Repair California, a group that hopes to get two initiatives on the California ballot to obtain a new state constitution, will submit its proposed initiative language to the Attorney General on September 25. One initiative would authorize voters to call a constitutional convention; the other would actually ask the voters to take that step. Currently, only a two-thirds vote of the legislature can begin the process of considering a new constitution. The existing Constitution dates from 1879, although it was substantially revised in the period 1966-1974.

Also, another group, California Action Network, also plans to circulate an initiative to enable the voters to call for a Constitutional Convention. It has already received its language from the Attorney General, and its petitions are being printed now. See http://CaliforniaActionNetwork.com.

A recent neutral poll show that 70% of the voters would vote for calling a Constitutional Convention. If the initiatives get on the ballot, they would be on the November 2010 ballot. See this story. The proposals envision that the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention would be ordinary citizens, not state legislators.

The Peace Party became a ballot-qualified party in 2008 in Oregon. It was formed for the purpose of placing Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon. At the time, it was significantly easier to qualify a new party in Oregon than to get an independent candidate on the ballot (thanks to good legislative action in 2009, the independent procedures are now easier than they had been in 2008).

Because the Peace Party polled over 1% of the vote for president, it retained its ballot status, and is ballot qualified for 2010. On September 17, it filed paperwork with the Secretary of State to change its name to the Progressive Party. Oregon permits qualified parties to change their names. However, voters who had been registered in the Peace Party will need to change their registration, if they wish to continue being a member of the party under its new name.

Oregon and Vermont are now the two states that have a ballot-qualified party named the Progressive Party.

On September 16, the city of Tucson filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the State Constitution permits the city to decide for itself whether it wishes to use partisan or non-partisan elections. The Tucson City Charter calls for partisan elections, and the voters approved it and later voted down attempts to repeal it. However, earlier this year, the state passed a law requiring all cities to use non-partisan elections. The case is City of Tucson v State, Pima Co. Superior Court, C2009-7207.