On September 23, the U.S. House of Representatives Administration Committee passed HR6116, the bill to provide public funding for candidates for U.S. House.  Candidates who raise at least $50,000 from voters in their state (not their district) qualify.  They receive four times as much in public funding as they had raised in qualifying contributions.  To qualify, they must receive contributions from 1,500 people.  These contributions range from $5 to $100.  Amounts over $100 can be received but don’t count toward qualifying.  If 1,500 is a larger number than one-fourth of 1% of the voting age population of a state, then the number of qualifying contributions needed declines to one-fourth of 1% of the voting age population.  That latter provision makes it somewhat easier for a Wyoming resident to qualify.

The vote was 5-2, with one abstention.   Three Republicans are on the committee, but one was not present.  The other two Republicans voted against the bill.  Five Democrats on the Committee voted “Yes”.  Artur Davis, a Democrat from Alabama, abstained, although before the vote was cast, he spoke against the bill.   Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the news that the bill had passed the Committee, and thanks to Bill Maurer and Susan Anderson for the vote breakdown.  The vote was a voice vote and the Committee did not make a record of who voted how.

The bill, if passed, would take effect on January 1, 2011.  Whether it passes or not, it is legally and politically significant that the bill does not discriminate for or against any candidate based on that candidate’s party affiliation, or lack of party affiliation.  This will probably be relevant when the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to review Connecticut’s public funding system, which is highly discriminatory against independent candidates.

An almost identical bill, introduced last year, is HR 1826.  HR 6116 was introduced on September 14, 2010, and copied the contents of HR 1826 to a large degree.  The bill doesn’t include provisions for U.S. Senate candidates, because it is traditional in Congress that bills that affect members of one house should originate in that particular house.

A SurveyUSA poll of the California gubernatorial race, released September 22, shows these results:  Democrat Jerry Brown 46%; Republican Meg Whitman 43%; “other” 8%; undecided 3%.  The other candidates on the ballot are the nominees of the American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.  The poll shows that 11% of the independents, and 9% of the Republicans, are for “other”, whereas only 5% of the Democrats are for “other.”

A Field Poll released on September 23 lumps “other” and “undecided” into the same category, which is not helpful.  It shows “undecided/other” at 18%.  Brown and Whitman in this poll are each at 41%.

California press has been slow to cover any of the four ballot-listed minor party candidates.  Even Chelene Nightingale’s 190-mile trek up the San Joaquin Valley did not get covered in any daily newspaper, even though it was covered in alternate sources.  See here.  Thanks toIndependentPoliticalReport for that link.  UPDATE:  apparently the walk did get covered in some daily newspapers; thanks to Gary Odom’s comment for the correction.

On September 21, the 9th circuit held oral arguments in Farrakhan v Gregoire, 06-35669.  This was an en banc rehearing with eleven judges participating.  This article seems to feel the decision could go either way.  The issue is whether the federal Voting Rights Act can ever be used to overcome a state’s ban on ex-felons and felons voting.

The same issue is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case from Massachusetts called Simmons v Galvin.  The U.S. Supreme Court may wait for the 9th circuit opinion before it decides whether to hear the Massachusetts case.  If the en banc panel of the 9th circuit reaffirms the earlier decision of that circuit’s 3-judge panel, then there will be a split in the circuits.  The Massachusetts decision had been 2-1 against the idea that the Voting Rights Act can be used against state laws on ex-felon and felon voting.