Rhode Island State Senator Lou Raptakis (D-Coventry) is preparing a bill to outlaw closed primaries. Currently independent voters in Rhode Island can vote in any party’s primary, and independents in Rhode Island vastly outnumber registered Republicans. The Republican Party leadership is considering excluding independent voters from its primaries. See this story. Raptakis is running for Secretary of State.
Several New York newspapers have reported that much of the money that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg contributed to the statewide Independence Party was really intended for a Republican Party official in Queens. So the Mayor contributed $1,200,000 to the Independence Party statewide office, but then the state office of the Independence Party gave $750,000 to the Republican and his group. See this story. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
The U.S. House seat for Virginia’s 5th district is normally a Republican seat, but a Democrat won there in 2008. There are seven announced Republicans seeking the Republican Party nomination, although some of them apparently are mulling over ruinning as independent candidates. This newspaper story explains the Virginia law relative to independent candidates who had run in party primaries. Apparently, if someone declares for the primary, and then withdraws, he or she is then free to file as an independent candidate.
California’s Constitution, ever since 1879, has said, “A person is ineligible to be a member of the Legislature unless the person is an elector and has been a resident of the legislative district for one year, and a citizen of the United States and a resident of California for three years, immediately preceding the election.” Article 4, section 2.
Ever since the 1970’s, California elections officials have not enforced that provision of the Constitution. The Secretary of State at the time ruled that the California Constitutional provision violates the U.S. Constitution.
However, the California Secretary of State’s old ruling is probably erroneous. In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Clements v Fashing that there is no U.S. Constitutional right to be a candidate for public office. Also, on March 3, 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed a U.S. District Court 3-judge decision that upheld a New Hampshire Constitutional requirement, that no one could run for State Senate in New Hampshire who had not been a resident of the state for 7 years. Sununu v Stark, 383 F.Supp. 1287 (1974), affirmed, 420 U.S. 958.
The California Supreme Court had ruled on October 27, 1975, in Johnson v Hamilton, that the U.S. Constitution prohibits duration of residency requirements for candidates, but that decision is probably no longer good law. Federal courts since then have almost unanimously upheld duration of residency requirements for candidates.
In any event, the California Supreme Court decision Johnson v Hamilton didn’t deal with residency requirements for legislative candidates. Instead it struck down a Long Beach charter provision that candidates for city council must have lived in the city for one year, and in the district for six months, before filing for office. There are no reported decisions in California on residency requirements for state legislative candidates in non-redistricting years.
On February 2, a Republican candidate for State Senate in California’s 14th district filed a lawsuit, asking that the Secretary of State be compelled to enforce the California Constitution’s residency requirement. The case was filed by Heidi Fuller, who wants a decision that one of her Republican opponents, Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, is not eligible to run. Berryhill moved into the district late last year, less than one year before the November 2010 election. The lawsuit is now pending in the State Court of Appeals. It is called Fuller v Bowen, C064080. Here is the brief.
The Daily Herald, which circulates in the Chicago suburbs, has this editorial, criticizing an Illinois law that says the vote-counting machines must give a loud signal if a voter abstains in any race. A lawsuit is currently pending against that law, which is unique to Illinois.
