On August 12, the national board of the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) voted to spend $455 to pay the filing fee, to appeal Shugart v Chapman to the 11th circuit. This is the case over the number of signatures needed for an independent candidate for U.S. House in Alabama. Alabama is the only state that requires more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House, than for an independent presidential candidate.

Twice the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can’t require more signatures to get on the ballot for an office in just part of the state, than for a statewide office. But the U.S. District Court said that one of those precedents, Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party, only applies when the comparison is made between a municipal office and a statewide office. Actually, nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court decision says the logic of the case only applies if the office in just part of the state is a municipal office. This is obvious when one reads the later U.S. Supreme Court case, Norman v Reed, which applied the same principle to county office versus statewide office.

The COFOE treasury is now almost depleted, and further funds will be needed to pay for the attorney’s services. COFOE greatly values the contributions that some of you have already made, and hopes for more contributions. Please send any checks to COFOE to PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147. Anyone donating at least $25 gets a free yearly sub to the paper edition of Ballot Access News.

On August 7, this poll was released for the special California U.S. House election, 10th district. The first round is set for September 1. The poll (by identifying which Democrat and Republican will likely survive the first round) shows that the run-off on November 3 will probably be between these five candidates: Democrat John Garamendi, Republican David Harmer, Green Jeremy Cloward, Peace & Freedom member Mary McIlroy, and American Independent Party member Jerry Denham.

A group of California organizations has formed an organization, “Repair California”, to promote the idea that California needs a new state constitution and that the best way to get a new constitution is to support an initiative that will give the voters the authority to call a Constitutional Convention.

Although California is well-known for its extensive use of the initiative, it is ironic that the California initiative cannot be used to initiate constitutional revision, neither directly, nor even to get the process started. In California, the only way to call a constitutional convention, or to revise the existing convention, is with a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature.

See www.repaircalifornia.org, for information about the movement. Repair California is mid-way through a series of meetings around the state. Such meetings have already been held in Fresno, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Sunnyvale, and San Francisco. Future meetings in August and September are set in Truckee, Irvine, and Oakland. The meetings are free and open to the public. One of the regular speakers at these meetings is Steve Hill, known in San Francisco as a leader in the fight to use Instant Runoff Voting. One of the key points of discussion in the public meetings is a discussion of how the delegates to any constitutional convention would be chosen. The group has been putting a great deal of thought into a process by which some sort of lottery would enable any willing citizen to be eligible to be chosen. See this article about the San Francisco meeting, held August 11.