On September 2, Assemblyman Paul Fong, chair of the California Assembly Elections Committee, amended one of his own bills to provide that write-in space should no longer be printed on general election ballots for Congress and partisan state office. The bill, AB 1413, originally made small changes to the campaign finance laws, but all the original parts of the bill have been deleted.

Because the original bill has already passed the Assembly, and the Senate Elections Committee, no committee hearing will ever be held on the newly amended bill. California election law, ever since 1891, when the first government-printed ballots were created, has always provided for write-in space for partisan office. Assemblyman Fong’s attempt to delete write-in space is a sharp break with tradition. Anyone who supports the freedom for voters to cast a write-in vote should telephone Assemblyman Fong’s office at 916-319-2022 and ask him not to eliminate write-in space on November ballots for Congress and partisan state office. Or e-mail him at Assemblymember.Fong@assembly.ca.gov. If Fong wants to eliminate write-in space, he should have the courage to introduce a new bill on the subject, so that public hearings on the idea would be held.

Another new, unrelated part of AB 1413 give special favorable treatment to incumbent members of Congress and the California legislature. It says that a Member of Congress and a state legislator’s domicile is deemed to be whatever residence address that member of Congress or state legislator lists on his or her voter registration form. However, people running for Congress and the state legislature would get no such treatment, and would continue to be forced to tell the truth about where they live when they fill out a voter registration card. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for the news about AB 1413.

On September 1, the Florida Secretary of State ruled that the new requirement that parties not recognized by the Federal Election Commission must submit 112,174 valid signatures in 2012, to be on the ballot for President, will not be enforced by his office.

The new presidential ballot access law, signed by the Governor on May 19, 2011, will thus have no harmful effect on any qualified party, even a party that hasn’t yet come into existence. The law says that qualified parties not recognized by the Federal Election Commission as “national committees” must submit signatures equal to 1% of the number of registered voters at the previous election.

The basis for the Secretary of State’s ruling is that it is not his office’s duty to determine the qualifications of presidential nominees. If the ballot-qualified party submits a list of presidential elector candidates, and the names of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees they are pledged to, they will be put on the ballot. And it is true, the Secretary of State has no official knowledge of which parties have “national committee” status from the FEC.

Underlying all this is the separate point that the new presidential petition probably violates the Florida Constitution, because the Florida Constitution says ballot access for minor parties and independent candidates can’t be more difficult than the requirements to place Democratic Party nominees on the ballot. The Secretary of State’s ruling points out that some private individual or group may sue to force the removal of any presidential nominee, but if anyone sues the Secretary of State to remove the nominee, the Secretary of State and the nominee would undoubtedly defend themselves by pointing out that the 2011 requirement violates the Florida Constitution.

Last week’s ruling is especially good news for Americans Elect, the Prohibition Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Socialist Workers Party, four parties that have been ballot-qualified in Florida all along, and which intend to have presidential nominees in 2012, and which are not recognized by the FEC. Thanks to Dan Winslow for the news. UPDATE: here is the Secretary of State’s ruling. FURTHER UPDATE: this post was re-written on September 18 to improve its accuracy. The original post had been written before the letter was available.

This news story about the Carl Lewis ballot access lawsuit says that if Lewis doesn’t win in the U.S. District Court, he will immediately appeal to the 3rd circuit. The story also mentions that one of Lewis’ attorneys is a former State Supreme Court Justice from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

As noted before, the issue in Lewis v Guadagno is whether the New Jersey Constitution, requiring 4 years residency before running for State Senate, violates the U.S. Constitution. A state court has already ruled that Lewis doesn’t comply with the residency requirement. The U.S. District Court still hasn’t issued a final opinion. The election is November 8, 2011. New Jersey elects its legislators in November of odd years.