U.S. District Court Judge W. Keith Watkins of Montgomery, Alabama, will hold a hearing on injunctive relief in Glasgow v Allen on Monday, October 6, at 1:30 pm, in courtroom 2E. The issue is whether the state can prohibit visitors to jails who want to register inmates. Alabama law permits felons and ex-felons to vote unless they were convicted of a crime of “moral turpitude.” Only 70 crimes have been determined to involve “moral turpitude” in Alabama. A majority of people locked up in Alabama were not convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude”, although the state has had a tough time figuring out which crimes are in that category.

Earlier this year, the Alabama Democratic Party sued the Secretary of State to get a free list of the registered voters of the state. On October 2, the Secretary of State settled the lawsuit by agreeing to furnish the statewide list of registered voters to the Democratic Party, and also to the Republican Party, twice a year in election years. The case is Turnham v Chapman, cv2008-901037, Montgomery County Circuit Court.

Under a U.S. Supreme Court summary affirmance in 1970, called Socialist Workers Party v New York State Board of Elections, if a state gives a free list of registered voters to the qualified parties, it must give the same list to the unqualified parties that are trying to get on the ballot. The Alabama Libertarian Party has already set up a plan to begin petitioning for party status for the 2010 election, starting with a push on November 4, 2008 to circulate petitions at the polls. Under the 1970 precedent, the Alabama Libertarian Party is in a strong position to receive the list of registered voters.

On September 29, Steve Peace, a former Democratic State Senator from San Diego, filed a proposed initiative with the California Attorney General that would establish the “top-two” election system in California. The proposal is more similar to Washington state’s “top-two” law, than it is to Oregon’s “top-two” initiative. The California initiative would abolish the practice of asking voters about party membership, on voter registration forms. By contrast, the Oregon initiative, on the ballot in the current election, retains partisan registration.

The California initiative appears to have been drafted hastily and carelessly. It fails to re-define “political party”. Under existing law, the chief means that parties have for getting on the ballot is by persuading people to join that party, as shown on voter registration forms. Since the initiative abolishes partisan registration, one would have expected the initiative to re-define “political party”. However, it does not do that.

The initiative also says that a the list of people who vote in any party’s presidential primary would be given to that party, but not to anyone else. Similar laws have been held unconstitutional this year or last year in Michigan and New Hampshire. The initiative has careless mistakes, such as referring to the existing California elected office known as “Superintendent of Public Instruction” as “Superintendent of Public Education.” The initiative has no intent to change the name of that office, since in other places it refers to the office by its original name.

Here is the text of the initiative. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the news.