On April 1, the Connecticut Joint Government Administration & Elections Committee passed HB 6163 by a vote of 10-5. This is the National Popular Vote Plan bill. In a previous legislative session, the bill had passed the Connecticut House but had failed in the Senate.
On April 1, the 9th circuit set a briefing schedule in Chamness v Bowen, 11-55534, the lawsuit over California’s new policy of banning the word “independent” on the ballot next to the names of candidates who are not members of qualified parties. Chamness may file his brief as early as he wishes, but he must file it by April 27. He plans to file it before that deadline. The response brief is due four weeks later.
The 9th circuit declined to issue an injunction giving Michael Chamness a better label that “No party preference”, because ballot printing has already started. The election will be May 17. Probably the 9th circuit set a rapid briefing schedule because everyone knows that California has lots of special elections, which occur unexpectedly at any time. The year is only three months old and already four special elections have been held or are about to be held.
On March 25, proponents of a Utah referendum asked the State Supreme Court to invalidate the newly-passed ban on electronic signatures, at least as applied to their initiative. The case is Lord v Bell, 2011-02-59-SC. Here is the Complaint. Last year, the Utah Supreme Court had unanimously interpreted Utah law to permit electronic signatures on petitions. In response, this year the legislature banned electronic signatures, even though Utah does allow people to register to vote electronically.
The Utah Supreme Court has discretion on whether to hear this case or not. The lawsuit points out that it is illegal for voters to sign a petition twice. Some voters already signed it electronically. Now they can’t know whether they should sign a paper copy or not. Thanks to Paul Jacob for the link.
On April 1, a Nevada state court in Las Vegas ruled that Boulder City’s government, which opposes two local initiatives that the voters passed last year, should not have sued the proponents of those initiatives, if it wanted a court ruling on whether the initiatives are valid or not. The case is City of Boulder City v Jensen, no. 629989.
The voters had passed an initiative imposing term limits of twelve years on members of appointed city boards. The voters had also passed a measure saying the city council could not borrow more than $1,000,000 without voter approval. The city council believes both initiatives are invalid because these topics are not subject to the initiative process. But the city could have filed a lawsuit to overturn the initiatives, without actually suing the proponents, the judge ruled. The judge ordered the city to pay attorneys fees to the proponents, of $10,000. However, she stayed her ruling, to give the city time to appeal that to the State Supreme Court.
On March 31, the Washington House Rules Committee passed SB 5171. It moves the primary (for office other than President) from late August to early August. It also moves the deadline for candidates (for office other than President) to file, from May to April. The bill has already passed the Senate.
