On February 14, the South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee voted to table SB 138. This is the National Popular Vote Plan bill. This means the bill is dead for this legislative session.
Reply
Four Republicans in the New Hampshire House have introduced HB 421. It says that the only individuals who can get on the ballot in a partisan primary for U.S. Senate are individuals nominated by the party caucuses of that party in the legislature. For example, the Republicans in the State Senate would choose one individual to be placed on the Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate; and the Republicans in the State House would also choose someone. Of course, both caucuses might choose the same person.
The bill doesn’t acknowledge the possibility that a party might have its own primary, yet might not have any state legislators. The bill maintains the existing state law that allows any person to be a write-in candidate in any party primary.
If this bill were to pass, but if any qualified political party chose to oppose it in court, it is likely that the political party would win its lawsuit against the law, as applied to that party. The First Amendment Freedom of Association clause protects the ability of parties to run their own affairs, to a great extent. State legislators are generally not officers of their own political parties. If a party had its own internal rules that require a normal primary, it is likely a court would uphold the right of political parties to continue to let anyone appear on its primary ballot who met the normal ballot access rules, against a state law that gave state legislators special nominating rights for that political party.
The bill’s sponsors are Robert Kingsbury of Laconia, Susan DeLemus of Rochester, Lucien Vita of Middleton, and Joshua Davenport of Newmarket.
Five Democratic State Senators in Idaho have introduced SB 1040, which provides for public funding of candidates for state office. The bill does not discriminate for or against any candidate on the basis of the candidate’s partisan affiliation or independent status. It requires candidates to receive $5 contributions from a certain number of voters, in order to qualify for public funding. Gubernatorial candidates would need 2,500 contributors. Candidates for other statewide office would need 1,500 contributors. Candidates for the legislature would need 150 contributors, all of whom must live in the district.
Public funding would be financed largely from traffic and criminal fines, an idea pioneered by Arizona. If the bill passed this session, it would take effect in 2014. The Idaho Senate has 35 members, and only seven of them are Democrats. No Republican State Senator is a co-sponsor of this bill, so far at least.
Maine representative Ben Chipman (I-Portland) has introduced LD 545. It makes it easier for candidates for governor to get on the primary ballot of a small qualified party. Current law requires 2,000 signatures of party members, regardless of the size of the party. Only registered party members may sign.
The bill would change this to the lesser of either 2,000 signatures, or 2% of the number of registered members in that party. Currently, Maine and Massachusetts are the only states with mandatory petitions for a candidate to get on a primary ballot, and which have registration by party, and yet the number of signatures is not keyed to the number of registered members in that party.
Arizona and South Dakota have hybrid laws, in which the number of signatures for members of an already-established party is linked to the size of the party, but if the party is brand new, the number of signatures is not linked in to the size of the party. Fortunately a bill to fix that flaw in Arizona is likely to pass this year.
The Maine bill logically ought to make the same change for U.S. Senate, which is the only other statewide elected office in Maine in which candidates are nominated by primary. The bill may be amended later to make that change.
The Fresno Bee has this story, in which Fresno County election officials make a case that election administration in that county, and likely other counties, is in jeopardy from lack of resources. The article, in the second half, mentions that Proposition 14 (the top-two system), passed by the voters in June 2010, makes the problem worse.
In early 2010, county elections officials had testified that Prop. 14 would make election administration considerably more expensive, but a State Court of Appeals ruled that this information could not be mentioned in the Voters Handbook. Instead, the Voters Handbook carried a statement by a state official denying that Prop. 14 would increase the costs of election administration.