Firedoglake has this detailed analysis of California’s Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure in the June 8, 2010 primary. Firedoglake was founded in 2004 by Jane Hamsher, and has received award for being one of the best political blogs. It now has 20 writers. This particular analysis is by Jon Walker. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
Both the Peace & Freedom Party, and the Green Party, have produced short TV ads that will air next week, and which ask voters to vote “NO” on Proposition 14, on cable channels CNN, Headline News, and MSNBC. About 750 spots will air by election day.
See here for the Green Party ad. The Peace & Freedom ad is virtually identical.
On May 21, the L.A. Watts Times asked its readers to vote “No” on California’s Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure on the ballot on June 8. See its statement here.
The L.A. Watts Times was founded in 1965, and is today the most widely distributed African American newspaper in Los Angeles.
In other news about the Proposition 14 campaign, on May 21 Christina Tobin was interviewed for six minutes on KGO, one of the San Francisco Bay Area’s leading radio stations. She mentioned that political scientist Boris Shor has studied polarization in the state legislatures of all 50 states, over the last 15 years, and that although he finds that California has the most polarized state legislature, Washington state has the 2nd most polarized legislature. And Washington state has had either a blanket primary, or a top-two primary, in almost all of the last fifteen years. The host was quite surprised, because the California newspapers that support Proposition 14 always say that Proposition 14 would reduce polarization.
On May 20, the 9th circuit issued an opinion in McComish v Bennett, upholding the Arizona Public Funding law for state candidates. The U.S. District Court had invalidated it on January 21, 2010.
The decision says that the part of the law that had been challenged, the provision for extra public funding for publicly-funded candidates who have big-spending private money opponents, is valid. The vote is 3-0. The decision is 30 pages and Judge Andrew Kleinfeld has an interesting 4-page concurrence.
The trial in Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels has been moved from the last week in June, to sometime in July. It is likely that the U.S. District Court Judge who is hearing the case wants to know (at the time of the trial) if the party’s petition this year has succeeded.
It is essential that the Arkansas Green Party’s current petition succeed this year. The party must submit 10,000 valid signatures by June 18. If the petition fails, and that is known during the trial, that will be evidence that the party lacks substantial support, and will injure the lawsuit’s chances. Anyone, regardless of residence, is free to circulate a petition in Arkansas, and any assistance will be invaluable. The issue in the lawsuit is whether it is constitutional for a state to disqualify a party from the ballot (immediately after a presidential election year) because that party failed to poll 3% of the vote for President.
