Michael Chamness Asks 9th Circuit to Delay Ballot Printing in Special California Congressional Election

Posted on by March 29, 2011
4

On March 28, Michael Chamness asked the 9th circuit to delay ballot printing, in the special election to fill the vacant 36th U.S. House seat, until the U.S. District Court in his case issues an order on whether he should have either “Independent” or “My party preference is the Coffee Party” on the ballot.

Chamness is one of the 18 candidates running in the May 17th election. His lawsuit, Chamness v Bowen, argues that it is unconstitutional for California to give candidates from qualified parties a choice of whether to have either their party preference, or their lack of party preference, printed on the ballot; while at the same time not giving members of unqualified parties any choice of label. They cannot have their party on the ballot; they can’t have “independent” on the ballot; they can only have “no party preference.”

The U.S. District Court held a hearing on March 21. U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright still hasn’t acted, even though he has been made aware that ballot-printing starts on March 30. Here is the filing in the 9th circuit, case no. 11-70882.
.

Idaho Bill for Party Registration

Posted on by March 28, 2011
12

On March 28, the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee introduced SB 1198. Currently, Idaho voter registration forms do not ask voters to choose a party. The bill provides that in the future, voter registration forms will include a place for voters to choose a party, or to choose “unaffiliated” status. The bill also says that sign-in sheets at the May 2012 primary will include a party membership checkbox. Starting in 2012, each qualified party would determine for itself whether or not to let independent voters vote in its primary.

Voters who don’t fill out a new voter registration form in the next two years, and who don’t vote in the 2012 primary, would automatically become independent voters. Voters who choose a Republican ballot in the May 2012 primary would be automatically listed as Republicans, and the same is true for the Democratic, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties. The bill does not provide for a blank line on the voter registration form for anyone to write-in the name of an unqualified party. That aspect of the bill may be unconstitutional; courts in five states have said that voters must be allowed to register into active unqualified parties. Also, the failure of the bill to provide for a blank line for a voter to write-in the name of a newly-qualifying party would mean that if a new party qualifies in Idaho, all the voter registration forms would need to be immediately reprinted.

If the bill passes, it is not out of the question that Idaho voters who are not happy with this system will create a new party, perhaps named the Moderate Party. Rhode Island already has a ballot-qualified party named the Moderate Party, and Alaska once had a ballot-qualified Republican Moderate Party.

German Greens Likely to Elect Premier of Populous German State

Posted on by March 28, 2011
11

On March 27, the voters of Baden-Wuerttemberg state in southwest Germany cast ballots for state office. The Green Party placed second, with 24.2% of the vote. Because the Social Democratic Party received 23.1%, there is likely to be a coalition between those two parties. Because the Greens received more votes than the Social Democrats, if normal rules are followed, a Green Party member will become premier of the state, which has a greater population than Belgium and Luxembourg combined.

The Christian Democratic Union received 39%, and its allies the Free Democrats received 5.3%. See this story.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Arizona Public Funding Case

Posted on by March 28, 2011
Reply

On March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McComish v Bennett, and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s PAC v Bennett, the two combined cases over one aspect of Arizona public funding for candidates for state office. This Associated Press story, although skimpy, seems to suggest that there are five votes to strike down the part of the law that provides for extra public funding for publicly-financed candidates who have well-financed opponents who are not using public funding.

Here is the transcript of the argument. Thanks to the Institute for Justice for the link.