On February 11, the California Assembly voted 37-35 to confirm Senator Abel Maldonado to be Lieutenant Governor. See this story. Republicans say he is now confirmed; Democrats say he is not because he didn’t receive as many as 41 “aye” votes.
Reply
Proposition 14, on the California June 2010, proposes a top-two open primary. Several county elections officials have recently been asked to estimate whether, if passed, the measure would increase costs to taxpayers. San Diego County estimates an additional cost per election of $.75 per voter, and Sacramento County estimates an additional cost of $1.85 per voter.
One reason the costs will increase is that the counties would still need to print up separate primary ballots, intended only for members of each party, for county central committee elections. Another cost is that the implementing measure requires that each primary ballot have at the top, “Voter-Nominated and Nonpartisan Offices” in 24-point boldface gothic capital type. Then, in smaller type, the ballots must say, “All voters, regardless of the party preference they disclosed upon registration, or refusal to disclose a party preference, may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated or nonpartisan office. Voter-Nominated Offices. The party preference, if any, designated by a candidate for a voter-nominated office is selected by the candidate and is shown for the information of the voters only. It does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the candidate by the party indicated, and no candidate nominated by the qualified voters for any voter-nominated office shall be deemed to be the officially nominated candidate of any political party. Nonpartisan Offices. A candidate for a nonpartisan office may not designate a party preference on the ballot.”
This verbiage must appear on each ballot card. It is so lengthy, it will require the counties to print more ballot cards than they would have otherwise. Also, each candidate may have next to his or her name, “My party preference is the ____ Party,” as well as the candidate’s occupation (California ballots already show the occupation of each candidate). In some counties these must be printed in multiple languages.
Activists from Californians for Electoral Reform, and also others, are seeking a California legislator to introduce a bill to lower the number of signatures needed for a statewide independent candidate. Assemblyman Mike Eng already asked the Legislative Counsel to draft such a bill, so that any legislator is free to introduce it before the February 19, 2010, deadline. If you have any connection with any California legislator, please ask for such a bill. The legislative counsel analysis is RN 10 03536.
The existing statewide independent candidate petition requirement, 173,041 signatures, is unjust. No independent petition in U.S. history has ever overcome a requirement greater than 134,781 signatures. The proposed bill caps the statewide California requirement at 50,000. Other than North Carolina, California is the only state in 2010 that requires as many signatures as 50,000. In 1973 the California legislature appointed an elite commission to study the election laws, and that committee recommended 10,000 signatures for statewide nominees. The commission was headed by the President of the League of Women Voters of California and the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County. The legislature never acted on that recommendation.
On January 30, a cert petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Simmons v Galvin, 09-920. The issue is whether the federal Voting Rights Act was meant to apply to state laws that make it illegal for ex-felons or felons to register to vote. Here is the cert petition. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The case is from Massachusetts. The vote in Simmons v Galvin had been 2-1, when that case was in the First Circuit. The majority had ruled that Congress never meant the Voting Rights Act to apply to that issue. Another issue in Simmons v Galvin is whether Massachusetts violated the ex post facto part of the U.S. Constitution in 2000, when it changed its policy and banned felons from voting. The case argues that Massachusetts cannot do that retroactively. That all hinges on whether disenfranchisement is considered “punishment.”
On February 10, the 11th circuit ruled 3-0 that it is constitutional for Alabama to require more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House than for an independent presidential candidate. Here is the opinion, which is only 5 pages.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1979 and again in 1992 that states cannot require more signatures to get on the ballot for an office in just part of the state, than in the entire state. The 11th circuit did not even mention the 1992 precedent, Norman v Reed. The 11th circuit merely repeated the U.S. District Court’s earlier assertion that the 1979 precedent only applies when the comparison is between a statewide office and a municipal office. That assertion is contradicted by the 1992 precedent, Norman v Reed, the unmentioned precedent.
Norman v Reed said that when ballot access laws are discriminatory, they can only be upheld if there is a compelling reason for those laws to exist. The 11th circuit, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court, did not mention the compelling interest test. The 11th circuit depends on a precedent, Swanson v Worley, which upheld Alabama’s law requiring more signatures for independent candidates for one type of statewide office, relative to another statewide office. The Swanson case did not apply the compelling interest test.
Alabama is the only state in which independent candidates for U.S. House ever need more signatures than independent candidates for president. In the recent past, Iowa had required more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House than an independent candidate for president, but the Iowa law was overturned in federal court in 1992.
COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) had been sponsoring this lawsuit. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will cost several thousand dollars. COFOE appreciated the people who have already donated toward this case, and hopes that additional donations will be sent. Checks to COFOE can be mailed to P.O. Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.