On March 15, the Arizona House Judiciary Committee passed SCR 1021 by a vote of 5-2. It places a measure on the November 2012 ballot asking if voters wish to de-fund the public funding program, which applies to candidates for state office. The bill has already passed the Senate.
On March 15, this 26-page reply brief was filed in Chamness v Bowen, 11-56449. The Ninth Circuit now has all three briefs in the case, and will eventually set a date for oral argument. Chamness v Bowen challenges two particular characteristics of California’s top-two law (Proposition 14): the ban on the ballot label “independent”, and the original law’s restriction on counting write-in votes.
This reply brief, filed by opponents of Proposition 14, points out that when backers of Proposition 14 intended to place the idea on the ballot as an initiative in 2009, their draft did permit use of the ballot label “independent.” But the version passed by the California legislature changed the draft to make it impossible for any candidate to use “independent” on the ballot. Yet the proponents of Proposition 14 say they want to help independent candidates.
Texas parties remain ballot-qualified in presidential election years if they poll at least 5% for any partisan statewide race. This year in Texas, the following statewide offices are up: President, U.S. Senate, Railroad Commission full term, Railroad Commission short term, Justice of the Supreme Court seat 2, Justice of the Supreme Court seat 4, Justice of the Supreme Court seat 6, Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals seat 7, Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals seat 8. That is ten offices.
No Democrat filed to run for five of those offices. Whenever there is a partisan election in which only one of the two major parties runs anyone, any minor party nominee on the ballot in that election typically polls at least 5%. Because the Libertarians and Greens do have candidates in some of the statewide offices with no Democrat running, it is quite likely that each of those parties will meet the vote test in 2012.
The Libertarians polled over 2% for Governor in 2010, and under Texas precedent, that guarantees the Libertarian Party a spot on the 2012 and 2014 ballots in any event, so technically Libertarians don’t need to meet the 5% vote test in 2012. But, the law is worded ambiguously, so Libertarians will be more secure if they do get 5% for a statewide race in 2012.
Posts for which the Green Party has a candidate, but the Democratic Party does not, are Railroad Commission short term, and Justice of the Supreme Court seat 4. Libertarians have a candidate in all the statewide races.
In U.S. House races, Libertarians have a candidate in all 36 districts, and Greens have candidates in 16 districts. No party has actually nominated for any offices in Texas yet, and just because someone has declared for a party nomination does not guarantee that the party will nominate anyone. But, of course, it is extremely likely that the vast majority of candidates who filed for a minor party nomination will receive the nomination. The Libertarian and Green Parties nominate by convention.
On March 16, a Florida circuit court upheld the 2011 law that says no one may seek the nomination of a political party if that person was a member of another qualified party in the preceding year. Argenziano v Browning, 2011-ca-3484. The plaintiff is Nancy Argenziano, who accidentally registered as a member of the Independent Party last year. She wants to run in the Democratic Party primary for Congress this year. See this story.
Unfortunately, the Florida Democratic Party refused to join Argenziano’s lawsuit, even though the story alleges that the party has no objection to Argenziano’s candidacy. The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that it would violate a political party’s freedom of association for a state to say that the party may not nominate a non-member. Laws like the Florida law have been declared unconstitutional in Colorado and New Mexico, but in the Colorado and New Mexico cases, it was the political party that brought the lawsuit.
The Constitution Party of Florida has recruited someone to run for a partisan office this year, who would also be barred by the new Florida law. The Constitution Party is thinking about bringing its own lawsuit on behalf of itself and its desired candidate, and that proposed lawsuit would have a better chance of winning.
Peter Schrag, a veteran reporter and columnist for the Sacramento Bee, has this column, suggesting Proposition 14, the California top-two measure, may disappoint its backers. His column does not say anything about the effect of Proposition 14 on voters who are members and supporters of minor parties.
