The California Secretary of State, for well over 100 years, has been publishing official election returns, in a booklet called “Statement of Votes.” These booklets always contain a chart showing historical data on turnout.

These booklets show that California voter turnout is always significantly higher in November general elections, than in primary elections. In the entire history of voter registration in California, over 50% of the registered voters have always turned out for regularly-scheduled general elections.

But no matter what kind of primary election system California has used in past decades, voter turnout in non-presidential primaries is always under 50% of the registered voters. One must go back to 1982 to find any non-presidential California primary election in which at least 50% of the registered voters voted. In June 1982, 52.7% of the registered voters voted.

Even when California used a blanket primary, in 1998, voter turnout in the June 1998 primary was only 42.5% of registered voters. It is true that turnout in the June 1998 primary was better than non-presidential primaries since then. But, California primaries since 1998 have always featured a Governor running for re-election. Generally, turnout in mid-term primaries is higher when there is no incumbent Governor running for re-election. Perhaps turnout in the June 2010 primary will be relatively high, because no incumbent Governor is running for re-election.

Turnout in November elections is always higher than turnout in June primaries because voter interest is always higher in election years in the fall, rather than in the spring. November elections are of heightened public interest, in California and in all states, because the entire nation is voting in November. The drama caused by the fact that all U.S. voters are voting nationwide on the same day, plus the higher stakes in November elections, guarantees that the fall campaign season will always be the high point of voter interest. Proposition 14, shutting all minor party, independent, and non-establishment campaigns out of the fall season, will significantly curtail the circulation of political ideas.

Connecticut HB 5021, which eliminates the discriminatory aspects of the state’s public funding for state candidates program, has already passed the Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee. It is now in the Office of Legislative Research and the Office of Fiscal Analysis, for improvement of the wording. It will emerge from those offices on March 30, and at that point will either return to the Joint Committee, or go straight to the House floor.

On March 25, the California Supreme Court issued a very narrow opinion in International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California v City of Los Angeles, S164272. This very old case, which is also pending in the 9th circuit, deals with whether the Society for Krishna Consciousness should be permitted to ask for donations at the Los Angeles Airport.

The California Supreme Court had been asked by the 9th circuit to decide whether the Los Angeles International Airport is a public forum under the California Constitution. But the California Supreme Court majority chose not to answer that question. Instead, it ruled that regardless of whether the airport is a public forum or not, the California Constitution does permit the airport to ban asking people for money at the airport. The majority said that prohibiting persons from soliciting the immediate receipt of funds at the airport is a narrowly tailored regulation of expressive activity, different from any broader ban on leafletting. In other words, soliciting funds causes bigger problems than other First Amendment activity, because soliciting funds requires willing persons to stop, fumble for and perhaps drop money; also soliciting funds can include the targeting of vulnerable and easily coerced persons, misrepresentation of the solicitor’s cause, and outright theft.

Cases involving public fora are of vital interest to groups that circulate petitions. Airports, of course, are almost completely useless for circulating petitions, because people at airports are generally not local residents and their signatures wouldn’t be valid. But a broad decision, saying that government-owned airports are not public fora, would have been a bad precedent for other government-owned places with a great deal of pedestrian traffic.

All seven justices agreed that the ban on soliciting funds is valid. One justice would have included in the opinion a conclusion that airports are public fora, and three justices wanted to include in the opinion a conclusion that airports are not public fora.