The June 19 issue of the St. Petersburg Times has this editorial, praising the State Supreme Court decision that struck down a law, permitting initiative signers to remove their names months after they have signed the initiative.
Reply
On June 15, Arizona SB 1123 passed the State Senate by 17-11. It requires all cities in the state to use non-partisan elections for their own offices. The only effect of the bill is on Tucson, which is the only city in Arizona that now uses partisan elections. The bill is now in the House Judiciary Committee.
Although it is a matter of opinion, and there are probably many contrary opinions, my opinion is that progress for the National Popular Vote Plan is good for minor parties and independent presidential candidates. My opinion is based on the idea that if the National Popular Vote Plan got quite close to being implemented, the various state legislatures would mostly then be willing to pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college. And that amendment would also bring about congressional authority to write one ballot access law for presidential elections. For example, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson’s pending constitutional amendment specifically authorizes Congress to do this.
I believe that a single ballot access procedure for presidential elections for the entire nation would be an improvement over the existing system. Minor parties and independent presidential candidates would no longer be at the mercy of states like Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana, states which are so severe for ballot access that Ralph Nader has never managed to appear on the ballot in those states, even though he is the person who came in third in 2000, 2004, and 2008.
On June 17, HB 420 passed the Louisiana Senate Committee on Senate & Governmental Affairs. It had already passed the House. It moves the independent presidential filing deadline three days later, and also makes the deadline for qualified parties to file their presidential paperwork somewhat less ambiguous.
New York election law has for decades contained a provision making it possible for a qualified political party to disenroll individual voters, if the party can show that the voters joined the party even though they are not in sympathy with its ideas.
The Suffolk County, New York Conservative Party is in the process of using this law to disenroll about 2,000 police officers and their families. The party believes that these officers enrolled in the party so as to influence its candidate selection process in the county sheriff’s race. Some of the police officers tried to enjoin the party from carrying out the steps needed under the law, but Supreme Court Justice Thomas Whelan ruled on June 11 that the case is not ripe. Instead, the police must wait until the party has finished the process of expulsion. Byrne v Walsh, 16947-09. Thanks to Jack Dean for this news.