The Tennessean, Nashville’s daily newspaper, has this story about the bills in the Tennessee legislature to improve ballot access for new and minor parties. The bills are HB 794 and SB 935.
1
On April 11, the California Assembly passed AB 80. It moves the presidential primary from February to June. It passed unanimously. Assuming this bill becomes law, California will only hold one primary in 2012. By contrast, in 2008, California had held a presidential primary in February and a primary for other partisan office in June. Thanks to Josh Putnam of Frontloading HQ for this news.
On April 9, the Hamilton County, Ohio Board of Elections asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the order of the 6th circuit in the lawsuit over whether certain provisional ballots should be counted, in a November 2010 partisan local judicial race. The Court has asked for a response, to be submitted by Friday, April 15, 4 p.m. The case is Hamilton County Board of Elections v Hunter, 10A989. The Hamilton County Elections Board brief is 17 pages of text, plus 60 pages in which the lower court opinions are attached. It may not load if your computer uses Firefox, but it should load if it uses Explorer.
The brief points out that the 6th circuit decision, and also the U.S. District Court decision (both of which said that the disputed ballots should be counted) both cite Bush v Gore. The brief also points out that election law professor Ned Foley wrote recently that this case is the most significant instance so far in which a lower court has depended on Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore is the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision released on the evening of December 12, 2000, which stopped the Florida presidential recount. Bush v Gore says, “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”
The lower courts in the Hamilton County case depended on that language, and ruled that because the county counted some provisional votes in which the voter was not at fault, therefore it must count all the provisional ballots at which the voter was not at fault. The U.S. Supreme Court, in over ten years since Bush v Gore was decided, has never again mentioned that decision. Thanks to Thomas Jones for pointing out this news, and thanks to Scotusblog for the link to the Hamilton County brief.
California Assemblymember Richard Gordon (D-Menlo Park) has introduced AB 481, to require all individuals who circulate an initiative, referendum or recall petition to wear a badge. If the circulator is being paid, the badge must say “Paid Circulator.” If the circulator is not being paid, the circulator’s badge must say “Volunteer Signature Gatherer.” The badge must be in at least 30-point type and must be worn on the chest, and must be visible. Here is the text of the bill.
The bill has a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee on Tuesday, April 12, probably at 1:30 p.m. The bill also requires all petitions to be printed with a statement that tells if that sheet is being circulated by a paid circulator or a volunteer circulator. This makes petitioning more expensive, because the proponents would generally need to print two different versions of their petition.
This is a remarkably thoughtless bill. The bill makes no reference to whether the petition is being circulated in public, or not. Thus, under the literal terms of the bill, no one could go to a private meeting, as a volunteer, and ask individuals at that meeting to sign the petition, unless the circulator were weaing a badge. Many volunteers only collect a few signatures on any petition. Sometimes blank petitions forms are mailed to individuals, and the enclosed letter asks the recipient to please circulate the petition among family members or neighbors and return the petition in an enclosed envelope. Under the bill, even these individuals would be breaking the law if they didn’t wear a badge.
The bill is co-sponsored by Assemblymember Ben Hueso (D-San Diego), who had his own bill for badges for circulators, AB 651. However, that bill was amended to delete the badge requirement. As originally introduced, it would have required paid circulators to wear a badge identifying the person or company who was paying them.
A 3-judge U.S. District Court will hear arguments in Bluman v Federal Election Commission on May 12, at 9:30 a.m., in Washington, D.C. The judges will be Brett Kavanaugh, Richardo M. Urbina, and Rosemary M. Collyer. The issue is whether foreign nationals who are living in the United States, and who are here legally but not permanently, may donate any money to candidates for federal office. The two plaintiffs are Canadian citizens. One, Benjamin Bluman, wants to donate to Democratic candidates, including President Obama. The other, Asenath Steiman, wants to donate to a Republican candidate, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Federal campaign finance laws do permit non-citizens to donate if they are admitted for permanent residence, but these plaintiffs do not have that status. The case is interesting because it explores the link between free speech and making a campaign contribution. Judge Kavanaugh is a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge. The other two judges are U.S. District Court Judges. Urbina is a Clinton appointee and the other two judges are Bush Jr. appointees. The losing side in this case will almost certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Decisions of 3-judge U.S. District Courts on the constitutionality of federal campaign finance laws cannot be ducked by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must either affirm the lower court’s decision or hear the case itself.