Mississippi Elections Officials Rule in Favor of the Barbara Washer Faction of the Reform Party

On September 9, Mississippi election officials determined that the faction of the Reform Party headed by Barbara Washer is the legitimate Reform Party. Therefore, her faction’s nominees will be on the November 8, 2011 ballot for state office. They are Tracella Hill for Lieutenant Governor, John Pannell for Secretary of State, Ashley Norwood for Auditor, Shawn O’Hara for Treasurer, Cathy Toole for Agriculture Commissioner, Lajena Williams for State Senate 44, Yasming Johnson for Senate 45, and Randy Walker for Representative 104.

Shawn O’Hara had filed to run for both Governor and Treasurer, but state law does not permit anyone to run simultaneously for two different office, so he is on the ballot now for Treasurer but not for Governor.

Meanwhile, the only independent running for Governor, Will Oatis, has withdrawn, so for Governor, only the Democratic and Republican nominees will be on the ballot.

U.S. District Court Upholds Florida Initiative Telling Legislature that Redistricting Must be Non-Partisan

On September 9, a U.S. District Court upheld Florida’s law, passed by the voters in November 2010, that congressional redistricting must not favor or disfavor any particular party. Here is the 22-page opinion. The case is Diaz-Balart v Browning, southern district, 10-23968-civ-Ungaro.

The case had been filed by a Republican member and a Democratic member of the U.S. House. They had argued that Article One of the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures can pass election laws for Congress. The opinion points out that the Florida initiative, amendment 6, does not take redistricting power away from the legislature. It merely sets conditions on how the legislature must carry out redistricting. The plaintiffs say they will appeal.

California Legislative Analysis Shows Election Administration-Related Problems Caused by Prop. 14

As reported previously, AB 1413 had been set for a hearing in the California Senate Elections Committee on September 7. That hearing was never held, but in preparation for the hearing, legislative employees had prepared an analysis of the bill, which was introduced to make alterations in the “top-two” Proposition 14 procedure. Proposition 14 passed in June 2010 and says all candidates for Congress and partisan state office run on a single primary ballot in June. Then, only the two top vote-getters may run in November.

The analysis says, “In 2009, as part of a state budget agreement, a measure was placed on the ballot for the voters to consider authorizing a ‘top-two’ primary election system. At the same time that measure was approved, the Legislature also approved a series of changes to the Election Code to implement a top two primary election system. Unfortunately, due to the nature in which those statutory changes were adopted, they created a number of problems for the effective and efficient operation of elections. Last year, the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee held an oversight hearing to hear from elections officials about some of the problems with those statutory changes. Among other problems, county elections officials testified that certain ballot printing requirements created an unnecessary burden, and could significantly increase election costs.

“Since that time, state and county elections officials have been working diligently to develop fixes that will help implement the top two primary system in a more effective manner. This bill includes much of that work.”

The analysis also says, “This bill shortens the format in which a candidate’s party preference is displayed on the ballot, shortens and clarifies the ballot instructions that appear on the ballot, and eliminates certain type size and typeface requirements to give county elections officials greater flexibility to format their ballots. These changes should help address some of the concerns raised by elections officials in this committee’s oversight hearing.”

Existing law requires very large print notices on voter registration forms, ballots, and voter handbooks, emphasizing that party labels on the ballot do not mean that the candidate has been nominated by the listed party, or even that the party approves of that person, or considers him or her a bona fide member. These requirements will substantially increase the cost of election administration, by requiring additional ballot cards and also increasing the size of voter registration forms, which must be prepared as postcards. Because the bill will not advance this year, these election administration problems cannot be addressed by the legislature until next year.

The chair of the Senate Elections Committee, Senator Lou Correa, is a staunch supporter of the top-two system, but it appears that he does acknowledge the election administration problems caused by Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation, SB 6 from the 2009 session.

D.C. Write-in Vote Counting Case set for Mediation on September 26

Both sides in the lawsuit Libertarian Party v District of Columbia Board of Elections will meet with a mediator on September 26, to attempt to settle the lawsuit. If no agreement can be reached, the case will proceed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. The issue is whether the Board must tally the write-in votes for declared write-in presidential candidates. In 2008 Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee, was the only presidential candidate who filed for declared write-in status. He submitted the names of three candidates for presidential elector. No other write-in presidential candidate took this step. However, the Board refused to tally his write-ins, even though federal law requires all jurisdictions that have electoral votes to report the number of valid votes for all presidential candidates to the federal archives.

The U.S. District Court earlier ruled that the Board’s interest in saving money and effort is more important than the ability of voters to have their valid votes counted. Then, the Board had sought to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals to dismiss the case, but the Appeals court rejected that attempt, so the case is still pending.