An earlier post on August 6 has links to the briefs of the political parties to the U.S. Supreme Court, in the “top-two” case called Washington State v Washington Republican Party. In the interests of fairness, here are the two briefs on the side of the “top-two” proponents, the state of Washington and the Grange. The state’s brief is here; the Grange brief is here.
An earlier post on August 6 has links to the briefs of the political parties to the U.S. Supreme Court, in the “top-two” case called Washington State v Washington Republican Party. In the interests of fairness, here are the two briefs on the side of the “top-two” proponents, the state of Washington and the Grange. The state’s brief is here; the Grange brief is here.
Five performances of “Baum for Peace” will be given in New York city. “Baum for Peace”, originally performed in San Francisco, tells the true story of how Terry Baum (who had never been politically active before, except to participate in demonstrations) screwed up her courage to become the Green Party’s candidate for US House in 2004 against Democratic incumbent Nancy Pelosi. Then it tells her struggle to overcome California election law and try to get on the ballot, including getting arrested in the San Francisco Elections Department office, and appealing the ballot access case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The play costs $15, and is at the CSV Milagro Theater, 107 Suffolk St., between Rivington and Delancey. Subway: F train to Delancey, J or M to Essex. The performances are: Saturday afternoon, August 11, 2:15pm; Sunday evening, Aug. 12, 9:30pm; Friday evening, Aug. 17, 7:15pm; Sunday noon, August 19; and Saturday afternoon, Aug. 25, 4pm. The play is part of Fringe New York (www.fringenyc.org).
On August 6, three Washington state political parties filed their briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. These briefs argue against the “top-two” Washington state election system. For the Republican brief, see here; for the Democratic brief, here; the Libertarian brief is here.
Also, Louisiana filed an amicus with the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the cover says it is in support of the state of Washington, it actually is strictly neutral, and merely says that just because the Court may rule against Washington state, that there are reasons why Louisiana’s system (for state elections) should still be considered constitutional. Louisiana’s system for state elections is somewhat similar to Washington’s system.
Washington has not actually used its “top-two” system yet, because it was passed by the voters in November 2004, but declared unconstitutional in 2005 by a U.S. District Court, a decision that the 9th circuit affirmed in 2006.
On August 6, the 9th circuit ruled in favor of www.voteswap2000.com and against the state of California. The case is Porter v Bowen, 06-55517. This had been one of two minor party-related cases still pending from the 2000 election. The other such case concerns petitioning on post office interior sidewalks.
In 2000, www.voteswap2000.com had been created to let pro-Gore and pro-Nader voters help each other. It was widely known that the 2000 election would be very close, and yet most states were secure for Bush or for Gore. The purpose of the website was to let Nader voters in close states find Gore voters in states that were not close. The webpage helped such individuals find each other. Then, assuming the pair decided that his or her “partner” could be trusted, the Gore voter in the non-close state would promise to vote for Nader, and the Nader voter in the close state would promise to vote for Gore.
The California Secretary of State had threatened the web site with criminal prosecution. In response, the web page closed down but the National Voting Rights Institute sued on behalf of the web page. After 7 years, the web page has won the case. The court said this kind of activity is not the same as bribing people to vote a certain way. The decision says, “The websites did not encourage the trading of votes for money, or indeed for anything other than other votes.”
