On April 20, Green Party member Michael Cornell (a former state chair of the party) was re-elected to the Columbia Council, as the representative of the Village of River Hill. The vote was 111-41. Columbia is an unincorporated city run by the Columbia Association. Thanks to Michael for this news.
On April 23, California AB 857 passed the Assembly Elections Committee by a party-line vote of 5-2, with all Democrats voting “yes” and all Republicans voting “no.” It says that statewide initiatives cannot qualify unless at least 20% of the signatures submitted were collected by unpaid volunteers. Petitions collected by paid circulators would be on yellow paper and would bear the legend “Warning to the Public: This Petition is Being Circulated by a Person Paid to Obtain Your Signature. Read the contents of this petition before signing.” That would be in 18-point type. Each page of an initiative petition would bear a unique page number.
Also, paid circulators could not work unless they had registered with the Secretary of State and had completed a state training course. Paid circulators would be required to wear a badge bearing a photo of the circulator, and his or her registration number. Signatures collected in which any of these laws are violated would not be valid. Employers of paid circulators would be required to keep records of payment, including hours worked, even though the employee wasn’t being paid by the hour or day. If such records cannot be produced by the employer, the signatures gathered by paid circulators would be invalid. AB 857 is supported by several labor unions.
The preamble to the bill says that under the current system, individuals and groups who have wealth now have the power to place initiatives on the ballot, which creates inequality. Of course that statement is correct. Ironically, the same statement could also be applied to candidate elections in California; candidates who are wealthy, or who have wealthy backers, have a very great advantage toward getting elected. However, California does not have public funding of candidates for state office, nor are there any bills to provide for public funding.
The part of the bill that requires at least 20% of the signatures to have been collected by unpaid workers probably is unconstitutional, under the 1988 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion Meyer v Grant. Meyer v Grant struck down a Colorado law that prohibited paying circulators. The basis for the Meyer v Grant decision is not related to the rights of individual circulators to be paid to exercise free speech. Instead, the basis is that a ban on payment makes it more difficult for proponents of an initiative to qualify initiatives, and the decision says that having additional initiatives on the ballot increases political speech. The decision says any fears about a glut of initiatives can be regulated simply by increasing or otherwise regulating the number of signatures required.
British Columbia elects a new Legislative Assembly on May 14. Currently the party line-up is 45 Liberals, 36 New Democrats, and 4 independents. At the upcoming election, those two parties, plus the Conservative Party and the Green Party, have candidates in a majority of districts.
The Green Party hopes to elect at least four members, which would enable it to have a recognized caucus in the Assembly. See the Green Party’s goals here.
Candidates get on the ballot by paying a fee. The deadline was April 26, which is only 17 days before the election itself.
On April 5, the Connecticut Joint Government Administration and Election Committee passed SB 1146, the bill that makes it illegal for a party to nominate a non-member. However, the bill has not yet been voted on in either House. The intent of the bill is to ban fusion, but the bill goes beyond that.
The Joint Committee has three Senators and eleven House members. Two of the three Senators, a Republican and a Democrat, voted against the bill, which suggests that the bill may have a difficult time passing the Senate. Also, the bill still hasn’t been amended to correct a flaw that would cause it to be held unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that parties have a First Amendment freedom of association right to nominate non-members if they wish. States that wish to ban fusion can do so, but states can’t make it illegal for parties to nominate any candidate just because that candidate isn’t a member of that party.
According to this story, the Conservative Campaign Committee PAC has launched a campaign to persuade voters to write-in State Senator Larry Grooms for U.S. House, in South Carolina’s upcoming special election in the First District. Grooms disavows the effort. However, South Carolina allows write-ins (for all office except President) and has no requirement that write-in candidates file a declaration of write-in candidacy. Therefore, there is nothing Grooms can do to stop the campaign for him.
