states in which Ralph Nader never appeared on the ballot (the others are North Carolina, Georgia, and Oklahoma). Indiana is one of only three states in which no statewide minor party or independent petition has been successfully completed during the last eleven years. Yet in Indiana, unlike the other bad states, there have been no bills introduced to ease the requirements, and no lawsuits since 1984.

Indiana’s legislature quadrupled the petition requirement in 1980, even though under the old law, Indiana never had a crowded ballot. The hostile 1980 change was not effective until 1984. The law requires petitions of 2% of the last vote for Secretary of State, which this year is 34,195 signatures. By contrast, no member of a major party ever needs more than 4,500 signatures to obtain a place on the primary ballot. For U.S. House, no major party member ever needs any signatures at all.

The Communist Party sued Indiana in 1984 in federal court, but lost the case. Indiana permits a group that polls at least 2% of the vote for Secretary of State to be on the ballot automatically. The Libertarian Party has met the vote test in Indiana in every election starting in 1994, so never needs to petition. Thanks to Ed Feigenbaum for the link.