The Arizona Secretary of State has again started tracking how many registered Green Party members there are in Arizona. The Secretary of State last posted any data for registered Greens in November 2009. Because the party failed to poll 5% for President in November 2008, and because it failed to get its registration up to two-thirds of 1% by November 2009, it lost its qualified status and the state stopped tracking how many people were registered Greens.

Now that the party is back on the ballot, the Secretary of State has started tallying Greens again. Surprisingly, the party now has more registrants (both on a raw number basis and on a percentage basis) than it did while it was not qualified. The new registration data shows 4,345 members, which is .142% of the state total.

By contrast, the last data from before the party was disqualified showed 4,261 members, which was .137%. Generally when a party is not qualified, its numbers decline. As Andy’s comment says, the Arizona registration forms don’t mention any party, and voters who want to join a party must write in the name of the party.

On May 20, a Superior Court in Charlotte, North Carolina, heard Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, 10cvs-3216. At the end of the hearing, the Judge ruled against Mark Brody, the independent candidate. The issue was whether, if an independent candidate polled a substantial share of the vote in the previous election, and he or she runs again for the same office in the following election, whether the state should take cognizance of that candidate’s prior support, and put him on the ballot without a petition.

Mark Brody polled slightly over 30% in November 2008 as an independent candidate, so he argued that he should not be required to submit another petition in 2010. The state said he must submit 2,367 valid signatures from his state house district, and pay the filing fee, notwithstanding the evidence of support for him from 2008. Brody was willing to pay the fee. It is not known if he will appeal. Thanks to Jordan Greene for the news.

A poll released on the evening of May 19, taken by the Public Policy Institute of California, shows a big lead for Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure. The poll shows 60% support the measure, 27% oppose it, and 13% are undecided.

A poll in March showed 56% support for the measure. The gain for the measure is undoubtedly due to the heavy advertising for the measure, especially in radio ads. There has been no advertising against the measure.

The fundamental reason for the measure’s strength in polls is its wording. The ballot says in large type, “Proposition 14. ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.” Then, in smaller type, it says, “Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.”

Assuming the measure passes, those who favor having more than just Democrats and Republicans on the November ballot will resort to the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Munro v Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, “We are unpersuaded, however, that the differences between the two mechanisms (a petition to get on the November ballot, versus polling a certain share of the vote in a preliminary election) are of constitutional dimension.” This means that the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that a prior vote before the general election, as a condition of appearing on the general election ballot, is subject to the same precedents that apply to petition hurdles to the November ballot.

Those who attempt to rebut that conclusion invariably say that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ballot access precedents do not apply for an election in which parties do not have nominees. That notion is incorrect. The early ballot access victories in the U.S. Supreme Court were not based on freedom of association for political parties. The first three full-opinion ballot access victories in the U.S. Supreme Court were based on voting rights, and the rights of candidates, not on the rights of political parties. Two of the first three ballot access victories did not have any political party plaintiffs. They were Williams v Rhodes, and Ogilvie v Moore; the plaintiffs were voters and candidates. These decisions were issued in 1968 and 1969. At that time, the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that the Freedom of Association portion of the First Amendment pertains to political parties. It is true that in 1935, in Grovey v Townsend, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn a Texas Supreme Court ruling that said the Democratic Party is free to limit membership to whites, but that decision does not mention the First Amendment, and furthermore that decision was overturned in 1944 in Smith v Allbright.

California voters have restricted the franchise in the past. In May 1879, the voters approved a new state Constitution that said, “No native of China shall ever exercise the franchise in this state.” That passed 54%-46%.