Late-Counted Votes Appear to Change Outcome in California Special Legislative Election

Posted on by May 25, 2013
Reply

California held a special election to fill the vacant State Senate seat, 16th district, on May 21.  Five candidates appeared on the ballot.  In California special elections, if anyone gets 50% in the first round, there is no further election.

As of two days after the election, the votes that had been counted showed that the only Republican in the race, Andy Vidak, had 51.9% of the total vote cast.  However, since then, previously uncounted provisional and absentee votes have been counted, and currently no one has as much as 50%, although not all votes will have been counted until May 31 so that could change again.

The new results, as of May 25, are:  Republican Andy Vidak 30,993; Democrat Leticia Perez 27,264; Democrat Frank Ramirez 1,867; Democrat Paula Miranda 1,605; Mohammed “O” Arif of the Peace & Freedom Party 468.  This totals 62,197, so a majority would be 31,099.  Vidak is 106 votes below having a majority.

Frank Ramirez, who was on the ballot as a Democrat, had been registered as a Libertarian before he filed for the race.

 

 

Massachusetts Election Law Committee Hears Some Election Law Bills

Posted on by May 25, 2013
Reply

On May 15, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Election Laws heard four election law bills.  In Massachusetts, the committee typically takes testimony, and then takes several weeks to decide whether to pass the bills.

The Committee heard testimony on these bills:  (1) H.591, to repeal the National Popular Vote Plan that Massachusetts approved several years ago; (2) S.324, to prohibit electronic vote-counting machines; (3) H.583, to let 17-year-olds vote in city and town elections; (4) H.642, to print “None of the above” on the ballot in all candidate elections.  There would be no consequences of “NOTA” won the election.

California Bill Advances, Would Remove Residency Requirements for Petitioners

Posted on by May 24, 2013
Reply

On May 24, the California Senate Appropriations Committee passed SB 213. This is the bill to remove residency requirements for petitioners. The Committee amended the bill. The original bill said that out-of-state circulators must file a document with the Secretary of State, consenting to accept legal jurisdiction of California courts, in case the circulator is charged with any crime in connection with petitioning. But the Committee amended the bill to delete the need for such a document, because the paperwork would theoretically have required the expenditure state funds of approximately $100,000 per year.

Therefore, under the amended bill, out-of-state circulators can work in California without filing any special paperwork.

U.S. District Court Issues Fascinating Opinion on Presidential Qualifications

Posted on by May 24, 2013
18

On May 23, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England issued a 23-page opinion in Grinols v Electoral College, eastern district, California, 2:12cv-2997. The subject is presidential qualifications. The lead plaintiff, James Grinols, was a Republican presidential elector candidate in 2012. The plaintiffs had filed the case last year, to stop the California presidential electors from voting for President Obama.

The decision carries a comprehensive list of all the lawsuits on this subject filed in the last five years; there appear to be twelve such cases. The opinion also has a comprehensive survey of decisions that wrestle with the subject of whether a presidential candidate, or a candidate for presidential elector, has standing to challenge the qualifications (and hence ballot placement) for a competing candidate. The decision concludes by saying that plaintiffs’ only remedy is to either work for the impeachment of the President, or to persuade Congress to appoint a special prosecutor concerning forged birth documents, or to work for a Constitutional Amendment to more clearly define “natural-born citizen.”

California Bills Advance, Would Make One-Candidate Elections More Common

Posted on by May 24, 2013
4

On May 23, the California Assembly passed AB 141, which says that when a primary write-in candidate for Congress or partisan state office places second in the primary, he or she still can’t advance to the general election, unless the write-in total was quite large. For U.S. House, about 2,300 write-ins would be required; for State Senate 3,000; for Assembly 1,500; for statewide office 120,000.

If this bill had been in effect in 2012, California voters would have seen eight one-candidate elections on their ballot, instead of just two. The only minor party candidates who appeared on the November 2012 ballot (for office other than President) were three Peace & Freedom candidates for the legislature. All three came in second in the primary on write-in votes, which was easy to do because only one person was on the primary ballot in each of the three races.

On May 24, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee passed the companion measure, ACA 9. AB 141 can’t go into effect unless the voters approve a constitutional amendment, so if both ACA 9 and AB 141 are signed into law, they will be subject to a popular vote in June 2014.

Only two Democrats in the Assembly voted against AB 141, even though it has a Republican sponsor. They are Tom Ammiano and Mike Gatto. Republicans voting against AB 141 are Travis Allen, Connie Conway, Tim Donnelly, Curt Hagman, Allan Mansoor, and Jim Patterson.