Connecticut Representative Linda Schofield (D-Simsbury) has introduced H5730, to provide that independent voters may vote in a party primary. Currently, Connecticut law lets each party decide for itself whether to let independent voters vote in its primary or not.

Connecticut Representative Sean J. Williams (R-Watertown) has introduced H5226, to eliminate the ability of state and local parties to choose nominees by convention, and provide that parties would nominate for all partisan office by primary. Currently, Connecticut major parties choose nominees in conventions, but anyone not chosen is free to circulate a petition and thereby force a primary for that office. But, most of the time, there are no primaries in Connecticut for most partisan offices.

Representative Williams has also introduced a bill to move the primary (for office other than President) from August to June.

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.

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.