On December 3, the 5th circuit heard oral arguments in Libertarian Party v Dardenne, the case over whether the Louisiana Secretary of State should have accepted the party’s presidential elector paperwork last year. The statutory deadline was September 2, but the Republican Party missed that deadline, not because of any hurricane, but because the party was unable to fill out the paperwork until the national convention had nominated John McCain and Sarah Palin, which was done on September 4. There is a factual dispute as to whether the Republicans submitted the paperwork on September 5 or September 8.

The Secretary of State extended the deadline through September 8, but the Libertarian paperwork wasn’t submitted until September 10. The Governor had issued a proclamation easing deadlines until September 12, but the Secretary of State does not agree that the gubernatorial proclamation relates to this type of deadline.

At the hearing, Judge Catherine Haynes (a Bush, Jr. appointee) seemed scornful of the Libertarian Party’s arguments, but Judge James Dennis (a Clinton appointee) asked questions that seemed supportive. Judge Carl Stewart, the third judge, did not ask any questions. Anyone can hear the 30 minute oral argument by going to the 5th circuit’s webpage here. Choose “Libertarian Party v Dardenne”.

If there are any disputed facts, precedent demands that a plaintiff must be granted a trial. There has not yet been a trial in this case. The attorney for the state made much out of the fact that Gloria LaRiva was able to file her presidential elector paperwork in person on September 2. However, LaRiva has told Richard Winger that on that day, the entire office building which houses the Secretary of State’s office was dark, as though the electricity was off. No building personnel were on duty in the lobby. The building appeared deserted. But, the doors weren’t locked. She made her way upstairs and found that someone was available to receive her paperwork.

At the oral argument, the attorney for the Libertarian Party said that when elections officials are confronted with instances at which the major parties were late with presidential elector paperwork, they always excuse the error. He did not list specific instances. However, it is well-documented in court decisions that either the Republicans, or the Democrats, or both, were late in Texas in 2008, and in Indiana in 1988, and in Iowa in 1964. There are probably other instances, such as Florida 2000, but they are not entirely documented.

On December 3, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group/CEO Roundtable in San Jose. He urged the audience to contribute generously to the campaign to pass the “top-two open primary”, a ballot measure set for the June 2010 ballot. He said, “There will be only two real opponents to the open primary measure, Republicans and Democrats. But that’s where you come in. We all know that if we have the $20,000,000, we can win, because the parties will spend money against it.”

Back in 2004, when the same idea was on the California ballot, Schwarzenegger raised almost all of the money for the campaign for that measure. In 2004, it was defeated by the voters by a vote of 46%-54%. The biggest contributor in 2004 in favor of “top-two” was Countrywide Home Lending.

The Los Angeles Times carried this lengthy story about “top-two” in its November 27 issue. It quoted three individuals who are in favor of the proposal, Senator Abel Maldonado, former Senator Steve Peace, and Allan Hoffenblum, a campaign consultant for Republicans. It devoted 16 lines to quotations from them. The only person it quoted against “top-two” was Democratic Party state chair John Burton, but it only gave him 3 lines, and then it quoted Hoffenblum again saying Burton was being a hypocrite.

Neither the Los Angeles Times, or any other newspaper in California, has yet mentioned that the proposal (1) eliminates write-ins at the general election; (2) vastly increases the difficulty for a party to remain ballot-qualified; (3) shuts off all avenues to the November ballot that are later than mid-March of the election year; (4) treats candidates unequally in the June primary by letting some of them list a party preference but not letting others do so. The Los Angeles Times has rejected two attempts to get an op-ed printed to mention these points, saying “We’ve got too many pieces vying for too little space.” However, on December 3, the paper again ran a story in favor of top-two, by George Skelton, saying the system will elect more moderate legislators. Neither Skelton nor any other Los Angeles Times writer has ever presented any evidence in favor of this idea. Nor have they acknowledged that Political Scientist Thad Kousser studied the California legislature, and found that the legislature elected in the blanket primary didn’t behave any differently than legislative sessions elected under a normal system.

To read a letter sent to some leaders of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, by Richard Winger, on December 3, see here.

Rasmussen Poll releases results on how U.S. voters self-identify, every month. The poll released on December 1, 2009, shows: Democrats 36.0%, Republicans 33.1%, no party or other party 30.8%.

The highest “other” ever in this Rasmussen Poll was in July 2007, when “Other” hit 32.9%. The link above has another link that shows the results back to 2004.