The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll on September 11 about various ideas for changing California government and politics. Among the findings was that 70% of the voters favor the “top-two” proposal that will be on the ballot in June 2010, and only 23% oppose it. See here for the survey results. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On September 10, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle, a Bush, Jr. appointee, granted a preliminary injunction, keeping the names and addresses of signers of a referendum petition from being placed in the public record, at least while the case is decided. In order to grant the injunction, the judge had to determine that the plaintiffs (who favor secrecy) are likely to win the case. Here is the decision, which is called John Doe #1 v Reed, C09-5456.
The judge said, “The Court is not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process…The referral of a referendum is protected political speech, which includes the component of the right to speak anonymously…the Public Records Act is not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling governmental interest of preserving the integrity of the referendum process.” Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news. Nothing in the decision indicates that the issue turned on the fact that this particular referendum petition is highly controversial. The logic of the decision would apply to all petitions.
On September 9, opponents of Washington state’s referendum #71 said they will not appeal the lower state court decision in Washington Families Standing Together v Reed. That decision had said signatures are valid, even if the signers were not registered at the time they signed the petition. The signatures count as long as the person who signed registers before the Secretary of State’s office checks the petitions.
The decision also said that signatures are valid, even if the circulator didn’t sign off on any particular petition sheet. The decision is thus an important liberalization of Washington state’s procedures on petition validity. The contrast between this recent Washington decision, and the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in 2004 on Nader’s independent petition, is dramatic. The Oregon Supreme Court had invalidated Nader’s petition because some of the circulators had signed some sheets with their initials instead of their full name.
On September 10, the California Senate voted 20 in favor, 19 against, on AB 1121. California bills can’t pass unless they receive 21 votes in the 40-member State Senate, so the bill failed. It allows 10 non-charter cities or counties to use Instant Runoff Voting for their own elections.
On September 8, the Idaho Attorney General’s office filed a brief in Daien v Ysursa, the case challenging Idaho’s ban on out-of-state circulators for independent candidates. The plaintiff, Donald Daien, lives in Arizona but says he wants to help future independent presidential candidates get on the Idaho ballot. Idaho is in the 9th circuit, which ruled in an Arizona case last year that states may not ban out-of-state circulators, at least for the purpose of working on independent presidential petitions.
Idaho’s brief says the 9th circuit precedent from Arizona should not apply in the Daien case, because Arizona required circulators to be eligible to register in Arizona, but Idaho only requires circulators to be Idaho residents. The difference, as the brief points out, is that Idaho lets minors and non-citizens circulate such petitions.
Idaho’s brief also says that Idaho requires fewer signatures for an independent presidential candidate than Arizona does. Idaho is mistaken. Arizona requires a petition signed by 3% of the number of registered independents (although any registered voter may sign). Idaho’s brief misstates the Arizona law and claims that Arizona’s petition is 3% of the entire electorate. Idaho requires independent presidential candidates to submit a petition of 1% of the last presidential vote, and Idaho claims this is obviously easier.
The truth is that Arizona’s 3% of the number of registered independents is virtually tied with Idaho’s 1% of the last presidential vote. It is expected that the attorneys for Daien will point this out in the next brief.
