On September 9, U.S. District Court judge Richard Seeborg upheld San Francisco’s method of Instant-Runoff Voting for city elections.  Opponents had filed a lawsuit earlier in the year alleging that it violates the rights of voters, because they are limited to only three choices.  The lawsuit is Dudum v City and County, 10-00504, northern district.  The IRV opponents need not decide whether to appeal until October 9.  The opponents indicate they haven’t decided yet whether to appeal.  The 28-page decision of the U.S. District Court is here.

The High Point Enterprise newspaper in High Point, North Carolina has this editorial in support of the pending ballot access lawsuit filed in 2005 by the Libertarian and Green Parties.  A decision from the State Supreme Court will probably be issued in the next three months.  High Point, North Carolina has a population of approximately 100,000 and is near the geographical center of the state.

On September 23, the U.S. House of Representatives Administration Committee passed HR6116, the bill to provide public funding for candidates for U.S. House.  Candidates who raise at least $50,000 from voters in their state (not their district) qualify.  They receive four times as much in public funding as they had raised in qualifying contributions.  To qualify, they must receive contributions from 1,500 people.  These contributions range from $5 to $100.  Amounts over $100 can be received but don’t count toward qualifying.  If 1,500 is a larger number than one-fourth of 1% of the voting age population of a state, then the number of qualifying contributions needed declines to one-fourth of 1% of the voting age population.  That latter provision makes it somewhat easier for a Wyoming resident to qualify.

The vote was 5-2, with one abstention.   Three Republicans are on the committee, but one was not present.  The other two Republicans voted against the bill.  Five Democrats on the Committee voted “Yes”.  Artur Davis, a Democrat from Alabama, abstained, although before the vote was cast, he spoke against the bill.   Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the news that the bill had passed the Committee, and thanks to Bill Maurer and Susan Anderson for the vote breakdown.  The vote was a voice vote and the Committee did not make a record of who voted how.

The bill, if passed, would take effect on January 1, 2011.  Whether it passes or not, it is legally and politically significant that the bill does not discriminate for or against any candidate based on that candidate’s party affiliation, or lack of party affiliation.  This will probably be relevant when the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to review Connecticut’s public funding system, which is highly discriminatory against independent candidates.

An almost identical bill, introduced last year, is HR 1826.  HR 6116 was introduced on September 14, 2010, and copied the contents of HR 1826 to a large degree.  The bill doesn’t include provisions for U.S. Senate candidates, because it is traditional in Congress that bills that affect members of one house should originate in that particular house.