On December 6, New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with several civic organizations and state legislators and other political leaders, held a press conference to ask the New York legislature to improve some election laws.  See this press release from the Mayor’s office.  The last page lists the specific proposals.

Probably the most significant change advocated is to relax the law that says no one may change political parties, and make that change effective, for almost a year before a primary.  New York’s law on this point is extreme.  The press release says that 20 of the 25 states that have registration by party permit voters to switch parties within 30 days of a primary (actually there are 29 states that have registration by party).

Although the group calls for simplified ballot design, the group doesn’t apparently intend to ask the legislature to revise the clumsy ballot format that forces some parties to share a column, or a row, with another party.  The press release just says that ballot instructions should be readily visible and in plain language.

eHow is a web page that shows people how they can solve problems that may arise in their everyday life.  That site has just published an essay on how homeless people may vote.  The article notes that in all states, there are methods by which homeless people may register to vote.  Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

On December 6, the California Attorney General filed this 16-page brief in the California Supreme Court, urging that Court not to hear Field v Bowen, the case that challenges some of the characteristics of the top-two system.  The only issue presently before that Court is whether the implementing legislation is defective because it allows some candidates to show their party on the ballot, but not other candidates.

The state continues to maintain that the new law does not permit members of non-qualified parties to list their party on the ballot.  The state also argues this separate treatment is constitutional.  The state erroneously says on page two that California has never permitted party labels on the ballot if the parties were not qualified, but this is not accurate.  California did permit candidates who used the independent procedure to choose a party label, that was printed on the ballot, between 1891 and 1915.

The state says there is no difference between “independent” and “no party preference” on the ballot, and does not mention the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court, each of which said the label “independent” is too significant and essential to be banned.  The Massachusetts legislature had passed a law requiring independent candidates to be listed as “unenrolled” on the ballot, but the Court struck down that law.  The Minnesota Secretary of State had told independent candidates that they couldn’t use the word “independent” on the ballot because, at the time, the Republican Party had changed its name to the Independent Republican Party, and therefore that party had exclusive title to the word “independent.”  The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Secretary of State.  These cases are relevant because the California top-two system does not permit anyone to describe himself or herself on the ballot as an Independent.

The intervenors who support California’s top-two system filed this longer brief.  They argue that they do not know whether the law permits members of unqualified parties to list their party label on the ballot or not.  They say that if the law does not permit this, that is constitutional.  Alternatively, they say that perhaps the law does permit anyone to list a party label on the ballot, although they argue this would be harmful and would confuse voters.