Montana Bill for Partisan Judicial Elections Advances

On February 18, the Montana House State Administration Committee passed HB 521 by a vote of 12-6. This bill converts all Montana judicial elections to partisan elections. Currently, state judges who desire another term appear on the ballot with a “Yes” and “No” space next to their names, and voters can choose either to retain that judge or reject him or her. When a judicial seat becomes vacant, Montana holds candidate-against-candidate elections, but these are non-partisan elections.

If the bill passes, there will be no more retention elections. All judges would need to run for re-election in partisan elections. The bill is opposed by the Montana Judges Association and the Montana Bar Association.

Texas Democratic Party Files Brief in U.S. Supreme Court on Vote-Counting Case

Recently, the Texas Democratic Party filed this response brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Dallas County v Texas Democratic Party, 10-755. This is the case in which a 3-judge U.S. District Court said that Dallas County needed approval from the Voting Rights Section before making a change in its vote-counting equipment. The Democratic Party had originally sued the county because the vote-counting equipment causes some voters to think they have finished voting, when in reality they have only voted in a single partisan race. This happens when some voters first use the straight-ticket device, and then vote separately for one particular candidate from that same party. That action erases the straight-ticket’s effect, and the voter sometimes is not aware of what has happened.

Dallas County had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 3-judge court decision. The U.S. Supreme Court had then asked the Democratic Party to respond. The Court will probably say in March whether it will hear this case.

Replacement of Washington State Senator Shows Inconsistency in State's "Top-Two" System

The Washington State Constitution, Article II, section 15, says when a state legislator resigns or dies, there is no special election to replace him or her. Instead, the County Commissioners of that county choose a new legislator. However, the County Commissioners must choose one of three people suggested by the Precinct Committee Officers of “the same political party.” If the County Commissioners fail to choose one of the three party-chosen nominees within 60 days, they lose the ability to choose, and instead the Governor must choose one from that same list of three names.

On January 4, 2011, State Senator Bob McCaslin (R-Spokane Valley) resigned for health reasons after thirty years in the legislature. He was in the middle of his four-year term. On January 15, the Republican Precinct Committee Officers from that district chose three names, and on February 11, the County Commissioners chose one of them.

Starting in 2008, Washington state has used the “top-two” system, in which parties don’t have nominees, and in which any candidate can choose any short, non-obscene party label. Washington state does not have registration by party. This system does not fit very well with the State Constitution’s procedure for filling legislative vacancies, since the Constitution presumes that all state legislators were party nominees. Senator McCaslin had been a Republican nominee many times before 2008, and his ballot label in 2008 had been “I prefer the Republican Party.” But some major party legislators have chosen labels that don’t match the major party names exactly. For instance, in 2010, Representative Christopher Hurst had “Prefers Independent Dem. Party” on the ballot. In 2008, Representative Brendan Williams had “Prefers Progressive Dem. Party” on the ballot. If either of them had resigned, it is not completely obvious that the Democratic Party’s Precinct Officers would have been authorized to choose replacement nominees. Thanks to Robert W. Peck for this news.

Even forgetting about Washington state’s transition to the top-two system in 2008, the Washington Constitution has long been deficient for not acknowledging that the state might have a legislator who is an independent, or a member of a party that isn’t entitled to elect Precinct Committee Officers.