The British government desires to hold a ballot question in May 2011 on whether to use Instant Runoff Voting for British elections for House of Commons, but the bill authorizing that vote has been delayed in the House of Lords. According to this story, the Lords are likely to approve the bill on Wednesday, February 2, although it is not certain. The British term for Instant Runoff Voting is the Alternative Vote. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
On January 28, the North Dakota Libertarian Party filed this Reply Brief in North Dakota Libertarian Party v Jaeger, in the 8th circuit. This is the case that challenges that state’s ballot access rules for minor party legislative candidates. The law requires the legislative candidates of all qualified parties to run in a party primary, and in that primary, they must poll a number of votes equal to between approximately 8% and 15% of the total number of people who cast a ballot in all party primaries put together.
Because very few voters ever choose a minor party primary ballot, the law effectively prevents minor parties from ever placing candidates for the legislature on the November ballot. No minor party legislative candidate has appeared in the November election in North Dakota since 1976.
On January 31, Peace & Freedom Party candidate Daniel Frederick filed a lawsuit in state court in Sacramento, contesting the interpretation and constitutionality of the California Secretary of State’s rules for candidates who choose to file a petition in lieu of a filing fee, rather than paying the filing fee. The lawsuit especially contests the rules for special elections, which frequently give candidates only one or two days after the Governor has called the special election to complete these petitions. Furthermore, that problem (which is an old problem in California, for special elections) is compounded by the severe increase in the number of signatures in lieu of filing fee, caused by the Secretary of State’s interpretation of Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation.
In the past, candidates who are members of small qualified parties needed 150 signatures in lieu of a filing fee for any partisan office, but now they need 1,500 to run for Assembly. The case is Frederick v Bowen, 34-2011-80000773-cu-wm-gds. It will be heard by Judge Kinney in Sacramento Superior Court. Frederick wishes to run for the Assembly in the 4th district. A special election is being held there because the seat is vacant. It is vacant because Assemblymember Ted Gaines, who won that seat in November 2010, recently resigned because earlier this year he won a special election to the State Senate in the First District. That seat, in turn, had been vacant because State Senator Dave Cox had died on July 13, 2010, in the middle of his term.
On January 31, Peace & Freedom Party candidate Daniel Frederick filed a lawsuit in state court in Sacramento, contesting the interpretation and constitutionality of the California Secretary of State’s rules for candidates who choose to file a petition in lieu of a filing fee, rather than paying the filing fee. The lawsuit especially contests the rules for special elections, which frequently give candidates only one or two days after the Governor has called the special election to complete these petitions. Furthermore, that problem (which is an old problem in California, for special elections) is compounded by the severe increase in the number of signatures in lieu of filing fee, caused by the Secretary of State’s interpretation of Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation.
In the past, candidates who are members of small qualified parties needed 150 signatures in lieu of a filing fee for any partisan office, but now they need 1,500 to run for Assembly. The case is Frederick v Bowen, 34-2011-80000773-cu-wm-gds. It will be heard by Judge Kinney in Sacramento Superior Court. Frederick wishes to run for the Assembly in the 4th district. A special election is being held there because the seat is vacant. It is vacant because Assemblymember Ted Gaines, who won that seat in November 2010, recently resigned because earlier this year he won a special election to the State Senate in the First District. That seat, in turn, had been vacant because State Senator Dave Cox had died on July 13, 2010, in the middle of his term.
The pending federal lawsuit against New York state’s discriminatory policy on fusion is beginning to move ahead. The case is Credico v New York State Board of Elections, in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, cv10-4555. In 2010, Randy Credico was the U.S. Senate nominee of both the Libertarian Party, and the Anti-Prohibition Party. New York state refused to list him twice on the ballot, even though New York state listed many other candidates of the nominees of two, or three, or sometimes even four, parties. New York won’t list someone twice if he or she is the nominee of two unqualified parties.
On January 28, the state answered the complaint. The briefing should be complete by the end of March. The case had not moved in three months because the state had asked for, and received, more time to file its answer.
