The January 8 issue of the Glenwood, Colorado Post Independent has this editorial in support of a bill in the Colorado legislature to ease the prior disaffiliation law for independent candidate ballot access. Colorado does not let an independent candidate on the ballot if he or she has been a registered member of a qualified party at any time in the 17 months before the general election. Thanks to Nancy Hanks of The Hankster for the link.
The Denver Post had a similar editorial a few days ago.
Several Washington state representatives have introduced HB 2418, which says that every initiative and referendum petition sheet must say at the top, “Signature petitions are public documents. By signing this document, your name, address, and signature may be released as part of a public records request.”
The bill’s authors didn’t include petitions to put minor party or independent presidential candidates on the November ballot in the scope of their bill. However, it is already existing policy in Washington state that all petitions are public records. It seems somewhat inconsistent that the bill includes some types of petitions, but not other types.
If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case Doe v Reed and then issues an opinion that petitions signers are entitled to secrecy, then the bill will be meaningless.
On January 7, the Florida Whig Party announced that it now has five candidates for U.S. House in 2010. The newly-announced candidates are Stephen J. Bacon in the 7th district, and Craig Porter in the 25th district. Previously announced candidates are Paul McKain in the 2nd district, John Annarumma in the 3rd district, and Clayton Schock in the 20th district.
This blog does not routinely mention instances when a minor party announces a list of candidates, but this Florida news is exceptional. Florida and Georgia are the only states in which, at no time since the 1930’s, has there ever been an election in which at least half of that state’s U.S. House seats had minor party or independent candidates on the ballot. Florida and Georgia, in other words, are the only states in which over half the voters have never seen a minor party or independent candidate on their ballot for U.S. House.
Even though Florida abolished mandatory petitions for minor party and independent candidates in 1999, minor parties in Florida have been slow to take advantage of the freedom to run candidates for Congress. No minor party has had more than two candidates in any one year, in Florida, for U.S. House, since the 1999 liberalization. This is partly because the filing fee is so high, and partly because ingrained habits seem to make Florida minor parties not accustomed to thinking of running many candidates. For example, the Green Party has not had even one U.S. House candidate in Florida since the 1999 liberalization.
Seattle Weekly of January 7 has this interesting story on Maine and Vermont, the two states that currently permit incarcerated felons to vote. As noted earlier, on January 5 the 9th circuit had ruled that Washington must let felons vote. Secretary of State Sam Reed said in response that he would seek an immediate stay of the ruling, as the state prepares to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review. Reed said there are logistical problems if felons are allowed to vote.
But Reed also said that he had not checked with elections officials in Maine and Vermont to see how those states handle felon voting. Seattle Weekly therefore did its own story on the process in those two states.
On January 6, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in Society for Krishna Consciousness v City of Los Angeles, S164272. The issue was whether the California Constitution contains more protection for free speech in publicly-owned spaces where large numbers of people congregate, specifically airports. Witnesses say the argument went very badly for the Hare Krishna side. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court has said in the past that the California Constitution grants more protection in this area of the law than the U.S. Constitution does. UPDATE: see this story.
The attorney for the Society for Krishna Consciousness apparently even told the court that his clients have a constitutional right to be inside the “sterile” part of the airport, the part beyond the security checkpoints.
