On September 7, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence E. Kahn struck down a New York state law that requires attorneys who practice law in New York, but who do not live there, to have an office in New York state. By contrast, New York attorneys who reside in New York need not have an office, and may work from home. The case is Schoenefeld v State of New York, 1:09-cv-00504, northern district.

The case was filed by Ekaterina Schoenefeld, who represented herself and lives in New Jersey.

The decision may be useful if and when any petition circulator sues New York state to overturn the law that bans out-of-state petitioners. Many of the justifications New York offered in defense of its policy on attorneys apply equally to petitioners.

The September 9 Chronicle of Philanthropy carries this short article, noting that some feel the Americans Elect is a worthy group to receive philanthropic donations. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

As reported previously, AB 1413 had been set for a hearing in the California Senate Elections Committee on September 7. That hearing was never held, but in preparation for the hearing, legislative employees had prepared an analysis of the bill, which was introduced to make alterations in the “top-two” Proposition 14 procedure. Proposition 14 passed in June 2010 and says all candidates for Congress and partisan state office run on a single primary ballot in June. Then, only the two top vote-getters may run in November.

The analysis says, “In 2009, as part of a state budget agreement, a measure was placed on the ballot for the voters to consider authorizing a ‘top-two’ primary election system. At the same time that measure was approved, the Legislature also approved a series of changes to the Election Code to implement a top two primary election system. Unfortunately, due to the nature in which those statutory changes were adopted, they created a number of problems for the effective and efficient operation of elections. Last year, the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee held an oversight hearing to hear from elections officials about some of the problems with those statutory changes. Among other problems, county elections officials testified that certain ballot printing requirements created an unnecessary burden, and could significantly increase election costs.

“Since that time, state and county elections officials have been working diligently to develop fixes that will help implement the top two primary system in a more effective manner. This bill includes much of that work.”

The analysis also says, “This bill shortens the format in which a candidate’s party preference is displayed on the ballot, shortens and clarifies the ballot instructions that appear on the ballot, and eliminates certain type size and typeface requirements to give county elections officials greater flexibility to format their ballots. These changes should help address some of the concerns raised by elections officials in this committee’s oversight hearing.”

Existing law requires very large print notices on voter registration forms, ballots, and voter handbooks, emphasizing that party labels on the ballot do not mean that the candidate has been nominated by the listed party, or even that the party approves of that person, or considers him or her a bona fide member. These requirements will substantially increase the cost of election administration, by requiring additional ballot cards and also increasing the size of voter registration forms, which must be prepared as postcards. Because the bill will not advance this year, these election administration problems cannot be addressed by the legislature until next year.

The chair of the Senate Elections Committee, Senator Lou Correa, is a staunch supporter of the top-two system, but it appears that he does acknowledge the election administration problems caused by Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation, SB 6 from the 2009 session.