Governor Jerry Brown Vetoes Bill to Outlaw Paying Registration Workers on a Per-Card Basis

On October 7, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 205, which made it a crime to pay registration workers on a per-registration card basis. Because Proposition 14 has left California minor parties with only one means to remain on the ballot, by having registration equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, this veto will help minor parties. The Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties had asked that the bill not be signed. The veto message says, “Voting is at the heart of our democracy. Efforts to register voters should be encouraged, not criminalized.”

Brown also acted on four other election law bills. He signed SB 397, which makes it possible for voters to register to vote on-line. He also signed SB 202, which says that statewide initiatives cannot appear on primary ballots, but must wait for the general election.

He vetoed SB 334, which would put the names of the five biggest spenders on either side of a statewide ballot measure in the state ballot pamphlet. His veto message says the pamphlet printing schedule would exclude spending reported later than 15 weeks before the election, and consequently the pamphlet might give a false impression of who the big spenders are.

He vetoed AB 651, which would require paid petition gathering companies to register with the Secretary of State, make frequent reports, including details about how they train circulators. Thanks to Jack Dean for this news.

George Will Opposes Pennsylvania Bill to Let Each U.S. House District Choose its Own Presidential Elector

George Will has published this column, opposing Pennsylvania SB 1282, the bill to let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. The column also opposes the National Popular Vote Plan bill.

Will implies, but does not directly say, that the founding fathers wouldn’t like the Pennsylvania bill. Historical evidence contradicts that conclusion. In the very first presidential election, 1789, both Virginia and Massachusetts, homes of the first President and first Vice-President, held popular votes for presidential electors in which each U.S. House district chose its own presidential elector. Delaware, which only had one U.S. House member, split itself into three electoral college districts and let each district choose its own elector. In Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina, the legislature chose the electors. Three states didn’t choose any presidential electors because they hadn’t ratified the Constitution in time. The only states that chose presidential electors by popular vote at-large were Maryland, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

Will is also unconvincing when he opposes the National Popular Vote Plan bill. He says the National Popular Vote Plan provides that the president would be elected by a majority vote. This is not true. Currently, the winner of the presidential election frequently only has a plurality, and that would continue to be true under the National Popular Vote Plan. Presidents elected without a majority vote in the past fifty years include Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000.

Ohio Legislature Attempts to File Appeal in Libertarian Party Ballot Access Case

On October 7, the very last day for an appeal to be filed in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, the Ohio legislature filed papers to intervene in the case, and to appeal to the 6th circuit. The Secretary of State doesn’t want to appeal, but the legislature does. First the legislature will need to persuade the court to let it intervene. If the legislature is permitted to appeal, then it will ask the 6th circuit to overturn the U.S. District Court order of September 7 that put the party on the 2012 ballot.

The legislature’s action is especially surprising, given that the law passed by the legislature in 2011, HB 194, is now suspended. With HB 194 not in effect, and with the primary set for March instead of May, the statutory deadline for new parties to submit a petition to be on the ballot in 2012 is November 2011, the very same deadline held unconstitutional in 2006 by the 6th circuit. Even if HB 194 weren’t suspended, the deadline would be in December 2011, almost as bad. Furthermore, due process would seem to provide that even if December 2011 were constitutional on its face, such a deadline can’t be imposed on such short notice.

HB 194 is suspended because a referendum petition was recently filed. When new laws are subject to a referendum, they can’t go into effect until the voters vote on the new law. Assuming the referendum petition has enough valid signatures, that vote on HB 194 would be in November 2012.