Congress adjourned on December 22 without having passed HR512, the bill to prohibit the chief Election Officer of any state from taking an active part in the campaign of any candidates for federal office. The House had passed the bill easily on September 28, by a vote of 296-129. But the Senate merely referred the bill to the Rules and Administration Committee, where it made no further headway.
On December 28, the same three judges who ruled against the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts on November 16, refused to reconsider their ruling, in Barr v Galvin, 09-2426. This is the case over whether an unqualified party can use a stand-in presidential candidate on its petition, and then have the stand-in later withdraw and be replaced by the actual presidential nominee.
This article in California’s Capitol Weekly newspaper explains that several California legislators are very likely to be defeated in 2012 (if they try to run for re-election), because of the new Citizens Redistricting Commission process for drawing boundaries for the next decade’s legislative districts.
The article does not mention another factor that will injure incumbents. Ever since 1879, the California Constitution has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in the district for at least one year before running. However, this provision has not been enforced since the 1970’s, when California officials decided to ignore it because they believe the U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit duration of residency requirements for candidates. But a lawsuit now pending in the State Court of Appeals, Fuller v Bowen, C065237, could force the state to start enforcing it. Duration of residency requirements are especially tough for incumbents in times of redistricting. The article notes that many legislators may be forced to move, a process that is far more difficult when there is a duration of residency requirement. The lawsuit lost in Superior Court, because the Superior Court also ruled that the U.S. Constitution bans duration of residency requirements. But this is a very dubious idea. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed New Hampshire’s 7-year duration of residency requirement in 1975, for candidates for State Senate, in a case called Sununu v Stark. Also the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 in Clements in Fashing that there is no constitutional right to be a candidate.
Two Rhode Island legislators say they will introduce a proposed state constitutional amendment in 2011, providing that when no one in a November election for federal or state office gets as much as 50% of the total vote, the state will hold a run-off in December. See this story.
One wonders if the two legislators are aware of alternate election systems that would solve the problem they perceive, without adding to the expense and probable poor voter turnout in their proposed December run-offs.
The article mentions that the Attorney General’s race last month is an example of a race in which no one got 50% in November. In that race, the vote was: Democartic 43.1%; Republican 29.0%; Moderate Party 14.4%; two independent candidates, one of whom polled 9.6% and the other 4.0%. Thanks to Tony Roza for the link.
Ballot Access News
December 1, 2010 – Volume 26, Number 7
| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
Table of Contents
