On December 15, the California State Auditor began accepting applications for service on the Redistricting Commission. Here is the webpage for the explanation of how to apply, and the application itself. The Commission will draw the legislative district boundaries after the 2010 census. Thanks to California Forward for the link.
The New York Daily News has this story about the Working Families Party of New York. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is investigating whether the campaign finance practices of the Working Families Party in New York in the 2009 city elections were proper.
On December 11, a Nevada District Court Judge in Carson City ruled that any registered voter who lives in a particular jurisdiction may sign a recall petition. The ruling overrides the Secretary of State’s position, which is that only a registered voter in that area who actually voted in the previous election may sign such a petition. The case is Waymire v Miller, 08-oc-00244.
As a result, it is likely that a recall election will now be held in Boulder City, to determine if two particular city council members should be recalled. However, there may be an appeal.
Thomas D. Elias is a California journalist who has three times been nominated for a Pulitizer Prize. He has written two books, both of which have sold well. They are (1) The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It; and (2) The Simpson Trial in Black and White.
Elias writes a column, “California Focus”, which appears in 70 newspapers which have a compiled circulation of 1,890,000 readers. Three times, he has written a column in support of the California ballot measure for a “top-two open primary”: on February 24, 2009, June 17, 2009, and December 14, 2009. The December 14 column is here.
Although Elias is an award-winning journalist, he is so much in favor of “top-two” that his columns about “top-two” are not objective. He knows that the specific measure that will appear on the California ballot has some flaws, but none of his lengthy columns mentions those flaws. Those flaws, which so far have not been mentioned in any California daily newspaper except for the Orange County Register, are: (1) the measure makes it far more difficult for a ballot-qualified party to remain on the ballot by eliminating the 2% vote test; (2) the measure says write-in votes won’t ever be counted for Congress and state office in November; (3) the measure treats candidates unequally as to whether they get a party label of their choice; (4) the measure shuts off all routes to the November ballot after mid-March of an election year.
Other supporters of “top-two” are willing to acknowledge that these flaws are indeed flaws. For example, Tom Campbell, a former state legislator and Congressman, and a leading candidate for either Governor or U.S. Senator in next year’s Republican primary, said on October 20, “I do not favor preventing write-ins, or making it difficult for third parties to appear on the initial (primary) ballot.” Jim Mangia, of IndependentVoice, said on December 8, “I agree with you (that some, or all, of these characteristics of top-two are indeed undesirable).”
The December 14 Elias column misleads its readers in several ways. He says if the “top-two” measure were in place, the November election would be a “runoff”. Actually, Webster’s 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defines “runoff” to be: “A final race, contest, or election to decide an earlier one that has not resulted in a decision.” But under “top-two”, the first round is not an election. An “election” is an event at which someone may be elected. But under “top-two”, no one is ever elected in the first round, even if that person receives 100% of the votes in the first round. The first round is nothing more than a ballot access screening device. The only election is in November. Therefore, the November event is not a “run-off”; it is the first and only election.
The December 14 column says “very few seats ever switch parties”, but in 2008, three of California’s 80 Assembly seats switched from Republican to Democratic, and one switched from Democratic to Republican, for a total of 5% of the seats that switched parties.
Another distortion is Elias’s sentence, “It’s exactly how hundreds of local elections in California have been conducted.” This is not true. California non-partisan local elections sometimes provide for run-offs if no one gets 50% in the first round, but in all cases, if someone does get 50% in the first round, the person is elected in the first round. Furthermore, of course, California local elections are non-partisan, but under “top-two”, Congressional and state elections would continue to be partisan, so they are not “exactly alike.”
But the worst aspect of Elias’s December 14 column is his sentence, “The smaller parties want to stay in general elections even though they have no chance to win. They whine that they should have a presence in every election, regardless of whether they’ve earned it.” It is consensus among historians and political scientists that minor parties in a two-party system have a valuable role to play. They introduce new ideas into the system that are initially either very unpopular, or totally unknown. Minor party candidates are free to say exactly what they believe, because generally they don’t expect to win, whereas major party members frequently are careful not to espouse any idea that isn’t already popular.
On December 11, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Herrera, a Bush, Jr., appointee, ruled that New Mexico ballot access laws are unconstitutional to the extent that they make it impossible for someone who is not registered to vote to get on the ballot for Congress. Here is the 13-page decision. The case is Woodruff v Herrera, cv-09-449. In 2000, the 10th Circuit had ruled in a Colorado case (Campbell v Davidson), that states cannot require candidates for Congress to be registered voters. New Mexico is in the 10th circuit, so that decision was binding in the new case.
The judge also ruled that because the election code is internally contradictory on the question of which address a voter should show on a ballot access petition, that part of the election code is unconstitutionally vague. The Election Code says in one place that a voter should write the address at which he or she is registered, but in another place it says a voter should write the address of actual residence. The two can differ, for voters who have moved since last registering to vote.
Further proceedings in the case will determine whether it is unconstitutional for the state to place a straight-ticket device on the general election ballot for the two major parties, but not for any of the ballot-qualified minor parties. New Mexico formerly gave all parties a straight-ticket device, but in 2004 stopped putting one on the ballot for the minor parties.
