The New Hampshire House subcommittee that is handling the ballot access improvement bill will hold a third executive session on the bill on November 8, at 10:30 am, in Room 308 of the Legislative Office Building. The bill is HB 48. This meeting will probably finalize the bill and pass it on to the full committee.
On October 24, a group of Michigan journalists and political consultants filed a lawsuit in state court, asking that the Michigan presidential primary law be declared unconstitutional. The law provides that any voter can vote in either major party’s presidential primary (Michigan does not have registration by party). However, in order to vote in a presidential primary, a voter must identify himself or herself. These lists of which voters voted in each party’s presidential primary are then given to the political parties, but no one else may see them. The lawsuit argues that if the information is being given to the parties, it must be available to the public. The lawsuit is in Ingham County Circuit Court and is probably called Grebner v Land. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this.
On October 24, the Hawaii Green Party began its petition to put the party back on the ballot. Hawaii disqualified the Green Party after the November 2006 election. Only 663 signatures are needed for the party petition.
The party lost its position on the ballot after the November 2006 election because of a peculiar Hawaii law that says once a party has been on the ballot for 3 elections in a row, it is then entitled to be on automatically for 5 more elections. The Green Party’s “free” 5 elections had run out after 2006. Parties that poll 10% for a statewide race, or for a single US House district, or 4% for a certain number of State Senate races, or 2% for a certain number of State House races, are exempt from going off the ballot after 5 elections, but the Greens didn’t meet these alternative vote tests.
On July 6, 2006, the Green Party of Connecticut had filed a federal lawsuit against the discriminatory public funding law passed by the Connecticut legislature in 2005. Among other things, the law requires a new party to not only collect the same number of $5 contributions from small donors as the major parties, but to also submit a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast in that district (or in the state, if the candidate is running for statewide office). Even if the 10% petition is submitted, the new party candidate would still not receive the same amount of public funding as the major party members. For full public funding, a 20% petition is required.
On June 6, 2007, an oral argument was held, in which the state argued that the lawsuit should be summarily dismissed, even before any evidence is gathered. The judge has not ruled on the state’s motion. However, he is permitting discovery (a method of evidence-gathering) to proceed. It is unlikely that he would be permitting discovery if he intended to dismiss the lawsuit. The lawsuit is being handled by the ACLU.
On October 18, four U.S. Senators introduced SJR 21, a proposed Constitutional amendment. It says, “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money, including through setting limits, for campaigns for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office.” It also says, “A state shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money, including through setting limits, for State or local ballot initiatives, referenda, plebiscites, or other similar ballot measures; and campaigns for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or local office.” The four Senators are two Democrats, Charles Schumer of New York and Tom Harkin of Iowa; and two Republicans, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Election law professor Rick Hasen has severely criticized the measure. See his October 23 entries at http://electionlawblog.org.
