The Burlington, Vermont Free Press has this news report about a legislative committee hearing on a bill to move the Vermont non-presidential primary from September to August. There are apparently alternatives to moving the primary to an earlier date, despite a new federal law that says overseas absentee ballots must be mailed no later than 45 days before an election.
The election of Republican Scott P. Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts on January 19 has been big news all week. Brown, and his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, were each nominated by their parties in primaries on December 8, 2009.
The Democratic primary results in December 2009 were: Martha Coakley 311,548; Michael Capuano 185,157; Alan Khazei 89,294; Stephen Pagliuca 80,217; write-ins 1,800.
The Republican primary results were: Scott P. Brown 146,057; Jack E. Robinson 17,344.
Massachusetts independent voters may vote in any party’s primary. Over half the Massachusetts voters are registered independents. All four of the Democrats running in the primary had significant support. Martha Coakley is the state Attorney General and had the highest name recognition of the four candidates. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Congressman Michael Capuano and donated $10,000 to his campaign. The Boston Globe endorsed philanthropist Alan Khazei. The fourth Democrat, Stephen Pagliuca, was a well-funded financier and co-owner of the Boston Celtics.
Consequently, it isn’t surprising that two of the Democrats each received higher vote totals than the man who won the Republican primary, State Senator Scott P. Brown. This suggests, but does not prove, that if Massachusetts had been using a “top-two open primary” system, the two candidates in the final round would have been Coakley and Capuano, and Scott Brown (the actual winner in the real world) would have washed out in the first round.
It is true that registered Democrats in Massachusetts had no choice but to vote in the Democratic primary, if they voted in the primary. But registered Democrats were free to cast a write-in vote for Scott Brown, and undoubtably some of them did. However, only 1,800 write-in votes were cast in the Democratic primary, so it isn’t likely that many Democrats did vote for Brown. As noted above, registered independents were free to vote in either the Democratic primary, or the Republican primary, so any independent would have been free to choose a Republican primary ballot and vote for Brown. Yet, he was not one of the top two vote-getters in the primary.
The election of Republican Scott P. Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts on January 19 has been big news all week. Brown, and his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, were each nominated by their parties in primaries on December 8, 2009.
The Democratic primary results in December 2009 were: Martha Coakley 311,548; Michael Capuano 185,157; Alan Khazei 89,294; Stephen Pagliuca 80,217; write-ins 1,800.
The Republican primary results were: Scott P. Brown 146,057; Jack E. Robinson 17,344.
Massachusetts independent voters may vote in any party’s primary. Over half the Massachusetts voters are registered independents. All four of the Democrats running in the primary had significant support. Martha Coakley is the state Attorney General and had the highest name recognition of the four candidates. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Congressman Michael Capuano and donated $10,000 to his campaign. The Boston Globe endorsed philanthropist Alan Khazei. The fourth Democrat, Stephen Pagliuca, was a well-funded financier and co-owner of the Boston Celtics.
Consequently, it isn’t surprising that two of the Democrats each received higher vote totals than the man who won the Republican primary, State Senator Scott P. Brown. This suggests, but does not prove, that if Massachusetts had been using a “top-two open primary” system, the two candidates in the final round would have been Coakley and Capuano, and Scott Brown (the actual winner in the real world) would have washed out in the first round.
It is true that registered Democrats in Massachusetts had no choice but to vote in the Democratic primary, if they voted in the primary. But registered Democrats were free to cast a write-in vote for Scott Brown, and undoubtably some of them did. However, only 1,800 write-in votes were cast in the Democratic primary, so it isn’t likely that many Democrats did vote for Brown. As noted above, registered independents were free to vote in either the Democratic primary, or the Republican primary, so any independent would have been free to choose a Republican primary ballot and vote for Brown. Yet, he was not one of the top two vote-getters in the primary.
On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th circuit, ruled that the lawsuit Libertarian Party v Dardenne is moot. Therefore, the court declined to express an opinion about the merits of the case. The issue was whether the Louisiana Secretary of State was right or wrong to keep the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate off the ballot in 2008, on the basis that its paperwork for presidential elector candidates was late.
The decision is only 6 pages long. It is somewhat surprising, because on December 18, a different panel of judges in the 5th circuit had ruled that Brian Moore’s ballot access case against Mississippi is not moot. That case concerned whether the Socialist Party presidential candidate should have been on the Mississippi ballot in 2008. He was kept off because his paperwork arrived ten minutes too late.
The new Louisiana decision says that the reason the Mississippi case is not moot, and the Louisiana case is moot, is because in Mississippi, the Secretary of State has said he will in the future continue to enforce a 5 p.m. deadline. The new Louisiana decision says that Louisiana is different, because the Louisiana Secretary of State has not said what he will do in the future, should severe weather make it difficult for the paperwork to be filed on time. Oddly, though, the Louisiana situation is far more likely to recur than the Mississippi situation. In Louisiana in 2008, three presidential candidates were kept off the ballot for being late with paperwork (the Libertarian, the Reform, and the Socialist Party presidential candidates).
The new Louisiana decision’s logic also seems faulty because the Constitutional issue of whether only legislatures can pass laws relating to ballot access for presidential elections is an important issue that certainly will recur in some state, if not Louisiana. Article II of the Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of (Presidential) Electors.” The issue of whether state executive officials, such as a Secretary of State, may also issue regulations relating to presidential candidate ballot access is a significant issue. It came up in Bush v Gore in 2000. It came up in Ohio in 2008, and is pending in Pennsylvania. It is an issue in Louisiana because the Secretary of State himself extended the deadline so as to include the Democratic and Republican Parties, but his extension was shorter than the deadline extension issued by the Governor.
It is expected that the Libertarian Party will ask the entire 5th circuit to rehear the conclusion that its lawsuit is moot.
As noted earlier, on January 14, U.S. District Court Roslyn Silver, a Clinton appointee, had issued a tentative opinion holding that part of the Arizona public funding program is probably unconstitutional. On January 20 the judge issued a final opinion. She said that the unconstitutional part of the law cannot be severed from the main part of the public funding program, so she issued an injunction against the entire program for 2010. Here is the new decision. It is the same as the old, tentative opinion, except new material is added starting on page 18.
However, she stayed her own injunction, to give the state an opportunity to ask the 9th circuit to weigh in. It is possible the 9th circuit will maintain the stay. If the 9th circuit does not do so within 10 days, then the stay will be lifted, and the program can’t be in effect in 2010.
The part of the public funding law that is unconstitutional is the part that gives extra public funding to candidates who have opponents who are not using public funding and who raise a large amount of private money. In other words, public funding is fine if it gives every participating candidate public money, in accordance with a neutral formula that treats all candidates alike. But once the public program starts giving extra amounts of money because of some characteristics of the opponents of the publicly-funded candidate, that is not constitutional. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link to the new decision.
