On May 23, the Ohio Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committee amended a non-election law bill, HB 509, and passed the bill. The amendment says that for 2012 only, qualified parties that polled at least 20% of the vote in the last election may have until 60 days before the general election to certify the names of their presidential and vice-presidential nominees. All other qualified parties must certify their national nominees no later than 90 days before the general election.

Without the amendment, the Democratic and Republican Parties could not legally have their national tickets appear on the November ballot, because their national conventions are August 27-30 (Republican) and September 3-6 (Democratic). Without the amendment, their certifications would be due on August 8.

The amendment provides that this temporary election law change (for 2012 only) will never be codified in the election code. Thus, it will be virtually invisible to researchers in the future. There seems to be no public policy reason why the law should not be amended for all qualified parties. Ohio has five qualified parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. If Americans Elect changed its mind and decided to have a presidential nominee after all, the discriminatory treatment could be injurious to Americans Elect. The other qualified minor parties will have held their presidential conventions by July, or else have already held their national conventions.

The bill will probably pass the Senate very soon, but then it must return to the House for concurrence.

At the June 5 primary in California, there is one U.S. House district in which only one person filed to be on the top-two primary ballot, and there are six legislative districts with only one candidate on the primary ballot. The Peace & Freedom Party, and the Libertarian Party, have each filed some declared write-in candidates in some of these districts.

Under the law, anyone who places second in the primary in these districts will appear on the November ballot. Even one write-in vote is enough to qualify. Write-in votes in the June primary for declared write-in candidates are counted. It is only in November that write-ins are banned for Congress and state office.

In the 37th U.S. House district in Los Angeles County, the only declared write-in is Sean McGary, a Libertarian, so if he polls even one write-in vote, his name will be on the November ballot against incumbent Democrat Karen R. Bass. UPDATE: there are three write-in candidates in this district. Besides McGary, there is Morgan Osborne, a Republican; and Adam Sbheita, a Peace & Freedom Party member. Thanks to Bob Richard for the update.

In the 15th Assembly district in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Eugene E. Ruyle, a Peace & Freedom Party member, is the only declared write-in candidate, so he will be on the November ballot against incumbent Democrat Nancy Skinner.

In the 9th State Senate district in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, there are two declared write-in candidates, Mary McIlroy of the Peace & Freedom Party, and Lisa Ringer of the Libertarian Party. The Green Party has already endorsed McIlroy. Whoever gets more write-ins will run in November against State Senator Loni Hancock, a Democrat.

In the 33rd State Senate district in Los Angeles County, there are two declared write-in candidates, Lee Chauser of Peace & Freedom, and Matthew Cavanagh, a Democrat. Whoever gets more write-ins will be on the November ballot against Democratic incumbent Ricardo Lara, a Democrat.

There are no declared write-ins in the 14th Assembly district in Contra Costa County, and the 64th Assembly district in Los Angeles County. Therefore, the November ballot for those two races will list one person on the ballot, with no write-in space, so it will be impossible for voters to vote against the incumbents in those two races. Those incumbents are Democrats Susan Bonilla in the 14th district and Isadore Hall in the 64th district.

California is using Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary” system, this year for the first time in a regularly-scheduled election. At least three newspaper columnists or reporters this month have told readers that if someone gets 50% of the vote in June for Congress or state office, that person is elected and the office is not on the November ballot. Here is the latest example, from the Argonaut, a free weekly newspaper in western Los Angeles County. The last sentence of the article is “If no single candidate reaches 50% plus one on June 5, the runoff for the general election will be November 6.” UPDATE: here is another example of an incorrect news story. See the third paragraph in this story, published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in Ontario, California.

The confusion arises because proponents of Proposition 14, ever since 2010, have claimed that Proposition 14 is “just like” non-partisan two-round elections for California county office, and for city office in a few cities. The truth is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 in Foster v Love that states must hold congressional elections in all districts in November. If states want a run-off, they must hold it after November. Georgia and Louisiana are the only states that require congressional run-offs if no one gets 50% in November. In hundreds, if not thousands, of media stories about the California primary system, not one source has mentioned Foster v Love. Of course proponents of Proposition 14 knew about Foster v Love, which is why they wrote Proposition 14 to provide that there is always a November election for Congress and state office in every district, no matter whether someone gets 50% in June or not.

Another factual error that is repeated endlessly in California is that before Proposition 14, independent voters were blocked from voting in major party primaries for Congress and state office. Ever since 2001, the Republican and Democratic Parties have let independent voters vote in all their congressional and state office primaries. When such voters entered the polling place on primary day, or requested a mail ballot, they were told of their choices; they didn’t need to ask.