The Florida Secretary of State’s web page has a list of qualified parties in the state. See it here. The list was updated on October 14 to delete the 40 parties formed by one eccentric individual. Under the new election law passed earlier this year, parties must have at least three state officers, all of whom must be registered members of that party.
On October 18, proponents of privacy for people who have signed petitions appealed Doe v Reed to the Ninth Circuit, even though the state of Washington has already released the names and addresses of people who signed the 2009 referendum petition that caused this lawsuit to be filed. The U.S. District Court yesterday had said there is not enough evidence of harassment to keep the names from being released to the public.
On appeal, the proponents of privacy for petition signers will probably argue that the U.S. District Court erred, because the U.S. District Court said there was little evidence that the signers had been harassed. The problem with this argument is that, until yesterday, the names and addresses had not been released to the public. UPDATE: here is a Los Angeles Times story about the aftermath of the state’s releasing the names and addresses.
On October 17, a Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court heard arguments in Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation v Bennett, cv2011-009646. The issue is whether a statewide ballot measure to defund public funding should be on the November 2012 ballot. In 2011, the legislature put a proposal on the ballot to ask voters if they wish to amend the Constitution, and ban the expenditure of public funds for public funding for candidates for state office. Supporters of public funding then sued to remove the measure from the ballot. The supporters of public funding charge that the measure is invalid because it covers more than a single subject.
According to this story about the hearing, the judge is troubled by the point that the measure would defund not only the state program for state candidates, but also Tucson’s public funding for candidates for city office.
The Iowa Republican Party has confirmed an earlier tentative decision, and will hold its presidential caucuses on January 3, which is a Tuesday. Iowa caucuses are always held in on Tuesday evenings. See this story. The story also says that it is possible New Hampshire won’t set its presidential primary date until October 28. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Political Science Professor Mathew Manweller has published an article in the Election Law Journal on voter confusion in Washington state’s top-two system, “The Very Partisan Nonpartisan Top-Two Primary: Understanding What Voters Don’t Understand.” The article is based on Manweller’s experimental findings, giving voters three Washington state ballots and asking them for their understanding of the relationship between candidates and their own political parties. The experiment involved 183 new voters, 102 ordinary voters, and 549 politically active voters.
His experiment showed that a large proportion of voters are confused about the relationship between parties and candidates. Washington’s top-two system would be unconstitutional if voters believe that party labels on the ballot means anything other than that candidate’s statement about his or her own political leanings. Therefore, Manweller’s findings are relevant to whether the top-two system survives court scrutiny. Manweller’s article has been submitted to the Ninth Circuit, which is currently considering the constitutionality of the system. Because the article is now in the public record, and because the Washington Secretary of State’s web page links to the article, it can be seen by anyone, notwithstanding that normally Election Law Journal articles are copywrited. Here is the article. Thanks to Thomas Jones for noticing the link, and thanks to the Washington Secretary of State for posting it.
