On March 1, the voters of Burlington, Vermont passed Instant-Runoff Voting for future mayoral elections in that city, by 62% to 38%. The legislature must approve this charter amendment, but it is very likely that it will do so. Burlington has partisan mayoral elections.
The US Supreme Court will probably provide a clue on March 21, as to whether it is interested in Nader’s Texas appeal. Chances are the Court will either reject Nader’s appeal that day, or will ask Texas to submit a brief. One issue is whether a state can force an independent presidential candidate to collect substantially more signatures than are needed for either an entire new party, or an independent candidate for other statewide office. The other issue is whether a state can force an independent presidential candidate to submit a petition two weeks before a new party petition is due. This is a very strong case.
Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson won informal consent from the State Senate on February 24 to add a amendment to SB1205. Current law requires a new party to submit a petition signed by 1.33% of the last vote cast. Her amendment would change the base of the percentage, to the last vote cast in a gubernatorial election. Arizona elects Governors in mid-term years, and the turnout in mid-term years is always far lower than in presidential years. If passed, the Amendment will reduce the 2006 new party petition from 26,835 signatures, to 16,348 signatures. However, the amendment would have no effect on new party petitioning in presidential years, such as 2008. It would only make petitioning easier in mid-term years.
On February 24, the plaintiffs in the San Diego write-in lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to the California State Court of Appeals. Lawrence v Murphy. The issue is whether all of write-in votes cast for Donna Frye should be counted. The lower court had said write-ins could not be counted if the voter didn’t fill in the oval on the write-in line.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that on February 17, they asked the Oregon Secretary of State to file a brief, explaining why the Court shouldn’t accept Ralph Nader’s ballot access appeal. This is a good sign that the Court is interested in the case. Oregon had already told the Court last month that it didn’t wish to file a response. But now the Court has said, notwithstanding Oregon’s disinterest in responding, that Oregon ought to respond. The case is Kucera v Bradley, 04-872.
