West Virginia Delegate Barbara Fleischauer, long-time champion of ballot access in her state, had expected to introduce a bill this year cutting the number of signatures from 2% of the last vote cast to 1%, and also moving the non-presidential petition deadline from May to August. She had introduced the same bill two years ago.

Unfortunately, the paperwork was mishandled by clerical staff of the legislature, and the bill did not get introduced by the deadline. However, it is possible another election law bill will be amended to include the ballot access improvements.

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.