Activists from Californians for Electoral Reform, and also others, are seeking a California legislator to introduce a bill to lower the number of signatures needed for a statewide independent candidate. Assemblyman Mike Eng already asked the Legislative Counsel to draft such a bill, so that any legislator is free to introduce it before the February 19, 2010, deadline. If you have any connection with any California legislator, please ask for such a bill. The legislative counsel analysis is RN 10 03536.

The existing statewide independent candidate petition requirement, 173,041 signatures, is unjust. No independent petition in U.S. history has ever overcome a requirement greater than 134,781 signatures. The proposed bill caps the statewide California requirement at 50,000. Other than North Carolina, California is the only state in 2010 that requires as many signatures as 50,000. In 1973 the California legislature appointed an elite commission to study the election laws, and that committee recommended 10,000 signatures for statewide nominees. The commission was headed by the President of the League of Women Voters of California and the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County. The legislature never acted on that recommendation.

On February 10, the 11th circuit ruled 3-0 that it is constitutional for Alabama to require more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House than for an independent presidential candidate. Here is the opinion, which is only 5 pages.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1979 and again in 1992 that states cannot require more signatures to get on the ballot for an office in just part of the state, than in the entire state. The 11th circuit did not even mention the 1992 precedent, Norman v Reed. The 11th circuit merely repeated the U.S. District Court’s earlier assertion that the 1979 precedent only applies when the comparison is between a statewide office and a municipal office. That assertion is contradicted by the 1992 precedent, Norman v Reed, the unmentioned precedent.

Norman v Reed said that when ballot access laws are discriminatory, they can only be upheld if there is a compelling reason for those laws to exist. The 11th circuit, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court, did not mention the compelling interest test. The 11th circuit depends on a precedent, Swanson v Worley, which upheld Alabama’s law requiring more signatures for independent candidates for one type of statewide office, relative to another statewide office. The Swanson case did not apply the compelling interest test.

Alabama is the only state in which independent candidates for U.S. House ever need more signatures than independent candidates for president. In the recent past, Iowa had required more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House than an independent candidate for president, but the Iowa law was overturned in federal court in 1992.

COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) had been sponsoring this lawsuit. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will cost several thousand dollars. COFOE appreciated the people who have already donated toward this case, and hopes that additional donations will be sent. Checks to COFOE can be mailed to P.O. Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.

The Seminole Chronicle has this story, saying that because two Florida Libertarians have both announced an intention to file for the same legislative seat, election officials will conduct a Libertarian Party primary (in that district only) in 2010. The newspaper says this will be the first minor party primary in Florida history.

The claim is probably correct. Florida started giving primaries to parties in 1913, but only if the party had polled 5% of the vote for any statewide race in the last gubernatorial election. The Socialist Party, the Progressive Party, and the Prohibition Party, were each entitled to their own primaries for a few years, but it is very unlikely they had primaries, because they were only held if there were any contests. Minor parties in Florida had very few candidates, even in their strong decade in the 1910’s. In 1921 Florida changed the law to say that only parties that had polled 30% were entitled to a primary. In 1937 it changed that to 15%, and in 1939 it changed it again, to cover only parties with registration membership of at least 5% of the state total. But, in 2007, the legislature changed the law again, to say that any qualified party may have a primary if it has a contest. There have been no minor party primary contests since 2007.