This article describes the proceedings so far in the New Jersey state court lawsuit over whether the U.S. Senate election should be on October 16, 2013, or November 5, 2013.
Reply
On June 12, the Michigan Republican Party filed this response to the Sixth Circuit, in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Johnson, 12-2153. The Republican Party had been allowed to intervene on the side of the state. The issue is whether Michigan’s sore loser law does apply to presidential primaries. As is typical of the state’s earlier briefs in this case, and the Republican Party’s earlier briefs, no mention is made of the fact that the U.S. Constitution, Article II, and the election laws of all 50 states, make it clear that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector.
The Republican Party’s main point is that the issue is not important enough to justify granting a rehearing. The Republican Party also continues to emphasize that the Libertarian Party was somewhat slow in the summer of 2012 to get its briefs filed. But the Republican Party doesn’t really rebut the other arguments of the Libertarian Party, which include these points: (1) it makes no sense to prohibit a presidential “sore loser” from being the nominee of a ballot-qualified party given that Michigan permits presidential “sore losers” to be independent candidates; (2) Michigan’s law was already interpreted in 1980 not to apply to presidential primaries.
The state’s brief makes similar arguments.
On June 12, the New York Assembly Election Committee, and the Rules Committee, both passed A4422, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. The Senate bill, S3149, had already passed the Senate Election Committee on April 24. It is somewhat likely the legislature will have passed either of these bills by the end of the week. UPDATE: on the evening of June 12, the Assembly passed A4422 by a vote of 95-36. This is the first time the New York Assembly has ever passed the National Popular Vote bill. Last year, the State Senate had passed it.
Seth Masket is a political scientist who has studied polarization and partisanship in state government for many years. Here is a new column by Masket about how Califoria’s top-two primary worked in practice last year. As he notes, it has increased the power of the major party organizations to determine who is permitted to run in November.
During May, the city of Vallejo, California, held an advisory election, asking voters to choose what the city should spend part of its sales tax income. The ballot listed 33 possible uses for the money, and asked voters to choose the 12 that they favor. See this story. Only 4,000 voters participated, even though the special rules for this non-binding election permitted anyone age 16 and over to vote. Thanks to AroundtheCapitol for the link.