The Los Angeles Times of March 7 has this interesting op-ed by Tim Rutten. Rutten deplores the very low turnout in recent Los Angeles city elections. All cities and counties in California use non-partisan elections. Rutten advocates partisan elections for cities as large as Los Angeles. He also suggests that there could and perhaps should be parties organized just around city elections, something that is common in states like Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. Thanks to Roy Ulrich for the link.

Arkansas Democratic Party leaders in the legislature seem to have concluded they will not support HB 1247, the bill to change the definition of “political party” from a group that got 3% for the office at the top of the ticket in the last election, to a group that got 3% for any statewide office at either of the last two elections. The bill has a hearing scheduled for next week and with enough lobbying, perhaps the bill can pass.

If the bill does not pass, the Arkansas Green Party will be in an excellent position to bring a new lawsuit, arguing that it should be on the ballot without doing a new petition. The purpose of ballot access laws is to keep the ballot from being crowded with too many parties, or with parties that have no meaningful support. But in the November 2008 election, the Green Party of Arkansas elected a state legislator, polled almost 21% for U.S. Senate, and almost 16% of the entire vote of the state for U.S. House. However, the state does not recognize it, because it polled less than 3% for president.

No federal court has ever invalidated any state’s vote test, but this potential case would be a very strong case. It is absurd that a party that elected a state legislator is deemed by the state to lack enough popular support to be on the ballot.

In 2005, the Oregon legislature passed a law making it illegal for a voter to both vote in the primary, and sign for an independent candidate. An Oregon voter, Greg Wasson, then filed a federal lawsuit against the new restriction. In 2006 the U.S. District Court ruled that Wasson didn’t have standing to file the case, but that in any event, what the Oregon legislature had done is constitutional.

Wasson appealed. On March 5, 2009, the 9th circuit ruled that Wasson indeed does not have standing. Then, it went on to say that since Wasson lacked standing, the U.S. District Court should not have expressed any opinion on whether the Oregon restriction is constitutional or not. The 9th circuit erased the District Court opinion. This means that if, in the future, an independent candidate files a lawsuit against the Oregon restriction, the matter will be considered as though the Wasson lawsuit had never been filed.

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) had filed an amicus curiae brief in the 9th circuit, pointing out that the U.S. District Court should not have expressed itself on the merits after having found that Wasson lacked standing. COFOE thanks volunteer Dan Meek for his excellent work, and also for this news. The 9th circuit opinion is only 3 pages long.