According to this article, the Alberta Green Party has lost its status as a qualified party because it was late filing its campaign finance report. The party said internal discord prevented it from gathering the data.
Reply
On July 13, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen O’Malley ruled that the city of Euclid, Ohio, should use Limited Voting in its school board elections. The decision, USA v Euclid City School Board, is here.
Euclid has a 5-member School Board, and the city has long used at-large elections for the School Board. Voters elect 3 members in years after presidential elections, and 2 members in years before presidential elections. Euclid’s population is 44.6% African-American, yet no African-American has ever been elected to the School Board. The U.S. Department of Justice had sued Euclid under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and had asked the judge to order single-member districts. The city argued for either Limited Voting or Cumulative Voting. The judge ruled in favor of Limited Voting.
Limited voting means that each voter can only vote for one candidate, even though either two or three candidates are being elected. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link to the decision.
On July 14, California held a special election to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 32nd district. The results: Democrat Judy Chu 61.67%; Republican Betty Chu 33.12%; Libertarian Christopher Agrella 5.21%.
This is the first time this district has had a contest between a Democrat and a Republican since 2002. In 2002, the vote had been: Democratic 68.79%, Republican 27.46%, Libertarian 3.74%. The district is centered in the Los Angeles County towns of El Monte and Covina.
According to this story in Green Party Watch, Cynthia McKinney will speak to the Green Party national meeting in Durham, North Carolina on Saturday, July 25.
California newspaper reporters and political columnists have mentioned recently that Californians will be voting on the “top-two” system in June 2010. These articles constantly repeat the idea that the California legislature is now filled with ideologues of the left and right, and that “top-two” will replace them with “moderates” (these articles also constantly refer to “top-two” as “the open primary”).
History suggests that “top-two” won’t replace “ideologues” with “moderates”. In 1996, the voters of California passed an initiative for the “blanket primary”, and that system was used in the primaries of 1998 and 2000. The “blanket primary” is identical to the “top-two” system, in the operation of the primary and the primary ballot. In both systems, all primary voters get an identical ballot, a ballot that lists all candidates of all parties (although under the blanket primary, independents did not run in the primary). The big difference between the blanket primary and top-two is that in a blanket primary system, the top vote-getter from each party goes on the November ballot.
In the California 1998 primary, not one incumbent state legislator was defeated for re-nomination. If the proponents of a top-two primary were correct, there should have been many state legislators defeated in the 1998 primary. After all, the primaries of 1996 (which had elected all Assemblymembers) and the primaries of 1994 and 1996 (which had elected all Senators), were completely closed. Independent voters could not vote in those primaries.
Top-two proponents say that California legislative districts are so gerrymandered, the same party always wins the general election for state legislature. They also say that the “ideologues” win the primaries because the “moderate” independents are locked out of the primaries. But, the evidence from 1998 disputes that.
Another piece of evidence is found in the fact that California allows recall elections with the nation’s easiest procedures. Yet, there are no viable recall petitions proceding against any California state legislator, on behalf of the “moderates” who feel their own legislator is an “ideologue” or “extremist”. When California holds a recall election, it simultaneously holds an election to replace the office-holder, just in case the office-holder is recalled. These special elections that are simultaneous with recalls are conducted under the top-two model (except there is no run-off). Every voter receives the same ballot, and it lists the candidates from all parties. Whoever gets the most votes wins. The reason there are no recall petitions circulating is because people know that California state legislators, “extreme” or not, generally represent public opinion in their own district.
Almost all California Republican legislators are opposed to raising taxes. Their own districts support them. Almost all California Democratic legislators are opposed to cutting benefits for the poor, or for education. Their own districts support them. Changing to a top-two system will not cause state legislators to be replaced with different kinds of legislators.
A final piece of evidence that top-two won’t change the identity of California state elected officisls is that each of the two most recent Governors of California was elected in a system very like top-two, in their first election to office. Current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in the 2003 recall election, and previous Governor Gray Davis was elected in the blanket primary of 1998.