The New York Times print edition of April 20 has this short article mentioning the April 19 decision of a U.S. District Court that Idaho’s ballot access law for independent presidential candidates is unconstitutional. Normally when lower courts invalidate ballot access laws outside of New York state, that newspaper does not mention such decisions. The version of the story carried by the Times was written by the Associated Press, and it appears on A13 of the National edition.
On April 19, the San Leandro, California, city council voted 5-2 to use Instant Runoff Voting this year. That makes three cities in Alameda County who will be using it this year for city elections. The other two are Berkeley and Oakland.
This New York Times editorial urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the Republican Party’s lawsuit against the parts of the McCain-Feingold law that restrict how much money an individual may give to a national political party.
The case is Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission. A 3-judge U.S. District Court upheld the limits on March 26. Lawsuits challenging any part of the McCain-Feingold law go directly from a 3-judge U.S. District Court, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Republican Party is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Editorials in major newspapers on this subject never seem to comment on the effect of the ban on minor parties. Currently, the state of the law is that new political parties may receive unrestricted donations from individuals, but already-established minor parties that have “national committee” status from the FEC are subject to the limits. If the purpose of the limits is to prevent wealthy individuals from indirectly bribing members of Congress, and the President, by the device of contributing large sums of money to the major parties, one wonders what is the state rationale for limiting donations to parties that have never elected a member of Congress.
Hawaii’s legislature seems to be having a tough time making up its mind about whether to move the primary from September to August. The bill making this move has passed both houses of the legislature, but the Senate version says the bill doesn’t take effect until 2050 (this is not a typo).
The bill has been discussed in two conference committees, on April 15 and again on April 19, but the conference committee still hasn’t resolved the final version of the bill. The conference committee will try again on April 20. UPDATE: now the committee will meet on April 21.
On Tuesday, April 20, at 1:30 p.m., the California Senate Elections Committee will hear SB 1346, which allows the use of Instant Runoff Voting in special partisan elections for U.S. House and state legislature. The hearing is in room 3191 in the State Capitol.
An identical bill in the Assembly, AB 2732, was going to be heard at virtually the same hour in the Assembly Elections Committee, but the Assembly Committee hearing on that bill has been canceled so that all witnesses can appear at the Senate hearing. The Secretary of State supports the bill. The bill, if enacted, would only apply if all the counties involved in any particular special election are willing to use IRV. Use of IRV would convert these special elections into one-round elections. Currently, most special elections in California require two rounds, using blanket primary rules. The second round only occurs if no one gets 50% in the first round, and includes the top vote-getter from each party. Generally, when there is no incumbent (and special elections never have incumbents), no one gets 50% in the first round.
