Two election law bills of interest are pending in the extended session of the Illinois legislature. HB 1685 is the National Popular Vote Plan, and HB 1752 is the timid improvement in ballot access laws. Both bills were supposed to be enacted by June 22, but on June 22 the legislature extended the deadline for both bills to June 30.
On June 21, leaders of the Democratic Party of Florida met with national Democratic chair Howard Dean. They emerged from the meeting optimistic that the national party will not fully enforce its bylaws, which severely punish state Democratic Parties that hold primaries before February 5 (except for the New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic Parties). The story is here.
The voters of Ontario Province will vote on October 10, 2007, on this question: “Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? (1) The existing electoral system (first-past-the-post); or (2) The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens Assembly (mixed member proportional)?” The question will be presented in French as well as English.
British Columbia had voted on proportional representation a few years ago, but the British Columbia referendum required 60% for Proportional Representation to win. It failed in British Columbia because it only got 58%. But in Ontario, proportional representation (choice #2) will win if it outpolls choice #1, the existing system. UPDATE: thanks to the individuals who corrected this statement. The Ontario vote also requires a 60% vote.
Mixed member proportional representation means a system in which voters vote first on a district representative, and then, in a separate vote, choose their favorite political party. If, for example, the Green Party wins no district seats, but polls 5% in the “favorite party” question, then it gets 5% of all the seats in the Provincial legislature. Each party submits a “party list” in advance of the election, with their spare candidates listed in order of priority. The “make-up” members are chosen from this list. Thanks to Dan Tokaji and the Election Law blog for this news.
On June 21, the Delaware House of Representatives passed HB 61 by 35-5. It says that no one may appear on the ballot for any office unless he or she files an oath that his or her income taxes and property taxes are paid up (or that the candidate has received an extension). The oath must also say that the candidate is not delinquent in child support payments.
The bill does not exclude candidates for federal office. It is therefore unconstitutional, as applied to federal candidates, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton. That decision, issued in 1995, says states may not add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution. Even felons have a right to run for federal office while they are in prison.
On June 21, SurveyUSA released a poll of hypothetical general election presidential match-ups, including Mike Bloomberg, for 16 states. The entire survey included 500 voters in each of the 16 states, or a total of 8,000 voters. Every combination for these five major party candidates was tested: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. The poll is here. Bloomberg’s highest showing was 29% in New York state if the major party nominees were Romney and Obama. The results in general show a likely Democratic Party win, in a 3-way race.
