On March 11, the Nebraska Senate overwhelmingly defeated a proposed constitutional amendment, to lower the number of signatures to get an initiative on the ballot. See this story. Thanks to Ballot Box News for the link.
Reply
Ever since 1976, Michigan has had public funding in place for candidates for Governor. Candidates who raise at least $75,000 are entitled to public funding. This year, however, the fund (which is financed from a $3 checkoff on state income taxes) has been depleted to pay general state expenses. See this story. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On March 12, a California Superior Court Judge revised Proposition 14’s ballot title and description.
The ballot label will say, “Elections. Increase Right to Participate in Primary Elections”. Then, in smaller print, “Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal impact: The data are insufficient to identify the amount of any increase or decrease in costs to administer elections will increase (sic).”
The Summary in the Voters Pamphlet will say: “Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. That will be followed by five bullet points: (1) Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by reforming the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections. (2) Gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. (3) Provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the primary ballot. (4) Provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. (5) Does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.”
The Voters Pamphlet also carries a fiscal effect. For Proposition 14, the fiscal effect will be: “Minor Costs and Savings. This measure would change how elections officials prepare, print, and mail ballot materials. In some cases, these changes could increase these state and county costs. For instance, under this measure, all candidates – regardless of their party preference – would be listed on each primary election ballot. This would make these ballots longer. In other cases, the measure would reduce election costs. For example, by eliminating in some instances the need to prepare different primary ballots for each political party, counties would sometimes realize savings. For general election ballots, the measure would reduce the number of candidates (by only having the two candidates who received the most votes from the primary election on the ballot). This would make these ballots shorter. The direct costs and savings resulting from this measure may be relatively minor and may tend to offset each other. However, the data are insufficient to determine whether state and local costs to administer elections will increase or decrease.”
Here is the 8-page order, explaining why the judge altered the language that Senator Maldonado had written back in February 2009 when his measure had passed.
On March 12, the local Chambers of Commerce in southeast Los Angeles County held a forum on several ballot measures, including Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary” measure. The local chambers of commerce who sponsored the meeting include the Chambers of Santa Fe Springs, Whittier, Norwalk, and two other cities.
After the group heard speakers on both sides, a member of the audience obtained the floor and moved that the group rescind its earlier endorsement of Proposition 14. The motion passed unanimously. The speaker against Proposition 14, Craig Thorsen, identified himself as representing the Green Party. During his presentation, he first outlined the way in which Proposition 14 curtails voting rights at the general election. Then, he presented evidence that the measure, if passed, would not cause a more moderate legislature to be elected, using evidence from the only two states that have already used the idea, as well as evidence from California’s four years with the blanket primary. Finally, he mentioned that the constitutionality of the idea is still not established.
The speaker in favor of Proposition 14 had made the case that Proposition 14 will cause a legislature of moderates to come into existence.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 08-1371, on April 19, 2010. Although this case is not an election law case, it is a freedom of association case, and those cases always impact on the law relating to political parties.
Here is the 81-page brief of the Hastings Law School. It argues that it need not provide the Christian Legal Society with recognition as a student group because the Society is perfectly free to thrive as a voluntary organization without school recognition. Recognition includes some funding for the group.
Hastings won’t recognize the Christian Legal Society because the Society refuses to follow a school rule, that recognized student groups must be open to any student who wishes to become a member.