Colorado Representative Edward Casso (D-Thornton) has introduced HB 1012, to let independent voters vote in a partisan primary. Current Colorado law lets any independent voter vote in a partisan primary if that voter re-registers into that party at the polls on primary day, but the bill would let independent voters choose a primary ballot without having to join the party.
On January 31, the U.S. Supreme Court requested that Hawaii file a response in Nader v Cronin, 10-728. This is the case that challenges the number of signatures needed for an independent presidential candidate. That number is approximately six times as many signatures as are required for an entire new political party with its own primary ballot.
When the U.S. Supreme Court asks for a response from the side that had won the case in the lower court, that is a sign that the Court is thinking that it might possibly take the case. The response from Hawaii is due March 2.
In other U.S. Supreme Court news, the Court has put Burris v Judge on its February 18 conference. This means that the Court will probably reveal on the following Monday (February 21) whether it will hear that case. Burris v Judge, 10-367, is the lawsuit filed by former U.S. Senator Roland Burris, over ballot access in the Illinois special U.S. Senate election of November 2, 2010. Roland Burris wanted to run for the two-month term, but the 7th circuit had ruled that no one could run in that special election except the candidates who were already on the ballot for the regular U.S. Senate election.
Also, in the Connecticut case over discriminatory public funding, Green Party of Connecticut v Lenge, 10-795, the state of Connecticut has asked again asked for time to respond. The state’s original response was due January 14, but then the Court gave the state until February 14, and now the Court has granted a second extension, to February 22.
Last year the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws agreed to ask state legislators to pass a model law, concerning presidential electors who don’t vote for their own party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees. The model bill has been introduced in at least three states, including Montana. On February 2, the Montana Senate State Administration Committee passed the bill (SB 75) unanimously.
The model bill provides that political parties, and independent presidential candidates, must nominate twice as many candidates for presidential elector as there are seats to be filled. For each available seat, there is a presidential elector candidate, and an alternate presidential elector candidate. In December, when the electoral college votes, any presidential elector who votes for a presidential or vice-presidential candidate not nominated by his or her party is deemed to have resigned, and is automatically replaced by his or her alternate.
The other states in which the bill has been introduced are Indiana (SB 75) and Nebraska (LB 367). Those two bills haven’t moved yet.
On February 4, U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, a Bush Jr. appointee, refused to strike down the California residency requirement for circulators of candidate petitions, even though all sides to the lawsuit agree that the law is unconstitutional. Here is the 8-page decision. The Judge said the plaintiffs, who include the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party, a member of the party who wants to circulate a petition outside of his home legislative district, and a candidate, all lack standing, because the Secretary of State has told the court that she will not enforce the requirement.
The plaintiffs pointed out in their last brief that the Secretary of State’s web page for all recent special elections sets forth the residency requirement for circulators, and does not say anywhere on her web page that she doesn’t enforce these laws. By contrast, the Secretary of State’s same web page sets out the duration of residency requirement for candidates for the legislature, but has a footnote saying she won’t enforce that law, which is part of the California Constitution. The judge said, “Just because the Secretary of State has publicly announced that certain election law provisions are, in her view, unconstitutional and will not be enforced, does not suggest that all the other provisions will be enforced.” The case is Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, 2:10-cv-02488. Plaintiffs will appeal to the 9th circuit. The 9th circuit ruled in 1989 that even a voter has standing to challenge a ballot access law, in Erum v Cayetano.
On January 26, six Arizona legislators introduced HB 2304, which makes substantial improvements in ballot access, along with many other unrelated election law changes. The bill says that when a party qualifies, it is entitled to be on the ballot for the next two elections. If this part of the bill is signed into law, the Green Party will be on the ballot automatically in 2012, because it successfully petitioned in 2010 and appeared on the ballot in 2010.
The bill also reduces the number of signatures needed for a candidate to get on the primary ballot of a newly-qualified party. Current law makes it difficult for a candidate to get on the primary ballot of a new party; the current requirement is one-tenth of 1% of the total vote cast for that office in the last general election. In 2010, this meant that anyone trying to get on the Green Party’s primary ballot for statewide office needed 2,294 signatures, which is difficult when a party only has approximately 4,500 registered members (however, registered independents could sign this type of petition). Under current law, primary ballot access is not a problem when the party is not a new party. Candidates trying to get on the primary ballot of an old party only need signatures of one-half of 1% of the number of registered members of that party. The bill would apply that formula to new parties as well. If this bill had been in effect in 2010, a candidate would only have needed about 25 signatures to get on the Green Party primary ballot for statewide office.
Finally, the bill makes it legal for an out-of-state resident to circulate any type of petition in Arizona. Current law only lets out-of-state circulators work on an independent presidential candidate’s petition. The bill requires that out-of-state circulators must register with the Secretary of State before working.
