On the morning of May 10, KQED (the National Public Radio Station in San Francisco) held an hour-long discussion of California’s Proposition 14. The host was Michael Krasny. The first 12 minutes consist of an interview with political scientist Eric McGhee. The remaining 48 minutes is the debate between California’s Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, who sponsored the bill that put Proposition 14 on the ballot, and Richard Winger.
According to this news story, New Mexico Secretary of State Mary Herrera has appointed three members to a commission to plan new regulations for election procedures. One of the three is a Republican, one is a Democrat, and one is a Green.
The problem with New Mexico is not the election regulations, but the election law itself. Ironically, the New Mexico Green Party is not ballot-qualified, even though it had a candidate in a partisan election in November 2008 who carried two counties, Santa Fe and Los Alamos. That Green Party nominee polled 43.69% of the vote for Public Regulation Commission in a two-person race with a Democrat. The Green Party meets the registration test to be a major party, and it meets the vote test to be a major party. But it still isn’t recognized, because a major party can’t be recognized unless it also meets the definition of a political party, and that means a group whose presidential candidate polled at least one-half of 1% for President or Governor, whichever was most recent. A lawsuit against that aspect of the law is pending in U.S. District Court.
KQED-FM (88.1) will air a live debate of California’s Proposition 14 at 10am Pacific Time today (May 10). It is also available on 89.3 in Sacramento.
You can LISTEN LIVE on the Internet.
The show lasts one hour and call-ins are accepted in the second half. The call-in number is 866-733-6786.
Elena Kagan, President Obama’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, has never been a judge. Therefore, we don’t know for certain anything about her views on ballot access.
But, she clerked for Judge Abner Mikva, and also U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Both were very good judges who cared about justice for minor parties and independent candidates. Judge Mikva was on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit never hears ballot access cases, but it does hear cases on presidential debates. In 1991, Mikva cast a very favorable vote in Fulani v Brady, a case concerning the Commission on Presidential Debates. Fulani lost the case by a 2-1 vote, but Mikva dissented. The plaintiff was Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party. She had been that party’s presidential nominee in 1988, the year she filed the lawsuit. She had been on the ballot in all 50 states, yet the Commission on Presidential Debates refused to include her in the general election presidential debates. She sued the U.S. government, arguing that the Commission should not enjoy tax-exempt status, since it was not neutral, but was instead making a very large boost for the two candidates who were invited into the debate, Michael Dukakis and George H. W. Bush.
Justice Thurgood Marshall cast votes favorable to ballot access in almost every ballot access case he heard. Kagan was his law clerk in the 1987-1988 term.
Scotusblog has an article about Kagan, but of course it doesn’t discuss ballot access or any other election law issue except campaign finance. Kagan has been the Solicitor General, so her job required her to defend the McCain-Feingold law last year.
According to this story, the latest neutral poll in the Florida U.S. Senate race, the Mason-Dixon Poll released May 6, shows these results: independent Charlie Crist 38%, Republican Marco Rubio 32%, likely Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek 19%, undecided and other 11%.
