Gautam Dutta, the attorney who is suing California over two particularly repressive aspects of the new “top-two” system that will go into effect next year, has this piece in Huffington Post about his lawsuit.
The two aspects of the California system under attack in the lawsuit are: (1) a provision that write-in votes can never be counted in November; (2) a provision that does not permit candidates to list their party on the ballot unless they are members of a qualified party.
New Jersey state election officials recently wrote a letter to an attorney who represents the Socialist Party, refusing the party’s request that voters be permitted to register as members of the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party is more active in New Jersey than in any other state, and has regularly had candidates on the ballot in New Jersey elections almost every year for the past decade.
In 2001, New Jersey state courts ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to only let voters register as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. That case had been filed by five unqualified parties: Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform. So, ever since 2001, voters have been permitted to register into those parties.
In 2006 the Conservative Party sued New Jersey over registration, and the state immediately gave in and said voters could register in that party as well. But in all these years, the state has never promulgated any regulations to establish an objective standard to determine which parties may have registration rights. Therefore, it is likely that the Socialist Party will now sue New Jersey, which will of course require the state to expend some resources to respond to the lawsuit. It would be surprising if the state, upon being sued, mounts any defense of its policy.
Two independent candidates qualified for the November 2010 ballot in South Carolina this year, for the state legislature. One is Eugene Platt in the 115th House district, and the other is Jimmy McMillan in the 36th House district.
Platt is also the Green Party nominee for the same office, so he will be listed on the ballot twice. Voters will be able to choose whether to vote for him as a Green or as an independent candidate.
By the end of the day on August 12, probably all the briefs will have been filed in the Arizona State Court of Appeals, in City of Tucson v State of Arizona, 2ca-cv-2101-0083. This is the case on whether the Arizona State Constitution protects the ability of a city to decide for itself whether to use partisan or non-partisan elections.
Tucson has partisan city elections, and the voters in recent years have voted to continue using partisan elections for city office. But the state legislature passed a bill in 2009 requiring all cities to use non-partisan elections. It is somewhat likely that the Court of Appeals will hold arguments in this case in September or October 2010.
South Dakota’s U.S. House-at-large race this year has three candidates on the ballot: Independent B. Thomas Marking, Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, and Republican Kristi Noem. On August 11, all three debated each other. See this story.
South Dakota has a tradition of inclusive debates. In 2006, all four candidates on the general election ballot for Governor debated each other, and all three candidates for U.S. House debated each other. Similarly, in 2002, all three gubernatorial candidates debated each other.
