The Washington Secretary of State’s bill to fix certain problems with “top-two” failed to make enough progress in the State Senate, and it is now too late for the bill, SB 5681, to pass. The bill tried to set a limit on the party names that candidates may “prefer” (such party preferences are printed on primary and general election ballots). The bill said the party had to either be a qualified political party (one which met the vote test in the last election), or a group that submitted 100 signatures that election year. Under existing law, a candidate can “prefer” any group that pops into his or her head, which is why one candidate last year said he preferred the Salmon Yoga Party, and many candidates prefered the “GOP Party”.

Also, the bill changed the vote test from 5% for any statewide nominee, to 1% for president. Since parties no longer have nominees (except for president), and since the existing vote test applies in every even-numbered year, this means that the Republicans and Democrats will also fail to be qualified parties after the November 2010 election, since none of their nominees will have polled 5% in November 2010, since they won’t have any nominees in November 2010. However, a similar bill will probably pass in 2010. Thanks to Linde Knighton for the news.

See this story, reporting that the trial in Minnesota state court over who won the U.S. Senate election last year has finally ended, after several weeks. A decision is expected in a few days. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news.

On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.

The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”

In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.

Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old.