As noted earlier, on January 25 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the legislative district boundaries are unconstitutional, but has not yet explained the basis for its opinion. State legislators feel they can’t work on a new plan until they understand what is wrong with the old plan. Two of the State Supreme Court Justices are now attending a conference in Puerto Rico. According to this story, legislative leaders are frustrated with these justices, because legislative leaders want the full opinion as soon as possible. Thanks to How Appealing for the link.

On January 26, the California Assembly Elections Committee unanimously passed AB 1413, which tweaks several aspects of the top-two system, and which also removes write-in space from November ballots for Congress and partisan state office. Some of the legislators appeared to believe that write-in space on the ballot is a good idea. But they still voted for the bill, apparently for two reasons: (1) California elections officials say the bill must pass quickly or they will not be able to administer the election. Some legislators fear that if the bill were amended to leave write-in space on the ballot and to provide that write-ins may be counted, the bill would lose support; (2) the proponents of top-two are vehemently opposed to allowing write-in space on the November ballot, at least in the 2012 election.

The primary funder for the legal defense of the top-two system, Dr. Charles Munger, Jr., attended the hearing, along with four attorneys who are with the law firm that has been defending the top-two system in court. Dr. Munger did not testify. But after the hearing, he spoke of his great satisfaction that in 2012, California voters in the general election for Congress and state office will be forced (if they vote at all) to vote for one of the two candidates listed on the ballot. He spoke disparagingly of voters who persist in voting for candidates who can’t win. This is an authoritarian approach to voting rights, and Dr. Munger seems to have no empathy for voters whose political values are such that they may not be able to vote for either of the two listed candidates. Of course, this approach to voting has the effect of reducing voter participation.

It is possible that a bill to restore write-ins will be introduced soon, but it could not take effect in time for the November 2012 election.

On January 17, the 6th circuit heard arguments in Kurita v The State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party, the case over whether a political party can set aside the primary election results, and declare someone the nominee even though that person did not place first in the primary. In 2008, the party had refused to recognize the primary election victory of Rosalind Kurita, who won the primary for State Senate by 19 votes. The party charged that many voters who were loyal to the Republican Party had voted in the Democratic primary, and therefore the primary lacked validity. Also, the party was already hostile to Senator Kurita, because even though she had been elected as a Democrat, and continued to hold herself out as a Democrat, she had voted to organize the State Senate under Republican leadership.

The state took the position that the narrowness of the primary is irrelevant, and that it is also not relevant that some voters who were really not loyal to the Democratic Party participated in the primary. One judge asked if the party could have acted as it did if the margin had been 1,900 votes instead of 19 votes, and the response from the state was that this would have made no difference. The state also took the position that the 6th circuit does not have authority to order a new primary election, because the Tennessee Constitution forbids special legislative elections if less than a year remains in the term.