On March 4, an Alameda County Superior Court set a February 18, 2014 trial date for Rubin v Bowen, the case filed by the Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Green Parties that argues that the top-two system in practice injures the voting rights of voters who wish to vote for minor party candidates in November. The state will still attempt to persuade the Court to cancel the trial and dismiss the case, and a hearing on that is somewhat likely in June or July 2013.
The Flathead Beacon has two columns about top-two primaries, one advocating the idea for Montana, the other opposing it. See the columns here. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
This San Francisco Chronicle interview with Abel Maldonado, the sponsor of California’s top-two primary system, says he is seriously thinking of becoming the Republican candidate for Governor of California in 2014.
The Daily Illinoisan, a daily newspaper published in Carbondale, Illinois, has this story about the Green Party’s state convention held March 2. It is somewhat unusual for daily newspapers to cover minor party state conventions, especially in non-election periods.
On February 20, the Ninth Circuit agreed to decide whether a U.S. District Court in Montana last year should have ordered three Montana counties to open offices, other than in the county seat, where voters could cast early votes. The lawsuit is Wandering Medicine v McCulloch, 12-35926.
On October 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court had denied the request, even though its opinion (issued November 6) said, “It is undisputed that Native Americans living on the three Indian Reservations face greater hardships to in-person absentee voting than residents of the three counties who do not live on the reservations.” Montana permits early voting, but it must be done at the county seat. The plaintiffs wanted another place in which to vote early that would not be so far from the county seat. The lead plaintiff lives so far from the county seat that a round trip to the county seat for him would have been 182 miles. The plaintiffs are all residents of three Indian reservations. The U.S. District Court had denied injunctive relief partly because it said the case had been filed too late, and partly because there were administrative difficulties to opening satellite offices, and partly because residents of the three particular reservations had already had electoral success in electing Native Americans to county elected office and to the state legislature. When plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit after the election for a reversal, the defendants filed a brief arguing the Ninth Circuit should dismiss the appeal without further briefing, but the Ninth Circuit denied that motion.
