Missouri Bill, Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates, Advances

Posted on by May 1, 2012
Reply

On April 30, the Missouri Senate Finance & Government Operations & Elections Committee passed HB 1046. It requires political parties that wish to have a presidential candidate on the November ballot to furnish copies of the birth certificates of both the presidential and vice-presidential candidate, within 7 days after the nominee is chosen. If it is signed into law, it will go into effect on August 28, 2012. The Democratic national convention is later than that date. The bill has already passed the House.

The bill also requires presidential primary candidates to furnish their birth certificates, and also requires declared write-in presidential candidates to do the same. But it does not apply to independent presidential candidates.

Washington Political Scientist Todd Donovan Article, “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?”

Posted on by May 1, 2012
Reply

Political science professor Todd Donovan recently published an article in The California Journal of Politics & Policy, titled, “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?” The article is in Volume 4, Issue 1, 2012. The last sentence of the Abstract is, “Whatever the cause of the changes, the partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system.”

The article concludes that when Washington state started using a top two system in 2008, the change did not create a legislature that “looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.”

ACLU, Others, File Lawsuit Against New Pennsylvania Law Requiring Voters at Polls to Show Government-Photo ID

Posted on by May 1, 2012
Reply

On May 1, the American Civil Liberties Union and many other public interest groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of some Pennsylvania voters who do not possess government-photo ID cards. See this press release, which has links to the complaint and details about the individual voter plaintiffs.

Most of the recently passed state photo-ID laws from southern states have been blocked this year by the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department. But most states are not covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so whether these laws may go into effect depends on the outcome of state court lawsuits, such as this one. So far the Wisconsin photo-ID law passed this year has been blocked by state courts in Wisconsin. The new Pennsylvania case is called Applewhite v Commonwealth.

Mark Schmitt Suggests Instant-Runoff Voting Would Help if it Existed in Presidential Elections

Posted on by May 1, 2012
Reply

Mark Schmitt, writing for The New Republic, comments here on Americans Elect, and then goes on to recommend Instant-Runoff Voting in presidential general elections. He also recommends that states permit fusion (i.e., letting two parties jointly nominate the same candidate).

Schmitt says only five states permit fusion, although he does not name them. Actually more states than that permit fusion. They are Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont; and Pennsylvania permits it for certain partisan offices. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, fusion only can be accomplished via write-in votes in primaries.

But Schmitt also understates the number of states that permit fusion for President. Approximately half the states permit fusion for president. This is because so many state anti-fusion laws are worded to only apply to candidates nominated in direct primaries. But presidential elector candidates are not nominated by primary in any state; generally presidential elector candidates are nominated in state conventions.