| Page 4945

Massachusetts Tied Legislative Vote from November Won't be Resolved Until May

Posted on February 10, 2011 by adminFebruary 10, 2011

On February 9, a special committee of the Massachusetts House determined that the new election to fill the disputed election in the Worcester 6 district won’t be held until May 10. The original election, of course, had been on November 2, 2010. The original returns showed the Republican challenger, Peter Durant, defeating the Democratic incumbent, Geraldo Alicea, by four votes. A recount showed Durant winning by one vote. Alicea then sued and the judge determined that the true results were a tie, and that a new election should be held. Now the legislative committee, which was charged with the details of the new election, has apparently determined that there must be a new primary as well. The new primary will probably be held on April 12 and the new election on May 10. See this story. In the meantime, Alicea holds the seat.

North Dakota Ballot Access Case Oral Argument in Eighth Circuit

Posted on February 9, 2011 by adminFebruary 9, 2011

The 8th circuit will hold an oral argument in Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger, 10-3212, although the exact date hasn’t been set yet. It will be in late March or early April. This is the case that challenges the North Dakota law that does not permit a qualified party to run candidates for the legislature in November, unless approximately 10% to 15% of all the voters who show up to vote in the primary choose that party’s primary ballot. Because the overwhelming majority of primary voters, in North Dakota and generally, are more interested in voting in the major party primaries, in effect this means that minor parties can never have nominees for the legislature on the November ballot.

No minor party has appeared on a November ballot in North Dakota, for a state legislative race, with the party label, since 1976, when the American Party managed to attract an usually high vote into its primary.

March will be a very important month for constitutional ballot access lawsuits. The hearing in the 3rd circuit against the Pennsylvania system of putting minor parties and independent candidates at risk of paying fees of up to $110,000, if their statewide petition doesn’t have enough valid signatures, will be in the middle of March. And in March, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to say if it will hear Ralph Nader’s ballot access case from Hawaii.

Maryland Bill to Ease Petitioning

Posted on February 9, 2011 by adminFebruary 9, 2011

Maryland State Senator Edward J. Pipkin (R-Stevensville) has introduced SB 630. It clarifies that petition signatures do not need to exactly match the name of that voter in voter registration records. Several years ago, the state’s highest state court issued a ruling that seemed to say that petition signatures must match perfectly with the form of the name on voter registration records. For example, if a person showed a middle initial on the voter registration record, and yet signed a petition without that middle initial, the signature is void. Late last year, the same court seemed to retract that, but the court still hasn’t issued a complete explanation of its order, so the matter is still in doubt.

The bill says the signature is valid if the identity of the signer reasonably can be determined. Thanks to Brian Bittner for the news about this bill.

Omaha Newspaper Story About Bill to Eliminate District Choice of Presidential Elector

Posted on February 9, 2011 by adminFebruary 9, 2011

The Omaha World-Herald has this story about the bill in the Nebraska legislature to eliminate the ability of each U.S. House district in Nebraska to choose its own presidential elector. The bill to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system is likely to pass this year, according to the story. The bill is LB 21 and it will be heard in committee on February 23.

The same committee will also hear LB 367 on February 23. That is the bill promoted by the Commission on Uniform State Laws to require each party to submit two candidates for presidential elector for each slot, one elector and one alternate. Then, if the elector votes for someone his or her state party didn’t wish, the elector is deemed to have resigned, and the alternate becomes the elector instead.

D.C. Bill to Combine September Primary, and Presidential Primary, in June

Posted on February 8, 2011 by adminFebruary 8, 2011

Washington, D.C., city councilmember Mary Cheh has introduced B19-90, to combine the District of Columbia presidential primary, and the primary for other office, into a single primary. The combined primary would be the second week in June.

Currently, the presidential primary is in January and the primary for other office is in September. The bill has no effect on the independent candidate petition deadlines, which would continue to be in August. Thanks to Josh Putnam for this news.

D.C. is the second jurisdiction which is considering moving its presidential primary to a date that is later than the first week in June. Kentucky has a bill to move the presidential primary to early August. The more places that entertain the idea of a presidential primary later than the first week in June, the more likely it becomes that the Democratic and Republican national committees will re-think their rule that won’t recognize presidential primaries later than the first week in June. In 2012, the Democratic convention doesn’t start until September 3, and the Republican convention doesn’t start until August 27, so it seems irrational to forbid presidential primaries later than the first week in June.