New York Senate Passes Bill Setting Up the Initiative Process

Posted on by June 9, 2011
4

On June 7, the New York State Senate passed S709, which proposes a change to the New York State Constitution. It would create the initiative process in New York, for statewide laws, and also for local government. The vote was 47-15. All of the “no” votes were Democrats.

Now the bill goes to the Assembly. If it passes there, because it is a proposed constitutional change, it must pass both houses of the legislature again in 2013. Then the voters would decide in November 2014 whether to pass the idea.

The statewide initiative is a gateway for virtually any election law reform that has popular support. If New York state had the initiative process, the voters could probably qualify a proposed initiative for redistricting reform, or ballot access reform, or reform of the restrictive laws that don’t permit voters to switch parties before a primary unless they make the switch during the year before the election. It will be interesting to see if Independent Voting, formerly known as the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, and before that the New Alliance Party, will support S709. That group is very well organized in New York city. Virtually all the “no” votes in the Senate were New York city Senators.

The bill would require a statewide initiative to obtain a number of signatures equal to 5% of the last vote for Governor. Currently that number is 232,709. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.

Nevada Bill Passes, Eliminates the Easy Method for a New Party to Qualify for the Ballot

Posted on by June 9, 2011
5

On May 30, the Nevada legislature passed AB 81. It injures major political parties, new political parties, and independent voters. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 11-10, with all Democrats voting “yes” and all Republicans voting “no.” Governor Brian Sandoval is a Republican and it is possible he will veto it.

The bill, one of the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bills, deletes the easier method for new or previously unqualified parties to get on the ballot. Existing law gives groups two choices to get on the ballot: (1) a petition signed by 1% of the last US House vote throughout the state, which required 9,083 signatures for the 2010 election; or (2) a petition for each candidate of that party, which requires 250 signatures for a statewide nominee and 100 for a U.S. House nominee. The bill deletes the second, easier method. However, the bill does not affect presidential elections, because the old easy method does not apply to presidential nominees.

Oddly, the bill does not disturb the easy requirements for non-presidential independent candidates. They can still get on the ballot with 250 signatures, if running for statewide office, or 100 for U.S. House.

AB 81 also moves the petition deadline for new parties from May to April, even though in 1986 a U.S. District Court in Nevada struck down the old April petition deadline for new parties, in Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer, 638 F.Supp. 565.

AB 81 also tells parties that nominate by primary that they cannot invite independents to vote in their primary. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate by primary in Nevada. They have not been letting independents vote in their primaries recently anyway, but previously, the law was silent on whether independents can vote in primaries. AB 81 bars a party from inviting independents to vote in its primary. That part of the bill would be unconstitutional under Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, but only the Democratic and Republican Parties would have standing to bring a lawsuit against the restriction. In Nevada, smaller qualified parties nominate by convention. The only qualified minor parties currently in Nevada are the Independent American (Constitution) and Libertarian Parties. They, of course, are free to decide for themselves who votes at their state nominating conventions.

If you wish to ask Governor Brian Sandoval to veto the bill, his fax is 775-684-5683. His postal address is Capitol, 101 N. Carson St., Carson City Nv 89701.

Maine Senate Kills Bill to Make Primary Ballot Access Easier

Posted on by June 9, 2011
1

On June 8, the Maine legislature defeated LD 545, which would have made it easier for a member of a small qualified party to get on his or her party’s primary ballot. The bill had passed the House on second reading on June 7, but on the same day the Senate had voted against it. On June 8 the House acceded to the Senate’s wishes and the bill died.

A member of any qualified party running for statewide office in Maine needs 2,000 signatures of party members. Registered independents can’t sign. The law does not take into account the fact that some qualified parties have hundreds of thousands of members, whereas other qualified parties are much smaller. The bill would have provided that a member of a small qualified party needs 750 signatures instead of 2,000.

California Bill, Mandating Badges for Initiative Petition Circulators, Advances

Posted on by June 9, 2011
Reply

On June 8, the California Senate Elections Committee passed AB 481, which requires anyone who circulates an initiative, referendum or recall petition to wear a badge. The badge must either say “Paid Signature Gatherer” or “Volunteer Signature Gatherer.” All Democrats voted “Yes”; all Republicans voted “No.” So far this year, all bills to make it more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot (in both houses) have received unanimous “Yes” votes from Democrats, whereas all Republicans have voted against these bills.

AB 481 also requires the petition sheet to have printed on it whether the sheet is being circulated by a paid petitioner or a volunteer.

Another badge bill, SB 448 will be heard in the Assembly Elections Committee on Tuesday afternoon, June 21. Also on June 21, the Assembly Elections Committee will hear SB 205, which outlaws paying people on a per-registration card basis to register voters. And on June 21 that committee will hear SB 168, which makes it illegal to pay petition circulators on a per-signature basis “directly or indirectly.” SB 168 relates to initiative, referendum, and recall petitions, but not to petitions to put candidates or parties on a ballot. In California, all candidates for Congress and state office must submit petitions to obtain a place on any ballot. Thus, California Democratic legislators seem intent on imposing restrictions on initiative petitions, but they aren’t imposing the same requirements on the petitions that they must obtain in order to run for re-election.