On June 17, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed SB 100. It keeps the primary in March, but moves the runoff primary from April to May. That has the indirect effect of moving the independent candidate petition deadline from May to June. However, the independent presidential deadline continues to be in May.

As noted before on this blog, the May petition deadline for independent presidential candidates in Texas was already on shaky ground. In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v Celebrezze that independent presidential petition deadlines can’t be as early as the spring of election years. All states other than Texas have independent presidential petition deadlines in July, August, and September, except for five states with June deadlines. Texas is alone in having its presidential deadline in May. The fact that Texas now has a June petition deadline for independent candidates for office other than President will make it even harder for Texas to defend a May petition deadline for presidential independent candidates, if and when anyone sues. Obviously, if Texas can cope with June petition deadlines for other independent candidates, what possible need does Texas have for a May deadline for independent presidential candidates?

Vermont’s June petition deadline for independent candidates is currently being litigated in state court.

The North Carolina omnibus election law bill, SB 47, appears likely not to pass the legislature this month. The House is still in session but is expected to adjourn later on Saturday, June 18. SB 47 has passed the Senate. Although the regular session of the legislature is almost over, a special session in July could pass the bill.

SB 47 has many controversial provisions. It restores partisan elections for state judicial elections. It eliminates the ability of people who will be age 18 at the time of the general election to also vote in that year’s primary, even though that person might not yet be 18 at the time of the primary. It eliminates the straight-ticket device. It adds a requirement that parties, and independent presidential candidates, must submit twice as many candidates for presidential elector as the state has votes in the electoral college, so that if one elector votes against the expected presidential candidate, he or she is deemed to have resigned and to be replaced by a back-up (Montana also passed that law this year). It imposes huge penalties on anyone who is nominated for state office who doesn’t file campaign finance reports within 10 days of being nominated; the fine would be $250 per day.

The bill also changes the order of parties on the ballot, in a manner which would probably be held unconstitutional. It says the two parties with the most registered voters should always be first and second on the ballot, and that they are rotated every four years. All other parties would never have the first or second lines. They would have the inferior lines, and they also would rotate, but only with each other. The fact that the bill provides for rotation is an admission that being first on the ballot is advantageous. There is no constitutional theory that supports always putting the two old, major parties in the best spots on the ballot at all times. Generally, when there is evidence that the top spot on the ballot is advantageous, courts strike down discriminatory laws on the order of parties and candidates on the ballot.

Here is a newspaper editorial about SB 47, saying the only worthwhile part of the bill is the part that abolishes the straight-ticket device.