On January 30, a cert petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Simmons v Galvin, 09-920. The issue is whether the federal Voting Rights Act was meant to apply to state laws that make it illegal for ex-felons or felons to register to vote. Here is the cert petition. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The case is from Massachusetts. The vote in Simmons v Galvin had been 2-1, when that case was in the First Circuit. The majority had ruled that Congress never meant the Voting Rights Act to apply to that issue. Another issue in Simmons v Galvin is whether Massachusetts violated the ex post facto part of the U.S. Constitution in 2000, when it changed its policy and banned felons from voting. The case argues that Massachusetts cannot do that retroactively. That all hinges on whether disenfranchisement is considered “punishment.”

South Carolina has a very easy requirement for a ballot-qualified party to remain on the ballot. It must merely run at least one candidate for any partisan office, at least once every other election year. The Independence Party of South Carolina recently nominated a candidate for the U.S. House, First District, insuring that it will remain ballot-qualified through 2014.

The candidate is Jimmy Wood. See this story in the Post and Courier, Charleston’s daily newspaper.

The Independence Party did not have any nominees for any public office in 2008. If it had not nominated anyone this year, it would have been disqualified. The party was once the Reform Party in South Carolina. South Carolina lets parties change their names. In 2004 the party had changed its name to Independence and had run Ralph Nader for President. This will be its first candidate for U.S. House since 2000. Thanks to Dave Gillespie for the link.

On February 10, the Public Policy Institute of California issued this 17-page analysis of whether California’s top-two open primary, Proposition 14, would create more moderate elected office-holders. The PPIC was created in 1994 by a bequest from William Hewlett (of Hewlett-Packard fame) to conduct research on California’s economic, social and political issues. It is non-partisan and non-profit. This PPIC Report is authored by Political Scientist Eric McGhee. The report also contains a 47-page appendix, presenting the data about primary system effect on whether politicians become more moderate or not.

The conclusion, on page 12, says, “In short, the top-two vote getters primary would probably have a noticeable but modest effect on voting and representation in California. Crossover voting rates could be high, but perhaps in only a handful of races. Moderates might benefit, but only slightly more often than under the current system.”

McGhee will speak about his report in Sacramento, at noon, February 23, at 1020 11th Street, in the offices of the PPIC. His report generally draws conclusions from California’s blanket primary experience in 1998 and 2000, with some research from Washington and Louisiana, the only two states that have used the top-two system.

McGhee has said verbally that his report is not a legal analysis, that it is only to consider the subject of whether it is true that Proposition 14 would create more moderate office-holders. However, his report does make a few legal observations, some of which are not correct. On page 6 he writes, “The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this reform.” Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court only upheld the idea on its face, not as applied. Furthermore, the Court only upheld it facially against the charge that the measure violates the freedom of association of political parties. The Court specifically said it was making no judgment about the trademark and ballot access issues. Because the U.S. Supreme Court did not finish the case, it is still pending in U.S. District Court in Washington state.

McGhee also says, also on page 6, “The drafters of California’s TTVG initiative have copied the Washington laws in virtually every respect.” That sentence is not accurate. Washington does not have registration by party, but California’s Proposition 14 not only retains registration by party, it depends on it to determine ballot labels. Washington does not limit any candidate’s choice of party label (except that the label must be no longer than 15 characters and must not be obscene), but California won’t permit labels other than the names of qualified parties.

Also, Washington state will count write-ins in November, but the implementing language for California’s Proposition 14 says they can’t be counted in November, for Congress and state office.

The The Los Angeles Times column includes the L.A. Times’ columnist’s own claim that Proposition 14 would not exclude minor parties from the general election, presented to suggest that such an idea comes from the report. The report did not discuss that subject. Furthermore, the blanket primary data strongly rebuts the idea that minor parties would ever place first or second in the first round.

KQED has this description of the report.