North Carolina held run-off primaries on July 17. Only 3.6% of the state’s registered voters participated. North Carolina only holds a runoff primary when no one get at least 40% of the vote in the original primary. North Carolina is one of only eight states that still holds partisan primary run-offs. See this editorial, calling on the state legislature to abolish run-off primaries. This year’s run-off primary cost between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
Two Republicans have now filed to run for the special election for Michigan’s U.S. House seat in the Eleventh District. See this story. Assuming both Republicans have enough valid signatures, now Michigan will be forced to hold a special primary on September 5, even though the November special election is only for a two-month term. Michigan also holds an August primary for all offices.
On July 16, North Carolina filed this brief in the ballot access case Pisano v Bartlett. This is the case filed by the Green Party and the Constitution Party, challenging the May petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. The judge in this case has already refused to grant an injunction against the deadline, but the case is set to explore whether the deadline is unconstitutional, in proceedings stretching out into next year.
However, the state is trying to get the case dismissed now. This brief responds to the political parties’ brief of July 6. The parties had pointed out that there are many precedents that say minor parties have standing to overcome an early petition deadline, even if they didn’t make a big effort to petition, or even if they didn’t submit any signatures at all. The new state brief fails to discuss those precedents, one of which, Greaves v North Carolina State Board of Elections, is a North Carolina precedent. In Greaves v North Carolina State Board of Elections, a U.S. District Court struck down the old April petition deadline, even though the plaintiff American Party didn’t submit any signatures at all.
Alex Vassar’s “OneVoter” blog has been covering California elections for many years, and also has a database of California election returns from the past. This OneVoter post covers the six candidates who won a spot on the November 2012 ballot via write-in votes. In California Congressional and legislative races at the June 5 primary, there were eight offices for which only one person filed to be on the top-two open primary ballot. In six of those districts, write-ins candidates filed. Whichever write-in candidate received the most write-in votes placed second. Under top-two rules, that person then qualified to appear on the November ballot.
The six write-in candidates who will advance are three Republicans and three Peace & Freedom Party members. The three PFP members are the only minor party members who will appear on the November ballot in a partisan race (except for President). One of the three PFP members, Lee Chauser, only received three write-ins, but because no other write-in candidate was running, he qualified for the November ballot.
Two races had only one person on the ballot, and no write-in candidate filed. Therefore, in those races, the November ballot will list one candidate, and no write-in space (because California’s top-two law eliminates write-in space in November). A voter in Assembly district 14, and in Assembly district 64, will be faced with only one choice, and no means to vote against that one choice. Thanks to Irv Sutley for the link.
On July 20, two cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court, both filed by local governments asking that the Court strike down Section Five of the federal Voting Rights Act. Section five is the part of that Act that requires certain governments to get approval from the U.S. Justice Department before changing any laws relating to elections and voting. One case was filed by voters in Kinston, North Carolina; another was filed by Shelby County, Alabama. Scotusblog has the details. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
