On June 14, a federal court will hold a hearing in the lawsuit filed recently to overturn Alaska’s legislative redistricting plan. See this story. The plaintiffs hope for relief in time to change the plan this year. The primary will be August 28.
On June 12, a registered member of the Constitution Party was elected to a local non-partisan office in Baker, Nevada. He is Terrance Stedman, elected to the Baker General Improvement Board. In Nevada, the Constitution Party’s name is the Independent American Party. Baker is in eastern Nevada, and has the headquarters of Nevada’s only National Park, the Great Basin Park. Thanks to Cody Quirk for this news.
On June 14, at noon, the Rules Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will hear a proposal to eliminate Instant Runoff Voting for the city’s executive position elections. The hearing is in Room 250 in City Hall. UPDATE: the rules committee sent the proposal on to the full Board, with no recommendation. The full Board will probably vote on June 26.
The proposal provides that for Mayor, Public Defender, District Attorney, Sheriff, City Attorney, Assessor-Recorder, and Treasurer, Instant Runoff Voting would no longer be used. Instead, the election for those offices would be in September. If no one gets 65% for one of those offices, there would be a run-off in November.
The proposal does not change the existing system for Instant Runoff Voting for Supervisors. Nor does it change the existing pattern of which years these elections are held. Currently, as well as under the proposal, elections for Mayor, District Attorney, and Sheriff are held in the odd years before a presidential election. Public Defender and Assessor-Recorder are elected in the even years in which gubernatorial elections are held. City Attorney and Treasurer are held in the odd years following a presidential election year.
The proposal to eliminate IRV for the citywide offices is almost ludicrously impractical, as applied to elections for Public Defender and Assessor-Recorder. If the proposal passes, San Francisco voters in gubernatorial election years would be going to the polls in June for the partisan offices, in September for Public Defender and Assessor-Recorder, and in November for the partisan elections and for run-offs for those two city offices. Voters would be voting three times in a span of five months.
Since 1976, California voter registration forms have listed all the qualified parties, and provided a check box for each one. New registration cards have now been issued to reflect that Americans Elect is now a qualified party.
Question 14 of the form asks, “Do you want to choose a political party preference?” Underneath that question, on the left, there is a check box labeled “No Party Preference.” After the that, it says, “No, I do not want to choose a political party preference.”
Under question 14, but on the right, the form says, “Yes, my political party preference is: (check one). This is followed by a list of parties, in alphabetical order, each with its own checkbox. The order is American Independent Party, Americans Elect Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Republican Party, Other (specify).”
Americans Elect, which spent several million dollars collecting 1,030,040 valid signatures to earn its party status, will go off the ballot in January 2014 unless it gets its registration up to one-fifteenth of 1%. That will probably be approximately 12,000 registered members. Currently it only has 3,030. It will be interesting to see if Americans Elect exerts itself to raise its registration in California and save its ballot access.
On June 13, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Fuller v Bowen, the case over whether California’s one-year residency requirement for candidates for the legislature should be enforced. Ever since 1879, the California Constitution has said that candidates for the legislature must have lived in their district for one year before filing. However, in the mid-1970’s, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State determined that the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution, and therefore they have not enforced that part of the California Constitution.
Heidi Fuller, a candidate for the legislature who did meet the residency requirement, had sued the Secretary of State to force her to enforce the California Constitution. The Superior Court ruled that the court has jurisdiction, but that the California Constitution does violate the U.S. Constitution. Fuller appealed, and the California Court of Appeals had ruled that it is irrelevant whether the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution, but that only the legislature can judge the qualifications of candidates who seek to run for legislature. That decision will now stand. Under the logic of the State Court of Appeals decision, anyone can run for the legislature, whether they live in the district currently or not, and regardless of their age and citizenship.
