On March 25, the California Secretary of State released new registration data, as of February 10, 2013. See here for the Report.

The last registration tally was as of October 22, 2012. All qualified parties have a higher share of the registration now than they did in October 2012, except that the Republican and Green Parties declined. The percentage of “no party preference” voters (independent voters) also declined, compared to October 2012.

The Secretary of State also keeps track of how many people register into political parties that are now qualified, but which say they are trying to qualify. The only political body that gained since October is the Constitution Party, which had 260 registrants in October 2012 but which now has 304.

According to this Politico story, the Democratic National Committee has arranged for robo-calls to constituents of ten Republican State Senators in Pennsylvania, asking these constituents to ask their Senator to oppose SB 538. That is the bill to provide that the popular vote for president in Pennsylvania should be used to proportionally allocate the presidential electors. In other words, candidates that got 40% of the popular vote would get 40% of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.

Pennsylvania is probably the only state that has a realistic chance of passing a bill this year to provide that a state’s electors should be split among more than a single presidential candidate. Although Michigan House Majority Whip Pete Lund says he is interested in introducing a bill to provide that each U.S. House district should choose its own presidential elector, and although Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson says she supports that idea, the bill has not been introduced and probably won’t be for months, if at all.

On February 21, New York Assembly bill 204, the “ballot-friendly act”, was placed on third reading in the Assembly. It had passed the Assembly Election Law Committee on February 12. It requires that the names of candidates be in type that is no smaller than Font size 12 (one-sixth of one inch). It also says the names of all candidates for the same office shall appear in the same column or row, unless no alternative is possible.

In the special election for U.S. House, 9th district, held September 13, 2011, there were only three candidates on the ballot: the Democratic-Working Families-Independence nominee David Weprin, the Republican-Conservative nominee Bob Turner, and the Socialist Workers nominee, Christopher Hoeppner. The ballot listed Weprin, Turner, and the write-in line on the upper line. But it put Hoeppner on a lower line, all by himself. As a result most voters probably didn’t even notice Hoeppner’s name, and he polled only 143 votes (.2%). A204, if it had been in effect, would have not allowed this ballot format.