The California Senate Elections Committee, and also the California Assembly Elections Committee, are both hearing election law bills on Tuesday, June 19. Unfortunately both committees are meeting simultaneously, at 1:30 p.m., so it is very difficult for anyone to attend both hearings.

The Senate Elections Committee hears AB 1436, the bill to allow individuals to register to vote on election day. This would eliminate a large number of provisional ballots. Under current law, individuals sometimes come into the polling place and believe they are registered to vote, but no record can be found for them. If same-day registration existed, such individuals could register on the spot. Such individuals would need a photo ID and proof of their residence address.

The Senate Elections Committee also hears AB 2058, to make it illegal to pay registration workers on a per-registration card basis. Because the only method for qualified parties to remain qualified is to keep their registration up to at least 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, this bill would injure qualified minor parties who are seeking to increase their registration. The Peace & Freedom Party formally opposes the bill and is expected to send a representative to testify against it.

Finally, the Senate Elections Committee hears AB 2410, which would prohibit someone who has been convicted of certain kinds of felonies from running for any public office for twenty years. As applied to federal office, the bill would violate the U.S. Constitution.

The Assembly Elections Committee will hear SB 1272, which would extend the terms of political party central committeemembers from two years to four years. Elections for that office would only be held in presidential election years.

The Assembly Elections Committee will also hear ACA 10, which would make it much more difficult to qualify a statewide initiative to alter the state Constitution. It would require signatures of 8% of the last gubernatorial vote from each of 27 State Senate districts. Currently the signatures for any initiative can be gathered from anywhere in the state.

On June 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in Libertarian Association of Massachusetts v Secretary of the Commonwealth, 2011-348. The unanimous ruling says that Massachusetts law does not permit an unqualified party, or an independent candidate, to engage in substitution. If a candidate for president, or vice-president, or even presidential elector, who was named on the petition, dies or withdraws, the petition is invalid and the proponents must start all over. If the death or withdrawal is after the deadline for the petition to be submitted, there is no remedy.

The decision says that the law “does not impose a significant burden.” It says the ability of a qualified party to make a late decision about who its presidential and vice-presidential nominees are is a “privilege” of being a qualified party. Footnote 28 says unqualified parties who fail to gain ballot access are always free to carry on a write-in campaign in November.

Footnote 9 admits that in the past, the Massachusetts Secretary of State let the U.S. Taxpayers Party substitute a new nominee in 1996, and let the Reform nominee do this in 2000. The footnote does not mention that the Secretary of State also let John B. Anderson substitute a new nominee for vice-president in 1980, and let Ralph Nader do so in 2004. In any event, it appears that what the Secretary of State did that was helpful in those past elections cannot happen again. The decision says the only recourse is for the group or independent candidate to start an entire new petition, if the original petition’s nominee for President or Vice-President changes while the first petition is underway.

If Americans Elect were still involved in running a presidential nominee this year, this decision would be utterly hurtful to Americans Elect.

Now that unqualified parties in Massachusetts have lost this case, it may be possible for unqualified parties to successfully challenge the only method by which unqualified parties can become qualified parties in advance of any particular election. That procedure requires the group to persuade voters equal to 1% of the registration to register into that party, no later than November of the year before the election. By every precedent, a deadline that early is unconstitutional.