Two interesting Illinois election law bills, HB 1685 (National Popular Vote Plan) and HB 1752 (meek ballot access improvements) were supposed to have passed by August 10, or been considered dead. However, both bills have been extended again, until August 17. The Illinois legislature is in special session so all bills are under tight deadlines. Both bills have passed both houses, but conference committees are needed.

During August, a proposed California initiative to alter the way California chooses presidential electors has garnered considerable publicity. The proposed initiative, backed by Republican Party leaders, would provide that each U.S. House district would choose its own presidential elector. Since California normally casts all its electoral votes for the Democratic nominee, and since this plan would presumably produce approximately 34 Democratic electors and 21 Republican electors from California, Democrats have already begun to attack the idea.

However, both sides may have overlooked the broader ramifications. 23 states have the initiative process (Illinois’ so-called initiative can’t be used for almost all topics, so Illinois is not included). Of those 23 states, 18 of them voted for Bush in each of the last presidential elections. If Republicans could do an initiative in California, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon and Washington, then Democrats are free to do similiar initiatives in the other 18 initiative states, which include Ohio and Florida.

Furthermore, there is no reason the proposed initiatives need to give each US House district its own elector. Another alternative would be one similar to that defeated in Colorado in 2004, to divide each state’s electors proportionately to the popular vote. In this manner, even the 5 Republican states with only a single US House district (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska) could end up with plans that would normally result in 2 Republican electors and 1 Democratic elector.

A broader implication for these initiatives might be a final revulsion with the electoral college, and a push for either the National Popular Vote plan, or a constitutional amendment to end the electoral college.

On August 9, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner said he will ask the Attorney General whether an unqualified party can circulate a presidential candidate petition listing one particular presidential candidate, and then have that candidate withdraw (should he or she not be nominated) and have the actual national convention nominee replace him or her.

The New Hampshire Libertarian Party is currently circulating a presidential candidate petition, listing George Phillies for president. Phillies is an active and vigorous campaigner for that nomination, but no one knows who the actual Libertarian Party presidential nominee will be. The NHLP has started circulating this petition because (even though only 3,000 signatures are needed) the petitioning process in New Hampshire is very ardurous. The party failed to get its needed 3,000 signatures for Michael Badnarik in 2004, and failed to get its needed 3,000 signatures for Richard Kahn for Governor in 2006. New Hampshire petitions must be turned in to each town clerk. Later, after the town clerks have checked them, the group must physically collect them and transport them to the Secretary of State’s office. Sometimes it is difficult to get the town clerks to do this work. The process takes far longer than it does in most states.

If the Attorney General rules that a presidential candidate listed on a petition may withdraw, he will be agreeing with similar rulings in many other states. If he refuses to allow it, it is possible the NHLP will bring a lawsuit.

The Libertarian Party national convention is in late May 2008 in Denver, Colorado.