On July 5, Connecticut SB 1311 was signed into law. It makes many election law changes. Among them, it expands fusion (“fusion” is the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate). Fusion has always been legal in Connecticut.

However, since 1981, fusion has only been legal between two qualified parties. Connecticut has two types of qualified parties, major parties and minor parties. Major parties are those which polled 20% for Governor in the last election, or which have registration equal to 20% of the last gubernatorial vote. Qualified minor parties are those that polled 1% for any particular office in the last election. “Qualified status” in Connecticut is office by office, so most minor parties, like the Green and Libertarian Parties, are qualified for some offices but not others.

SB 1311 says that an unqualified party can also participate in fusion, if it is already qualified for at least one office that is on the ballot that year. Thus, since the Libertarian and Green Parties are qualified for some statewide state offices, they can engage in fusion in 2010 (when those offices will next be on the ballot) for every office in the state.

The Working Families Party did the difficult work of getting this expansion of fusion into law. This is the first time in at least 70 years that any state has expanded fusion. Fusion was once legal in all states, but it has been shrinking over the years. It was partially restricted in New York in 1947, virtually banned in California in 1959, substantially restricted by Pennsylvania in 1985, and wiped out in Arkansas and South Dakota in 1997.

Ron Paul reports that he has $2,400,000 in his campaign bank account. Data for all presidential candidates will be known officially on July 15, when reports for the last calendar quarter must be filed with the Federal Election Commission. The other Republicans who have already released their figures are the front-runners: Rudy Giuliani $15,000,000 for the primary season (plus another $3,000,000 that can only be spent on the general election and must be returned if he isn’t nominated); Mitt Romney $12,000,000; John McCain $2,000,000. Data for the other contenders will be reported on this blog when it is available. However, it is believed that Paul is in 3rd place in the “cash on hand” category among Republicans.

On June 29, the 11th circuit upheld Alabama’s ballot access law for new and minor parties, and for non-presidential independent candidates. That law, first put into effect in 1998, requires a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. The decision was by Judge Frank Hull, who already had a bad record on ballot access. She had previously upheld Georgia’s district petition requirement of a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters, even though no minor party candidate has used that petition for U.S. House in 63 years.

The decision is Swanson v Worley, no. 06-13643. The decision does not mention that a law virtually identical to Alabama’s was declared unconstitutional law year in U.S. District Court in Arkansas. Nor does the decision mention the favorable ballot access in 2006 in Illinois and Ohio, in the 7th and 6th circuits. The decision does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court’s teaching in Storer v Brown, and in Mandel v Bradley, that ballot access laws that are seldom used are probably unconstitutional. The decision does admit that no one has used the 3% petition since 2000. But it says there is no evidence that anyone has tried since 2002. The truth is the Libertarian Party tried to qualify a statewide petition in 2006, and failed. Since this lawsuit was filed and adjudicated by the U.S. District Court in 2002 and 2003, no evidence could be submitted after 2003, so it is disingenuous for the decision to say that “there is no evidence in the record that any independent or minor party candidate sought and failed to gain ballot access since 2002.”

The decision says that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a June petition deadline in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson. This is not true. The Georgia law upheld in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson did have a June deadline, but the deadline was not an issue in that case. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Mandel v Bradley that it is judicial error for any court to assume that Jenness v Fortson had upheld a June decision. The recent 11th circuit decision does not mention Mandel v Bradley.

The decision says that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld 3% and 5% district petitions in American Party of Texas v White, but the decision does not say that Texas had a maximum cap of 500 signatures on such district petitions.

It is not known if any of the Alabama plaintiffs will ask for U.S. Supreme Court review. A decision need not be made for several months.