On June 20, the North Carolina Senate passed HB91, which moves the deadline to register to vote to only 3 days before an election. The bill had already passed the House, but in a slightly different form, so it must return there. Some newspapers call HB91 an “election-day registration bill”, but that is not strictly accurate.
On June 19, Senator Barack Obama was asked how he feels about general election presidential debates that include everyone who is on the ballot in enough states to win. Larry Reinsch, the Iowa activist who had earlier asked Senator Hillary Clinton the same question, was also the questioner for Obama.
Obama responded, “I think it’s a valid point, and I will tell you that from the perspective of the voter, if realistically, because we don’t have a Parliamentary System, you’re basically not gonna get a Libertarian elected president.” (this response, of course, was not strictly responsive to the question).
Reinsch then said, “You know why that is?”
Obama said, “Well, because we’ve got a winner-take-all system.”
Reinsch: “No, the biggest problem is because we don’t get to hear about them. If we could hear about them they’d get the polls.”
Obama: “I taught voting rights, and I’ll tell you the problem is, part of it is the structure of our democracy. When you have a winner-take-all system, then what happens, it’s very hard for third parties to get a foothold. Which is why we never really, even when guys like George Wallace did have a hearing, the worse thing when Ross Perot did have a hearing and had millions of dollars, its still very hard for them to get leverage. But the general point, my general attitude is as many people get a hearing as possible. But what we’ll hear from the networks is…look, its nice, we’re not just setting up a platform for a theoretical debate, we’re choosing the next President.”
Reinsch: “But its not up to them to decide.”
Obama: “I understand, I understand…well, that’s not entirely true, but anyway, I get your point and I’m generally sympathetic to it.”
As one can see, Senator Obama didn’t really focus very much on the specific question of whether he would be willing to debate all his opponents who are on the ballot in enough states to win (assuming he is the Democratic nominee). But, it was a start. Congratulations to Larry Reinsch for having raised this important question with two leading presidential candidates. Reinsch will be trying to get a response from former Governor Mitt Romney in the next few days.
The Washington, D.C. city council is responsible for writing the District’s election laws. The city council almost passed a bill in 2003 replacing mandatory petitions with filing fees, but then it seemed the idea had been forgotten. However, someone on the city council has revived the idea, and staff for the city council is researching the idea.
If the District replaced petitions with filing fees for general election ballot access (especially presidential ballot access), that would be a boon for minor parties. The D.C. presidential petition for the general election is one of the most difficult in the nation. It is the only petition that George Wallace didn’t attempt in 1968; it is the only petition that Pat Buchanan didn’t attempt in 2000; and the Constitution Party has never attempted it. It requires a petition signed by 1% of the number of registered voters. That is more than twice as difficult as the median petition requirement of the 50 states, for presidential candidates.
On June 20, the 3rd circuit ruled that a government employee in a non-policy making position cannot be fired, just because she is apolitical and doesn’t support the party in power. The case is Galli v New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, no. 05-4114.
In 1976, 1980, and 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that government employees in non-policymaking positions cannot be fired, demoted, or otherwise injured, just because of their partisan affiliation. In those cases, the injured employee was an active partisan of the party out of power.
By contrast, in the recent New Jersey case, the injured employee was fired not because she was a Republican, but because she was a registered independent who kept her political opinions private. The 3rd circuit said “The First Amendment protects an employee’s failure to engage in any political activity whatsoever…A citizen’s right not to support a candidate is just as relevant for First Amendment purposes as her right to support one…The right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”
The vote was 2-1. The dissenting judge argued that an employee who doesn’t speak out on politics is not exercising her rights.
The decision will be somewhat useful should any new or previously unqualified party sue Illinois, over Illinois law that requires a new party to run a full slate of candidates, if it wishes to appear on the ballot. The case would be unusual; the political party that files such a case would be arguing for the right not to run for certain positions.
On June 19, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 293. It lets the Republican Party certify its nominees for president and vice-president as late as September 5. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill only applies to the Republican Party and it only applies for 2008.
