On March 13, the Vermont House passed SB 108 on 2nd reading by a vote of 81-60. It passed on 3rd reading on March 14. SB 108 would provide that the state’s congressional elections should use Instant-Runoff Voting, starting this year.
Unfortunately, Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, hinted recently that he will veto the bill.
No one filed in the Republican primary in Oregon to run for Attorney General. This is especially good news for Oregon’s Working Families Party. The Oregon WFP is ballot-qualified, but since its registration is quite small, it will go off the ballot if it doesn’t run anyone for one of the statewide offices. WFP hates to injure Democratic nominees, generally. But in the Attorney General’s race, the WFP can now run its own candidate without worrying that it will injure the Democratic nominee.
Thanks to Politics1 for the news about the lack of a Republican in the Oregon race.
The Democratic Party seems no closer to solving the problem of how to give Florida and Michigan rank-and-file Democrats some input into the national convention. Even though federal taxpayers subsidize the two major party national conventions (over $16,000,000 apiece), and even though state taxpayers pay for major party primaries in all states, the Democratic Party so far hasn’t come up with a solution for itself.
One then compares the Democratic Party to the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties. Those latter three parties pay for their own national convention, and yet they have never failed to include delegates from every state (if there were people in each state who wanted to participate!). Those three parties have had contentious national conventions, but each one of those conventions was always capable, in the end, of resolving whom to seat, and whom to nominate for president and vice-president. Self-sufficiency does have its rewards.
According to this Miami Herald story, the Florida Democratic Party’s plan for a new presidential primary has many troubles.
On March 10, the U.S. Supreme Court docketed Schaefer v Lamone, 07-1143. The case arose in federal court in Maryland, against a state law that mandates candidates in primaries should be listed in alphabetical order. The plaintiff argues that equal protection requires some sort of random order, or rotation, since the research is strong now that order of candidates does make a difference. The lower courts gave no relief.
