On May 15, the California Senate passed SB 1322 by 24-16. It deletes some California laws (long ago held unconstitutional) that discriminate against Communist Party members. SB 1322 does not repeal any election laws that discriminate against Communists, but if SB 1322 is eventually signed into law, it may make it easier to delete such election laws in the near future. California is one of only six states that has laws that discriminate against Communists in elections. The other states are Illinois, Kansas, Arizona, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. None of the states enforce these laws; they were implicitly held unconstitutional in 1974 by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. The California election laws (1) do not permit anyone to run for any office, partisan or non-partisan, if that person is a member of the Communist Party or has been in the last 5 years; (2) bar subversive parties from the ballot.
Independent Vermont State Representative Daryl L. Pillsbury had been running for the State Senate as an independent this year. But on May 14, he dropped out of the Senate race and endorsed Progressive Party nominee Molly S. Burke. See this story.
Pillsbury has represented Brattleboro as an independent since 2000. He is currently one of the two independents in the Vermont House.
Although the Vermont House has had dozens of minor party and independent members in the last few decades, the Vermont Senate has been composed only of Democrats and Republicans, ever since the 1867 election. The Senate is much smaller than the House; the Senate has 30 members but the House has 150.
This Vermont Public Radio interview with Anthony Pollina centers on Pollina’s reaction to the news that Gaye Symington, speaker of the Vermont House, will be the Democratic gubernatorial candidate. Pollina, chair of the Progressive Party, had been hoping that Democrats would abstain from the race and support him.
The North Carolina Libertarian Party turned in 108,646 raw signatures on May 15, to the State Board of Elections. The counties have already checked them, and 72,935 are valid. The legal requirement is 69,734.
The drive cost the party $134,000, of which $50,000 was from the national party and $84,000 from the state party. The party invited the press to the turn-in, and some press attended. The party points out that the verification process cost elections administrators 4,000 person-hours of labor, at taxpayer expense.
The drive was so expensive for the national Libertarian Party, that the party was unable to pay for the party petition in South Dakota and Oklahoma, and has not started the West Virginia candidate petition, and perhaps may not do any petitioning in West Virginia this year.
A decision on the constitutionality of the North Carolina ballot access law for parties is expected by May 24.
No petition hurdle as great as 69,734 signatures has been met by any new or minor party, or any independent candidate, since Ross Perot overcame a petition requirement of 134,781 signatures in California in 1992, to qualify as an independent. It should be noted that in 1995, two new parties also qualified in California, but that was not by petition. Instead, they each obtained 89,007 registrants. The two parties that did that in 1995 were the Reform and Natural Law Parties.
On May 14, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann resigned. Ohio will hold a special election to replace him, on November 4, 2008. Since the petition deadline for independent candidates (for office other than president) has already passed, special procedures apply. An independent candidate for Attorney General needs 750 valid signatures, due August 19, 2008. UPDATE: the deadline is May 27, not August 19.
There is no procedure for a previously unqualified party to participate in the special election for Attorney General. The deadline for a new party (early November 2007) was held unconstitutional by the 6th circuit in 2006, and the legislature still hasn’t passed a new law. Last year the Ohio Secretary of State created a new deadline that was a few weeks later than the old law, meaning late November 2007 instead of early November 2007. A state’s failure to have a procedure for new or previously unqualified parties, in a special election, was held unconstitutional in Green Party of Arkansas v Priest, in 2001. The fact that Arkansas had a procedure for independent candidates in the special election was not sufficient.