Medill Reports has this interesting article about Illinois primaries. The focus of the article is whether Democrats will choose a Republican primary ballot on March 20, with the motivation of voting for a Republican presidential candidate perceived to be a weaker general election opponent to President Obama. The article says that many Illinois voters don’t realize they are free to ask for any party’s primary ballot, regardless of which party’s primary ballot they had previously chosen.
On March 1, the 3-judge U.S. District Court in San Antonio, Texas, confirmed new rules for the 2012 election, for ballot access for independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties. The Court, as expected, rubber-stamped the rules proposed yesterday by the Democratic and Republican Parties.
On February 29, the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld a state constitutional requirement that in State Senate districts covering several counties, only one person from each county can ever be elected in any given election year. See this story. In multi-member State Senate districts, some seats are up in presidential years, and others are up in midterm years. The opinion is not yet posted on the State Supreme Court’s web page.
On March 1, the Oklahoma petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties, the Libertarian Party submitted 56,530 signatures. The requirement is 51,739 valid signatures. Although it seems obvious that the party didn’t submit enough signatures to meet the requirement (after checking for validity), the party is in court, asking for injunctive relief, either for more time, or for a lower number of signatures. The judge has urged the state to settle the case. The state has not yet responded to the party’s settlement offer. UPDATE: the actual number of signatures was somewhat more than 57,000.
On February 29, the New York major parties, and all the groups who sued New York over U.S. House redistricting, submitted proposed maps to the special master appointed by the U.S. District Court in Favors v Cuomo. See this story. Everyone involved in the case seems to agree that the new districts should protect all the incumbent members of the U.S. House who are running for re-election.
