On August 10, five television stations in Minnesota filed a lawsuit in state court, against Ramsey County election officials. Those officials refuse to let the TV stations examine last year’s general election absentee ballots. The TV stations want to analyze why several hundred absentee ballots were rejected by the county. The lawsuit is KSTP-TV v Ramsey County, 2nd judicial district, 62-cv-09-9240.

After the disputed 2000 presidential election, news media were able to examine all the Florida ballots. A consortium of news organizations spent almost a year recounting them all.

In June 2010, California voters will be voting on a ballot measure, to switch California elections to the system used for the first time in Washington state in 2008. California newspapers have been referring to the idea as “the open primary”. On August 8, the elected officers of the San Francisco Libertarian Party sent a letter to most daily newspapers in California, asking that in the future, they refer to this ballot measure as the “top-two” primary, not the “open primary.”

The letter includes a copy of the ballots in the three times in history when the voters of a state voted on this idea. Never did the ballot refer to this idea as an “open primary”.

The last time the voters of any state voted on this idea, in Oregon in 2008, the ballot said, “Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices.” “Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ Vote changes general election nomination processes for most partisan offices; all candidates run in single primary; top two primary candidates compete in general election.”

The Washington state ballot in 2004 said, “Initiative Measure 872 concerns elections for partisan offices. This measure would allow voters to select among all candidates in a primary. Ballots would indicate candidates’ party preference. The two candidates receiving most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.”

The California 2004 ballot said, “Requires primary elections where voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of voter or candidate. The two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with ‘no party’ or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot. Exempts presidential nominations.”

The letter points out that both the Oregon Supreme Court in 2008, and a California Superior Court in 2004, ruled that it would be misleading to refer to the measures as an “open primary”, given that “open primary” has long been defined as a system in which each party has its own primary, but a voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.

The New York Times print edition of August 8 has an editorial “To Reform Albany State Here”. See it here. The editorial asks for ballot access reform, campaign finance reform, and redistricting reform. The first point in the editorial, on ballot access, suggests a filing fee instead of a petition, for candidates to get on the ballot.

The New York Times has been criticizing New York state ballot access laws for decades, but it is believed that this is the first time the Times has called for a filing fee alternative to a petition.