On March 6, West Virginia Delegate Barbara Fleischauer did get the ballot access reform bill introduced. It is HB 2981. It eases the number of signatures from 2% to 1% of the last vote cast. It also moves the non-presidential petition deadline from May to August, so that it would match the presidential deadline. Thanks to Bill Redpath for this news. Redpath has been helping to lobby for the bill, along with several West Virginia minor party activists.
On March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the federal Voting Rights Act, in matters of redrawing legislative districts to assist racial and ethnic minorities. This New York Times editorial explains the decision and also expresses disagreement with the decision. The vote was 5-4. The case was Bartlett v Strickland, 07-689. It had been argued on October 14, 2008. The Court took almost five months to write and release the opinion.
Prominent California Democratic Party activist Bill Cavala has this op-ed in the March 9 California Progress Report, on the “top-two” proposal that California voters will consider in June 2010. Cavala points out that the system would leave no party nominees on the November ballot, and likely no members of minor parties on the November ballot. Therefore, they would all fail to poll 2% of the vote for a statewide race by default, and go off the ballot, unless they have registration of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Here is the op-ed. Cavala notes that for parties that do stay on the ballot under the current law (by meeting the 2% vote test), there is also a mandatory registration test, but it is only one-fifteenth of 1%. He says that figure is low because the Prohibition Party lobbied successfully to get it down that low. His history is basically accurate, but not totally accurate. The Prohibition Party only succeeded in lowering that registration test once, in 1957. It persuaded the legislature to lower it from one-tenth of 1% to one-fifteenth of 1% that year. But in 1964, when it tried to get it lowered again, to one-twentieth of 1%, the bill failed. As a result, the party failed the one-fifteenth of 1% registration test in the 1964 tally.
Prominent California Democratic Party activist Bill Cavala has this op-ed in the March 9 California Progress Report, on the “top-two” proposal that California voters will consider in June 2010. Cavala points out that the system would leave no party nominees on the November ballot, and likely no members of minor parties on the November ballot. Therefore, they would all fail to poll 2% of the vote for a statewide race by default, and go off the ballot, unless they have registration of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Here is the op-ed. Cavala notes that for parties that do stay on the ballot under the current law (by meeting the 2% vote test), there is also a mandatory registration test, but it is only one-fifteenth of 1%. He says that figure is low because the Prohibition Party lobbied successfully to get it down that low. His history is basically accurate, but not totally accurate. The Prohibition Party only succeeded in lowering that registration test once, in 1957. It persuaded the legislature to lower it from one-tenth of 1% to one-fifteenth of 1% that year. But in 1964, when it tried to get it lowered again, to one-twentieth of 1%, the bill failed. As a result, the party failed the one-fifteenth of 1% registration test in the 1964 tally.
On March 9, the Aspen, Colorado, city council voted to use Ranked Choice Voting in the city election set for May 5, 2009. The offices up are Mayor and two at-large city council seats. The Aspen voters had voted in 2007 to use Ranked Choice Voting, but the city council had to determine the details. The city spent a great deal of effort choosing among competing sets of rules. This article has the details.
