Burlington Progressives Keep Mayoralty in Exciting 5-Candidate Race

Posted on by March 5, 2009
Reply

On March 3, Burlington, Vermont held a mayoral election. The candidate were Progressive Bob Kiss (the incumbent), Republican Kurt Wright, Democratic Andy Montroll, independent Dan Smith, and Green Party nominee James Simpson. Kiss was re-elected. The election had been considered impossible to predict. The independent candidate, Dan Smith, had raised more money than any other candidate. The Democratic candidate, Andy Montroll, was an incumbent member of the City Council and had been endorsed by Howard Dean and the city’s daily newspaper. The Republican nominee, Kurt Wright, was the incumbent president of the city council.

Burlington uses Instant Runoff Voting. Wright led in the first count but no one had a majority of first place votes. In the second count the Republican also kept the lead. But after the votes cast for the Democratic nominee had been reassigned in a further count, Kiss won by 4,313 to 4,061 to the Republican nominee. Observers felt the election had been an excellent example to show that IRV does what it is supposed to do. In particular, the candidates were very courteous and respectful to each other during the campaign, since each candidate hoped to win second-choice or third-choice votes from various rivals. Also the city was spared the expense of a run-off election several weeks after the original March 3 event. For the election returns, see www.burlingtonvotes.org/20090303.

California Bill for Local Option Instant-Runoff Voting

Posted on by March 4, 2009
Reply

California Assemblymember Mike Davis has introduced AB 1121. It lets 10 general law cities or counties use Instant Runoff Voting for their own local elections. The bill doesn’t specify which 10 jurisdictions would be included. Under the California Constitution, charter cities and counties don’t need state permission to use IRV for their own local elections, but general law cities and counties can’t use IRV unless this bill, or something similar, is passed. A somewhat similar bill made considerable headway two years ago in California.

Missouri Bill to Require Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates

Posted on by March 4, 2009
Reply

Missouri Representative Wayne Cooper (R-Camdenton) has introduced HJR 34. It has 15 Republican co-sponsors. It requires presidential candidates to submit a Birth Certificate to the Secretary of State, and says a certificate of live birth is not an adequate substitute. It also requires voters to show goverment Photo-ID at the polls, bans same-day registration, says the deadline for registering to vote will always be 4 weeks before an election, abolishes absentee voting unless the voter will be absent from the county or can establish illness, and says no one may be paid to register voters. This would all be one very large amendment to the Missouri State Constitution. The sponsor titles it “The Voter’s Bill of Rights”. Thanks to Brandon Henderson for this news.

Texas Bill for Closed Primaries

Posted on by March 3, 2009
Reply

Texas Representative John Davis (R-Clear Lake) has introduced HB 1821, to provide for registration by party on the voter registration form. Then, no one could participate in the primary of any party unless that voter had been registered in that party for at least 30 days before the primary. The same provision would apply to participation in conventions, for parties (like the Libertarian Party) that nominate by convention.

The bill also says that no one can sign for an independent candidate, or for a new party, if that person is a registered member of a political party.

The drafters of this bill seem unaware of many legal problems in this bill, as drafted. First, the provision that members of qualified parties may not sign for an independent candidate would probably be held unconstitutional. An identical law was held unconstitutional in Arizona in federal court in 1999. The case was Campbell v Hull. Whereas the US Supreme Court has upheld laws that prohibit someone from both voting in the primary and signing for an independent, that is not the same issue. Someone who is merely registered in a party, but who didn’t vote in the primary, is not “voting twice” even under the logic of the US Supreme Court decision that upheld the primary screenout.

Second, the bill makes no provision for a party to decide for itself that it may wish to let independents vote in its primary. The US Supreme Court said in 1986 in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that any party may decide for itself whether to let independents vote in its primary.

Finally, the bill is ambiguous as to whether someone would be allowed to register into an unqualified party. Probably the bill’s author does not intend to permit this. However, courts in Colorado, Oklahoma, New York, New Jersey, and Iowa, have said that voters must be permitted to register into certain unqualified parties (those that have managed to qualify for the ballot, or qualify their nominees for the ballot, in the past).