On February 22, the Oklahoma Senate Rules Committee passed SB 602. This bill moves the non-presidential primary from July to June. It also moves the petition deadline for a new party from May 1 to March 1. It is not known if Oklahoma legislators know that a petition deadline that early would almost certainly be held unconstitutional.
South Carolina Senator Phil Leventis (D-Sumter) has introduced SB 546, to let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector.
In the meantime, on February 23, a Nebraska legislative committee heard hours of testimony on LB 21, the bill to eliminate Nebraska’s provision for letting each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. The committee won’t vote on the bill for a week. See this newspaper story about the hearing, which also describes the testimony in favor of LB 583, the National Popular Vote Plan bill.
Bills in the Washington legislature to move the primary (for office other than President) from the 3rd Tuesday in August, to the 1st Tuesday in August, have made progress recently. SB 5171 passed the Senate Government Operations Committee on February 15, and the identical HB 1080 passed the House Committee on State Government on February 17.
The Boston Globe has this interesting article about the difficulty for Republican presidential candidates to plan their campaigns for the nomination, due to the great uncertainty about 2012 presidential primary and caucus dates. Thanks to Josh Putnam’s Frontloading HQ for the link.
Massachusetts Representative Harriett Stanley (D-West Newbury) has introduced two bills to restrict people who circulate initiative and referendum petitions. HB 207 says, “No person shall engage in the collection of signatures for an initiative or referendum petition for money or any other thing of value.” That bill, if enacted, would be held unconstitutional under the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Meyer v Grant, 486 U.S. 414. That unanimous decision held that petitioning is First Amendment activity and that states can’t ban paying people to circulate petitions.
Representative Stanley also introduced HB 206, which requires circulators to wear a badge showing their name and address. That bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional under Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), which struck down a Colorado law requiring paid circulators to wear a badge giving their name and address. That U.S. Supreme Court decision did not decide whether a state can require a circulator to wear a badge that tells if he or she is being paid. HB 206 also requires the badge to say how much the circulator is being paid. And it requires the badge to say who the employer is, and which organizations are paying the employer. All this must be clearly visible and in 14-point type. A circulator who violates this law can be fined $500, and his or her employer can be fined $5,000. Thanks to Carla Howell for this news.
