Arizona Bill to Stop Public Funding Advances

On June 19, the Arizona State Senate gave preliminary approval to SCR1025, which would ask the voters in 2010 if they wish to eliminate funding for the state’s public financing program for candidates for state office. The bill passed the Senate, but the vote was not recorded, because it was just a preliminary “committee of the whole” vote. A formal vote will probably be held on June 23.

The Arizona public funding program is also under attack in federal court. Last year, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled in McComish v Brewer that the part of the act that provides for extra public funding for participating candidates who have non-participating opponents is probably unconstitutional. The judge did not enjoin the program for the 2008 election because the case had been filed so late, but the case is continuing.

An interesting analysis of the effect of the Arizona public funding program was published in the Phoenix New Times of March 31, 2009. It concludes that the chief change in Arizona politics caused by public funding has been a boost to more conservative Republicans, as opposed to “Chamber of Commerce”-type Republicans.

Prohibition Party Has Candidate for Governor of Tennessee

On June 17-18, the Prohibition Party held a national committee meeting in Memphis, Tennessee. At the meeting, a member of the committee announced that she will run for Governor of Tennessee in 2010. Because Tennessee only requires 25 signatures for independent candidates, but 45,464 signatures for political parties, she will run as an independent. The Chattanoogan newspaper covered her announcement in this news story. Thanks to Professor J. David Gillespie for this news.

Top-Two Proponent Has Factually Inaccurate Op-ed in Long Beach Press-Telegram

Thomas D. Elias has this op-ed in favor of the “top-two” system in the June 17 issue of the Long Beach, California, Press-Telegram. The op-ed has several important factual errors.

The op-ed says the system is “just like special elections”, but in California, special legislative and U.S. House elections are not like “top-two”. The first round in California special elections is an election. An election is defined as an event that can elect someone. The first round in the California “top-two” proposal is never an election. No one can be elected in the first round under “top-two.” The first round is nothing but an exclusionary device to keep candidates off the general election ballot.

The op-ed says under current California law, “voters can only cast ballots (in the primary) for candidates in the party where they’re registered.” In reality, independent voters may vote in California Democratic primaries for all office, and in California Republican primaries for all office except President.

The op-ed says the California legislature is “loaded with ideologues”, but the op-ed doesn’t say who they are. Proponents of “top-two” constantly make this claim but they never have the nerve to list which legislators they mean.

The op-ed says Louisiana has been using “top-two” “for more than 50 years”. Louisiana started using its current system for state office (in which there are no party primaries) 34 years ago. Also the Louisiana system is not quite the same as “top-two” because in Louisiana, the first round is an election.

Elias ignores all evidence of how “top-two” worked in Washington state in 2008, the first time it had been used there. Only one incumbent state legislator (out of 124 seats that were up) was defeated in the primary, and the percentage of Washington state legislative seats that switched parties was lower than in California that same year. Also, Washington state’s first “top-two” primary, in 2008, had a lower voter turnout than in 2004, when Washington state used a classic open primary. “Top-two” proponents commonly assert that turnout increases under “top-two”, but ignore the actual evidence.

Maine Governor Signs Bill on How Party Remains on the Ballot

On June 17, Maine Governor John Balducci signed LD 1041, the bill that alters how a party remains on the ballot. The old law requires a party to have polled 5% for the office at the top of the ballot, at either of the last two elections (i.e., President or Governor). The new law lets it remain on the ballot if it has 10,000 registrants who voted in the last general election. 10,000 is now 1.06% of the number of registered voters.

The Green Party of Maine, the only ballot-qualified party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, has about 31,000 registrants, three-fourths of whom typically vote in the general election. Thus the immediate effect of the bill is that the Green Party is virtually assured of remaining on the ballot for an indefinite time into the future, no matter whether it polls 5% for Governor in the future or not.

The law on how a group becomes a qualified party does not change. The normal process by which a group becomes a qualified party in Maine is by running an independent candidate for President or Governor (a party label is permitted when the independent procedure is used). If that candidate gets 5%, the group becomes a qualified party. There is also a 5% party petition, but that has only been used once, in 1996, by the Reform Party.

The Green Party tried very hard to get a bill like LD 1041 passed four years ago, but failed.