Although there has been considerable talk about using Instant-Runoff Voting in Los Angeles city elections during the last year, there had been little discussion of using IRV in Los Angeles County, until March 31, when Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas brought up the subject at the Supervisors meeting. Los Angeles County only has five county supervisors, so the opinion of each supervisor is very significant. Ridley-Thomas asked the Board to ask the Registrar of Voters to report on how the county can use IRV.

In somewhat related news, California bill AB 308 recently passed the Assembly Elections Committee, unanimously. It makes it possible for overseas absentee voters to use IRV for any elections that normally have an old-fashioned run-off, such as many special elections for Congress and state legislature.

A few Illinois Republican legislators desire to change the election law, to provide that Republican Central Committee members be elected by primary voters instead of by elected local party officials. Democrats, who control state government in Illinois, have jumped into the fray, and have attached the idea as as amendment to several election law bills. See this story from the Galesburg daily newspaper of March 30.

Ironically, as the article implies (near the bottom), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1989 that such decisions are not the business of the legislature, but of the political parties themselves. The 1989 precedent was Eu v San Francisco County Central Committee.

On March 31, both sides in Barr v Galvin filed briefs asking for summary judgment. Barr v Galvin is the case in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts over whether the Libertarian Party had a right to use a stand-in presidential candidate on its 2008 petition. Although last year the judge had granted injunctive relief to Barr and the Libertarian Party, on the basis that Massachusetts’ policy (of refusing to permit presidential stand-ins) is probably unconstitutional, he has not yet ruled specifically that the policy is unconstitutional. The fact that both sides have asked for summary judgment shows that both sides agree no further fact-finding is needed. A ruling will probably be out in sixty days or less. Then, apparently, if the judge does indeed rule that the Constitution protects presidential stand-ins, Massachusetts expects to appeal to the First Circuit.