This Politico story analyzes election law in Kentucky and Florida and concludes that neither Rand Paul nor Marco Rubio can simultaneously run for the Republican presidential nomination, and for re-election to the U.S. Senate, in 2016. Thanks to Gene Berkman for the link.
On May 6, the Republican National Committee, a co-plaintiff in McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, 12-536, filed its opening brief. The argument itself is 60 pages long. It says that while there is a good reason for base contribution limits, there is no important government interest in controlling aggregate limits. “Base contribution limit” means a contribution to a particular candidate, or a particular group. “Aggregate contribution limit” means the federal law that controls how much money an individual may give to all candidates and/or all groups. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link. It may take your computer 15 seconds or so to load the brief.
The South Carolina Election Commission has semi-official election returns on its web page. The percentages for each party are: Republican 54.04%; Democratic 41.86%; Working Families Party 3.35%; Green .48%. UPDATE: here is a picture of the ballot, courtesy of The Independent View.
The Working Families Party and the Democratic Party each had the same candidate, Elizabeth Colbert Busch. This is the best showing the Working Families Party has ever made in the district. In 2010 it received 1.78% in the First District, and in 2012 it received 1.86%. As in this 2013 special election, the Working Families Party also cross-endorsed the Democrat in 2010 and 2012. Thanks to Michael for the link.
On May 7, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed ACA 9 and AB 141 by a vote of 5-1. This proposed state constitutional amendment, and statute, would provide that if a write-in candidate for Congress or partisan state office places second in June, he or she still can’t be on the November ballot unless the number of write-ins is quite high.
In the typical U.S. House district, 2,300 write-ins would be needed. In the typical State Senate district, 3,000 write-ins would be needed; in an ordinary Assembly district, 1,500 write-ins would be needed.
If this amendment becomes law, the only concrete difference will be an increase in the number of one-candidate elections in November. If this measure had been in existence in 2012, there would have been eight one-candidate elections in November. Because California no longer permits write-ins in November, one-candidate elections leave California voters with no choice whatsoever. Testimony against the bill was heard from the ACLU, Californians for Electoral Reform, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Peace & Freedom Party. The only testimony in favor of the bill was from Jill LaVine, president of the California Association of County Election Officials.
Even though the bill has a Republican sponsor, Assemblymember Jeff Gorell, it received no votes from Republicans on the Committee. The Committee has five Democrats, all of whom voted for the bill. Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly spoke against the bill and voted against it. The other Republican member of the Committee, Dan Logue, did not cast a vote on this bill.
North Carolina HB 794, the ballot access improvement bill, has a hearing on Wednesday, May 8, at 1 p.m., in the House Elections Committee.
