The January 8 New York Times has this article about the court fight being waged in Idaho by the Republican Party, over who should be allowed to vote in Republican primaries. The story is misleading when it says that the Republican Party doesn’t want independents to be able to vote in the Republican primary. The party’s objection is to Democrats voting in its primary.
The Maryland petition deadline for a party that wishes to obtain, or regain, its qualified status is not until August 2012. However, parties that were on the ballot in 2010 had been told that if they want their registered members to continue to be registered in those parties, the deadline for submitting that petition was January 7, 2011. In other words, if the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties want their registered members to continue to be registered in those parties, those parties had to rush their 2012 petition.
Now, however, Maryland elections officials have postponed that deadline to March 7, 2011. This postponement will be of most use to the Constitution Party, if it wishes to take advantage of it. The Green and Libertarian Parties had already complied with the January 7, 2011 deadline. The petition requires 10,000 valid signatures.
St. Paul, Minnesota is getting ready to use Instant Runoff Voting for its own city elections. On January 5, a decision was made to design that ballot so that voters can rank as many as six candidates. See this story.
On January 5, five New York Assemblymembers introduced A582. It provides for Instant Runoff Voting in New York city partisan primaries, and repeals the existing provision that requires run-off primaries several weeks after the first primary, if no one gets at least 40% of the vote.
Also, seven New York State Senators have introduced S421, which would let any county or city use Instant Runoff Voting for its own local elections. The bill pertains to both general elections and partisan primaries.
The Third Circuit has tentatively set March 17 as the hearing date in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, et al v Cortes, 10-3205. This is the case that challenges the Pennsylvania system of subjecting petitioning groups and candidates to fees of up to $110,000 if they submit a petition that is found to lack enough valid signatures. The case also challenges the state’s failure to tally write-ins for most write-in candidates, the failure of some counties to count any write-ins, and the law that requires a party to hold registration membership of 15% of the state total, in order to be on the ballot without petitioning.
Here is the 21-page reply brief of the political parties, in response to the judicial defendants. This is the substantive brief, although it discusses only the first issue (the money issue). Here is the 9-page reply brief of the political parties, in response to the executive branch defendants. The U.S. District Court in this case refused to rule on any of the points, so the main thrust of these briefs is to ask the 3rd circuit to send the case back to the U.S. District Court. Most interesting is footnote one in the longer brief, which discusses the real consequences of Pennsylvania’s policy concerning fees.
