Two Minnesota Legislators Propose Run-Offs for Very Close Statewide Elections

Posted on by January 9, 2009
Reply

On December 8, two Minnesota state legislators said they will introduce a bill to provide for run-offs in statewide general elections, when the margin between the two candidates is less than one-half of 1%. See this story. The legislators did not mention using Instant-Runoff. The article points out that a run-off would cost several million dollars for election administrators.

The proposal is intrinsically unwise. Its authors seem not to have considered the point that an election might end up with a very narrow margin approximating one-half of 1%. In that case, a recount would be needed to see if the person who got the most votes really had a few votes more than that one-half of 1% margin, or a few votes under it. Furthermore, there is also the possibility that a run-off could also end up being ultra-close.

Federal Court Hears Argument in Case over City Council Term Limits

Posted on by January 9, 2009
Reply

Last year, the New York city council suspended term limits (for themselves and for Mayor) that the city voters had passed in 1993 and reaffirmed in 1996. Supporters of the term limits law filed a federal lawsuit on November 10, 2008. The case was argued on January 5, 2009. The case is Molinari v Bloomberg, federal court, Brooklyn, 08-cv-4539. Here is the 56-page transcript. From the judge’s comments about the audience, it sounds as though the courtroom was crowded to capacity. The judge let spectators sit in the jury box, to help let as many people as possible into the audience.

U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Case Challenging Constitutionality of Voting Rights Act

Posted on by January 9, 2009
Reply

On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear NAMUDNO v Mukasey, the case from Texas that challenges section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 is the part of the federal act that requires certain states to get permission from the U.S. Department of Justice before altering any election law. The lower court had upheld the law, in a decision last year.

Backers of California Initiative File Lawsuit for Privacy of Contributors

Posted on by January 9, 2009
Reply

On January 7, backers of California’s Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit, asking that they be exempted from complying with California election laws that require disclosure of the names of people who give as much as $100 to a campaign for or against an initiative. The case is ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen, no. 2:09-cv-00058 (Sacramento). It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England, who was appointed in 2002. The case depends on the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court precedent Brown v Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, which said that disclosure is not compelled if there is a reasonable possibility that campaign contributors, if identified, will be subject to harassment. Besides the Socialist Workers Party, other groups that have won freedom from disclosure include the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Action, and the Communist Party.

U.S. Supreme Court Conference of January 9

Posted on by January 9, 2009
Reply

The U.S. Supreme Court holds a conference on January 9. The Court will consider whether to hear Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v Mukasey, no. 08-322. Usually the case is referred to as the acronym “NAMUDNO v Mukasey.” This New York Times op-ed explains the drama behind this case. Unlike most cases, the Court can’t simply refuse to take a position. It must either affirm the lower court ruling, or set the case for a full hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Also on the January 9 conference is one of the many cases involving President-Elect Barack Obama’s qualifications. Similar cases are on two more conferences later this month.

The Court generally doesn’t say what it decided on the day it holds a conference. Most information about the conference is not released until the following workday. In this case, the following workday is Monday, January 12.