Cumulative Voting Isn’t Necessarily Dead in Boerne, Texas

Posted on by December 26, 2009
5

In 1996, the League of United Latin American Citizens had sued Boerne, Texas, to force the city to use Cumulative Voting to elect its 5-member city council. Hispanic residents of Boerne had never been able to elect one of their own to the city council under the at-large system. The lawsuit was successful, and starting in 1997, Boerne used Cumulative Voting. Cumulative Voting gives each voter multiple votes (sometimes two, sometimes three). Each voter is permitted to use all of his or her votes to help just one candidate, or, alternatively, the voter can spread the votes around to several candidates.

Cumulative voting appeared to end in Boerne earlier this month. The League, dissatisfied with the cumulative voting experience, had persuaded the city council to stop using that system, and instead to establish single-member districts. The federal judge who had jurisdiction of the 1996 case also approved the change. However, now a group that doesn’t like single-member districts is threatening to sue the city, because the city charter establishes at-large districts and the city charter can only be changed by the voters. See this story.

California Author of “Top-Two Open Primary” Sets Up Organization to Campaign for His Measure

Posted on by December 26, 2009
26

California State Senator Abel Maldonado has established an organization to campaign for the “top-two open primary” measure that will be on the ballot in June 8, 2010. It is “Reform for Change”. Here is its web page.

Brandon Gesicki is listed as the organization’s Executive Director, and also the contact for media inquiries.

Gesicki was Senator Maldonado’s campaign manager when the Senator was re-elected in 2008. He is also the Political Director of the Monterey County Republican Party, and a member of the Monterey County Republican Central Committee. He has also been an employee in Senator Maldonado’s legislative office.

The web page says, “The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary election will then compete in the General Election. All voters will have the opportunity to vote for any candidate they choose, which is not an option in the current system.” This is the opposite of the truth. The measure says that write-in votes will never be counted in the general election for Congress and state office. The write-in ban in Senator Maldonado’s bill, SB 6, is in section 8606, and says, “A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.”

Under existing law, an independent voter is free to ask for a Republican or a Democratic primary ballot in any Congressional or state office primary. Also, if a Republican candidate files as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary, then registered Democrats can vote for that Republican candidate and their write-ins will be counted. For instance, Maldonado himself filed as a write-in in the 2008 Democratic primary, and he received 533 write-ins from registered Democrats. Another write-in candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary for the same State Senate seat, Dennis Morris, received 2,096 write-ins, overwhelmingly defeating Maldonado for the Democratic nomination. However, Morris didn’t receive the Democratic nomination either, because neither he nor Maldonado met the statutory requirement of polling a number of write-ins equal to 1% of the vote for that office in the last general election.

Constitution Party’s Case Against Pennsylvania Legislature’s Failure to Pass a Constitutional Deadline Could Get Opinion At Any Time

Posted on by December 26, 2009
6

The Third Circuit could issue an opinion in Baldwin v Cortes at any time. There will be no oral argument, and the three judges will rule strictly from having read the briefs. Here is the Constitution Party’s opening brief; here is the state’s brief; here is the Constitution Party’s reply brief.

The case had been filed in U.S. District Court on August 29, 2008. It had argued that Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires that ballot access rules for presidential electors are invalid, unless they were passed by a state legislature. Article II says, “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of (Presidential) Electors.”

The Pennsylvania petition deadline for minor party and independent candidate petitions, August 1, was never passed by the legislature. The Constitution Party submitted its statewide petition in Pennsylvania in mid-August, but the petition was rejected because it was late. But, the party argues that there is no valid deadline. The U.S. District Court refused any relief so the case is now pending in the 3rd circuit. The three judges on the panel are Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee; Jane Roth, a Bush Sr. appointee; and Leonard Garth, a Nixon appointee.

Philadelphia Inquirer Story on Pennsylvania State Courts

Posted on by December 26, 2009
2

The December 26 Philadelphia Inquirer has this story about more ethical problems with the Pennsylvania court system. The story says that the state’s Judicial Conduct Board, which is supposed to investigate ethics problems with state court judges, does not do its job and is intent on keeping its actions secret from other government agencies that are also trying to help fight corruption in the state judiciary. Thanks to HowAppealing for the link.