The New Press has just listed Theresa Amato’s new book on its webpage. See here. The book is “Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny.”
Reply
On May 26, news reports revealed that President Barack Obama will choose Sonia Sotomayor for the David Souter seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Sotomayor was the first federal judge to rule favorably in a constitutional case involving write-in voting, after the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled against write-ins. Irving Gelb, a candidate for Bronx Borough President in 1995, was removed from the Democratic primary ballot, and thus became a write-in candidate. However, he discovered that New York city was not printing write-in space on absentee ballots, nor on sample ballots, nor was it obeying a state law that required pencils to be in the voting booth. He was a taxi driver, not an attorney, but he filed a pro se lawsuit in U.S. District Court, and drew Sotomayor.
Sotomayor’s decision in Gelb v Board of Elections in the City of New York is reported at 888 F.Supp. 509 (March 24, 1995). She refused to dismiss Gelb’s case. She noted on page 517 that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Burdick v Takushi (which said that Hawaii was not required to provide write-in space) did not foreclose victory for Gelb. She wrote, “Burdick v Takushi reaffirmed the principle that states cannot structure elections in a manner that favors candidates of established parties.”
Although Gelb did not ultimately get any relief in this particular case, since the ultimate decision in this case was that the Board of Elections in the 1995 primary was not likely to continue to injure write-in candidates, in several later cases, Gelb prevailed. His lawsuits forced the city to begin printing write-in space on all primary ballots in which there are at least two candidates printed on the ballot in the same race, and he forced the city to put write-in directions on ballots, and to put write-in space on absentee ballots.
Sotomayor also ruled in favor of ballot access, in Lopez Torres v New York State Board of Elections, a case that involved difficult procedures for getting on a primary ballot for Delegates to Judicial Nominating Conventions. And she ruled favorably for voting rights in general in her dissent in Hayden v Pataki, 449 F 3d 305. The issue was whether the federal Voting Rights Act protects racial minorities in the area of the law concerning felon and ex-felon disenfranchisement.
Utah will hold a special gubernatorial election in 2010, because the Governor elected in 2008, Jon Huntsman, has resigned to become Ambassador to China. The 2010 election will be the first special gubernatorial election in Utah history.
Most states don’t hold special gubernatorial elections when a Governor leaves office in the first half of the term. Instead, they follow the federal model, in which a vice-president who fills a presidential vacancy automatically completes the full presidential term, even if the vice-president becomes president in the first half of the term (for example, Harry Truman became president in April 1945, and no special presidential election was held in 1946).
Thus, in 2010, Utah will have two statewide offices on the ballot, Governor and U.S. Senator. Having two offices instead of just U.S. Senate on the ballot may make it somewhat easier for both of Utah’s qualified minor parties to retain their spots on the ballot in 2010. Both the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party (plus any party that might qualify for 2010 by petition) need to poll 2% in a statewide race in order to remain ballot-qualified for 2012.
On May 19, the Rhode Island Senate passed S161 by a vote of 26-9. This is the national popular vote plan bill. Last year, it passed the legislature but was vetoed by Republican Governor Donald Carcieri. Last year the vote in the Senate had been 27-10.
The five states in which the national popular vote plan has passed are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington.
The Louisiana legislature has an excellent webpage, in that it is possible to watch Louisiana legislative hearings on one’s computer. Here is a link to the 30-minute hearing held on May 19 on HB 776. That bill, written by the Secretary of State’s office, says that qualified parties with fewer than 40,000 registrants may no longer nominate by primary. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide any authority for them to nominate any other way, such as by convention or caucus. UPDATE: the next hearing on this bill is not May 26 (Tuesday); it is May 27 (Wednesday).
To see the hearing, scroll down to entries labeled “May 19, 2009 Regular Legislative Session”. Then choose the “House and Gov Committee.” The testimony on HB 776 starts 20 minutes into the committee hearing, and lasts 30 minutes. One watches Secretary of State Jay Dardenne explain that if his bill passes, and if two Green Party members file for the same congressional seat, they would both appear on the November ballot with the party label. In such a system, of course, the Green Party has no ability to decide on its preferred nominee. Even if 99% of the party members want one particular Green, and only 1% want another Green, both would appear on the general election ballot. Secretary Dardenne seems to think there is nothing wrong with that.
The committee postponed action on the bill until its May 26 hearing. Ballot Access News has faxed a letter to each committee member, suggesting that HB 776 be amended to authorize small qualified parties to nominate by convention. It is believed that Louisiana members and officers of the qualified parties (Green, Libertarian, and Reform) have also communicated their concerns. Thanks to Randall Hayes for the link to the video.