Illinois Bill Introduced to Ease Independent Candidate Petitions

Posted on by February 19, 2010
Reply

Illinois Representative Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) has introduced HB 6214. It significantly cuts the number of signatures needed by independent candidates, but it makes their petition deadlines worse.

Existing law requires independent candidate petitions to be submitted by late June of an election year. Statewide independents need 25,000 signatures. District and county independents need signatures of 5% of the last vote cast. The bill lowers the number of signatures to the same number of signatures needed by candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot, so that would be 5,000 signatures for statewide office, and approximately 600 signatures for U.S. House.

Unfortunately, the bill changes the deadline to 75 days after the primary, which would be mid-April. That deadline would be unconstitutional for presidential independents.

Both Houses of South Carolina Legislature Have Now Passed Primary Screen-Out

Posted on by February 19, 2010
Reply

Both houses of the South Carolina legislature have now passed bills that make it more difficult for independent candidates to get on the ballot. However, the versions in each house are significantly different.

The House bill, HB 3746, is worse. It does not reduce the number of signatures, and it imposes three crippling restrictions: (1) no one could sign who had voted in the primary, or who will vote in a future primary that year; (2) newly-registered voters could not sign; (3) no one could sign for two independent candidates running for the same office.

The Senate bill, SB 590, is the same as the House bill, except it at least reduces the number of signatures. Statewide and U.S. House petitions would go from 10,000 signatures to 4,000 signatures; legislative candidates would go from 5% of the number of registered voters, to 3%. The Senate bill passed the Senate on February 3.

The part of the bills that says newly-registered voters cannot sign would be unconstitutional, under a U.S. Supreme Court summary affirmance from 1970, Socialist Workers Party v Rockefeller. The primary screenout would almost surely be unconstitutional if the number of signatures is not reduced. Even with no primary screenout, no independent candidate for either house of Congress has ever qualified for a government-printed ballot in South Carolina. In Storer v Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a 5% (of the last vote cast) petition, combined with a primary screenout, is probably unconstitutional, and the way to settle the matter is to see how often any candidate has been able to get on the ballot.

West Virginia Democratic Legislators Want to Regain Top Spot on November Ballots

Posted on by February 19, 2010
Reply

West Virginia lists parties on the ballot in order of how well they did for President in the last presidential election. Republicans have carried West Virginia in each of the last three presidential elections, so Republicans in recent years have had the top spot on the ballot. Ten Democratic Representatives have recently introduced HB 4137, which says parties should be on the ballot in order of how many registered voters they have. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans almost 2:1 in West Virginia.

A better bill would provide for either rotation, or random selection.

Bills to Eliminate Straight-Ticket Device Introduced in Rhode Island, West Virginia

Posted on by February 19, 2010
4

Bills to abolish the straight-ticket device have been introduced recently in Rhode Island and West Virginia. A straight-ticket device lets a voter cast a ballot for all partisan offices on the ballot without even looking to see who is running. The voter simply makes a single mark to cast a vote for every nominee of one particular party for all offices.

The Rhode Island bills are SB 2310 and HB 7482. The Senate bill is sponsored by three Republicans, one Democrat, and one Independent The House bill is sponsored by four Democrats and one Republican.

The West Virginia bill is HB 2974, by Delegate Troy Andes (R-Hurricane).

There are also three Oklahoma bills to abolish the straight-ticket device, but they were introduced in 2009. They are still alive because Oklahoma has two-year sessions.

California Bills Introduced to use Instant Runoff Voting in Special Congressional and Legislative Elections

Posted on by February 19, 2010
Reply

California Senator Loni Hancock and Assemblymember Mike Eng have introduced bills to let counties use Instant Runoff Voting for special elections for U.S. House and state legislature. If these bills pass, they would save money for election administrators. Almost all California special elections for those offices require two rounds of voting. Although the existing law says there should be only one round when someone gets at least 50%, it is very rare for anyone in the first round of a special election to get 50%. Virtually by definition, there is no incumbent in a special election, so it is rare for anyone to get a majority in the first round.

If the U.S. House district, or the state legislative district, is in two counties, then both counties would need to agree to use Instant Runoff Voting. The bills are AB 2732 and SB 1346 They are the first bills in California to provide for Instant Runoff Voting in partisan elections. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for the bill numbers.