On June 4, U.S. District Court Judge David G. Larimer issued an opinion in Fox v Paterson, 10-cv-6240L. The case concerns whether New York must hold a special election to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 29th district. The seat has been empty since March 2010.

The judge ruled that the U.S. Constitution gives Governors a great deal of latitude in when to call special U.S. House elections. Therefore, the Governor must arrange for a special election that will be no later than November 2, 2010. The Governor had already promised to do that, so the outcome is a victory for the state. The Governor had said it would cost too much to hold the special election any sooner, and that furthermore some of the counties in the 29th district are in the process of buying new vote-counting machines and that process can’t be finished any sooner than November 2.

It seems odd that neither the Governor, nor the court, decided to hold the special election on September 14, when the entire state is holding primary elections.

The Los Angeles Times has this op-ed, criticizing California’s Proposition 14, written by Mike Feinstein, Green Party leader and former Mayor of Santa Monica.

This is not in the print version of the Los Angeles Times, but is on the web. This is the first content in that newspaper that is critical of Proposition 14, since February 2009. Back in February 2009, virtually no one was aware of the measure. Meanwhile, virtually every news article in the Times has been heavily slanted in favor of Proposition 14; the newspaper has editorialized several times in favor of Proposition 14; and the newspaper has run op-eds in favor of Proposition 14.

A California Superior Court in Fairfield, Solano County, will hold a hearing on Tuesday morning on June 8, in King v Robinson, 033119. This is the lawsuit filed in March 2009 over the identity of the state officers of the American Independent Party. The activists in that party who support the national Constitution Party are seeking an injunction to prevent the other side from holding the party’s state convention until after the results of the June 8 primary are known.

California is one of the states in which primary elections help determine who a party’s officers are. In the code section covering the American Independent Party, the law says the party’s nominees for public office are automatically on the state central committee. Also, those nominees for public office may appoint other members to the State Central Committee. The AIP legal structure also provides for election of county central committees, but county central committee members are not automatically on the state central committee, as they are for California’s other ballot-qualified minor parties.