The Texas legislature passed SB 100 before adjourning. That action seemed to settle that the primary (for all office) will continue to be in March. Some versions of SB 100 had moved the primary to April, but the final version kept it in March. But it is still possible that the 2012 Texas primary will be in April. On May 31, Texas Governor Rick Perry called a special session of the legislature. There are still powerful legislators who want to move the primary to April, and it is possible the special session will take up the issue again. It is also conceivable that SB 100 will be vetoed, which would force the special session to deal with the primary date issue. SB 100 moves the date of the runoff primary to conform to federal law about sending overseas absentee ballots, and if SB 100 were vetoed, Texas would not be in compliance with the federal law and another attempt would be required.

Texas petition deadlines for independent candidates (for office other than President) and for unqualified parties are keyed to the date of the primary, so the primary date issue indirectly affects ballot access. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news.

On May 30, the Nevada legislature passed AB 81. It injures major political parties, new political parties, and independent voters. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 11-10, with all Democrats voting “yes” and all Republicans voting “no.” Governor Brian Sandoval is a Republican and it is possible he will veto it.

The bill, one of the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bills, deletes the easier method for new or previously unqualified parties to get on the ballot. Existing law gives groups two choices to get on the ballot: (1) a petition signed by 1% of the last US House vote throughout the state, which required 9,083 signatures for the 2010 election; or (2) a petition for each candidate of that party, which requires 250 signatures for a statewide nominee and 100 for a U.S. House nominee. The bill deletes the second, easier method. However, the bill does not affect presidential elections, because the old easy method does not apply to presidential nominees.

Oddly, the bill does not disturb the easy requirements for non-presidential independent candidates. They can still get on the ballot with 250 signatures, if running for statewide office, or 100 for U.S. House.

AB 81 also moves the petition deadline for new parties from May to April, even though in 1986 a U.S. District Court in Nevada struck down the old April petition deadline for new parties, in Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer, 638 F.Supp. 565.

AB 81 also tells parties that nominate by primary that they cannot invite independents to vote in their primary. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate by primary in Nevada. They have not been letting independents vote in their primaries recently anyway, but previously, the law was silent on whether independents can vote in primaries. AB 81 bars a party from inviting independents to vote in its primary. That part of the bill would be unconstitutional under Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, but only the Democratic and Republican Parties would have standing to bring a lawsuit against the restriction. In Nevada, smaller qualified parties nominate by convention. The only qualified minor parties currently in Nevada are the Independent American (Constitution) and Libertarian Parties. They, of course, are free to decide for themselves who votes at their state nominating conventions.

If you wish to ask Governor Brian Sandoval to veto the bill, his fax is 775-684-5683. His postal address is Capitol, 101 N. Carson St., Carson City Nv 89701.

On June 8, the California Senate Elections Committee passed AB 481, which requires anyone who circulates an initiative, referendum or recall petition to wear a badge. The badge must either say “Paid Signature Gatherer” or “Volunteer Signature Gatherer.” All Democrats voted “Yes”; all Republicans voted “No.” So far this year, all bills to make it more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot (in both houses) have received unanimous “Yes” votes from Democrats, whereas all Republicans have voted against these bills.

AB 481 also requires the petition sheet to have printed on it whether the sheet is being circulated by a paid petitioner or a volunteer.

Another badge bill, SB 448 will be heard in the Assembly Elections Committee on Tuesday afternoon, June 21. Also on June 21, the Assembly Elections Committee will hear SB 205, which outlaws paying people on a per-registration card basis to register voters. And on June 21 that committee will hear SB 168, which makes it illegal to pay petition circulators on a per-signature basis “directly or indirectly.” SB 168 relates to initiative, referendum, and recall petitions, but not to petitions to put candidates or parties on a ballot. In California, all candidates for Congress and state office must submit petitions to obtain a place on any ballot. Thus, California Democratic legislators seem intent on imposing restrictions on initiative petitions, but they aren’t imposing the same requirements on the petitions that they must obtain in order to run for re-election.