The December 30 Seattle Times has this story about the upcoming decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, on the petition privacy case, Doe v Reed. The upcoming decision is whether that court will take the case. If the court declines to hear the case, the names and addresses of everyone who signed the Washington state referendum on civil unions will then immediately be released to the public.
Recently the Virginia Republican Party decided to hold a 2010 primary to choose its nominee for the U.S. House, 5th district. The 5th district seat was won by Democrats in 2008 in a very narrow race. The November 2008 vote was: Democrat Tom Perriello 158,810 votes, Republican Virgil Good 158,083 votes.
Now the Republican Party’s decision to use a primary instead of a convention is getting criticism from people who say it will cost the taxpayers $260,000. Virginia has no U.S. Senate race in 2010, and no state offices up in 2010, so there can only be primaries in 2010 for U.S. House, and partisan county office. If the Republicans had chosen a convention instead of a primary for the U.S. House in this district, elections officials inside the 5th district would mostly not need to hold any primary. See this story.
Virginia could save much more money if it would move its state elections to even-numbered years. Because federal elections are in even years, Virginia holds elections every year, for either federal office or state office. Other states that hold some or all statewide state elections in odd years are New Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.
According to this story, a city initiative has just been filed in Burlington, Vermont, to ask the voters if they wish to repeal Instant Runoff Voting. Earlier this year, the Progressive Party had won the Mayor’s race (Burlington has partisan city elections), even though the Democratic Party nominee had been expected to win. That caused some Burlington voters to dislike IRV.
A proposed California initiative, which is only in the beginning stages of petition-gathering, would repeal the 2008 initiative that sets up a Citizens Redistricting Commission. See this story. The purpose of the Citizens Redistricting Commission is to draw to boundaries for state legislative districts. If this new proposed initiative were to qualify for the November 2010 ballot, and if it passed, then the Commission would be eliminated before it had ever carried out its function. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit, will soon be holding oral arguments in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, the case over Connecticut’s public funding law. The Green Party had won the case in U.S. District Court and the state is appealing.
On December 29, three Arizona elected officials filed this amicus brief on the side of the Green Party. It is 24 pages. The amicus attacks the “trigger provision” in the Connecticut law. The Connecticut law says that if a candidate who doesn’t qualify for public funding still manages to raise private funds that exceed the expenditure limit for an opponent who is receiving public funds, that the publicly-financed candidate then gets substantial additional public funding. The three Arizona elected officials are Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin, State Senator Robert Burns, and State House member Rick Murphy. They are also plaintiffs in an Arizona lawsuit against the Arizona public funding’s “trigger provision.”
