Pennsylvania Bill to Let Each U.S. House District Choose Its Own Elector has Hearing on Tuesday, October 4

The much-publicized Pennsylvania bill to provide that each U.S. House district would elect its own presidential elector has been introduced, and is SB 1282. It has a hearing on Tuesday, October 4, in the Senate State Government Committee. The author, Senator Dominic Pileggi, is the leader of Senate Republicans, and Republicans have a 4-3 majority on the committee.

Even though the bill has been introduced, the bill still isn’t drafted, according to the legislature’s web page. Therefore, it is not known whether the bill will provide that candidates for presidential elector must live in their district, or whether the petition to get minor party and independent candidates on the ballot will be transformed from a statewide petition to a petition that is circulated within each district.

Ohio Incumbent Kept Off Ballot Because His Petition Mis-Stated the Number of Signatures Collected

Louis Chine, an incumbent member of the Austintown, Ohio, School Board, is being kept off the November 8, 2011 ballot because his petition slightly mis-stated the number of signatures listed. See this story. He has filed a lawsuit in state court, hoping to be placed back on the ballot. In the meantime his name is still on the absentee ballots.

U.S. ballot access laws are frequently illogical, and this is a prime instance. The purpose of a petition is to show that the candidate has a modicum of support. Whether the petition correctly counted the number of signatures contained on it has nothing to do with whether the candidate has support.

2012 Median Presidential Primary Date, April 13, is Two Months Later than 2008’s Median Primary Date

In 2008, half the presidential primaries were over on February 12. By contrast, in 2012, half the presidential primaries won’t be over until April 13. Because there is a slight difference between Democratic presidential primary dates (or the existence of Democratic presidential primaries) and Republican presidential primaries, this calculation uses the Republican presidential primaries.

The only state that had a presidential primary in 2008, but which won’t have one in 2012, is Washington. There were 41 presidential primaries in 2008 and 40 in 2012 (counting D.C., but not any territories). Not all presidential primaries are binding. The only states in 2012 that won’t hold presidential primaries are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. All presidential primaries are paid for by taxpayers, except that the South Carolina Republican presidential primary is paid for partly by the party and partly by the taxpayers.

UPDATE: when this blog post was first published, it said the median date was April 3. Afterwards, Ohio shifted from March to June, and that altered the median date, so this post was updated on October 26.

Second Circuit Upholds New York State Law, Forbidding Non-Members of a Party to Circulate Primary Petitions

On September 30, 2011, the Second Circuit upheld New York state laws that make it illegal for non-members of a party to circulate a petition to place a candidate on the primary ballot of a party. Maslow v Board of Elections in the City of New York, 08-3075-cv. The decision is 3-0 and is only eleven pages long.

The Second Circuit considers the law necessary to protect political parties from unwanted interference from outsiders. The decision says on page 6, “The Supreme Court has emphasized — with increasing firmness — that the First Amendment guarantees a political party great leeway in governing its own affairs.” This statement is not entirely true. Two of the last three U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving political party freedom of association were defeats for political parties. In 2005, in Clingman v Beaver, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that parties do not have the right to open their primaries to all voters. And in March 2008, in Washington State v Washington State Republican Party, the Court ruled 7-2 that a top-two system, in which parties lose control of their names, does not violate freedom of association on its face (although the court said it may violate freedom of association as applied, and sent the case back to the lower court). On the other hand, in January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ability of political parties to control their own nomination process in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres.

The Second Circuit also said the challenged law “imposes little or no burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights”, a statement which is contradicted by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation (which struck down a state law saying petitioners must be registered voters) and Meyer v Grant (which struck down a state law banning paying circulators). In both of those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court said restrictions on who may circulate petitions can only be justified by a compelling state interest.

The Second Circuit opinion was written by Judge Peter W. Hall, a Bush Jr. appointee, and signed by Judges Debra Ann Livingston, another Bush Jr. appointee, and Chester Stroud, a Clinton appointee. Judge Hall is also one of the two judges who upheld the discriminatory Connecticut public funding law. It is clear from the Second Circuit’s opinion that if any qualified political party in New York state passed a bylaw, saying the party is willing to let non-members circulate petitions to place a candidate on that party’s own primary ballot, that the state law, as applied to that party, would fall. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the news about the decision.

U.S. District Court Judges in Texas will Create Congressional Redistricting Map

On September 30, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Texas issued a ruling, saying the judges will prepare an interim map of U.S. House districts for Texas, just in case the map prepared by the legislature this year is held to violate the federal Voting Rights Act. The decision as to whether the legislature’s districts violate the Voting Rights Act or not is before a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. See this story.

Texas could have asked the U.S. Justice Department to preclear the maps the legislature drew this year, but Texas decided to bypass the Justice Department and go straight to a U.S. District court in Washington, D.C. The problem with that choice is that the district court in Washington, D.C., may not act in time. Texas has a March primary for all federal and state offices.