On June 6, the California Assembly passed AB 1662, the bill to let overseas absentee voters use ranked-choice ballots, in election with the potential to have an old-fashioned run-off. The vote was unanimous. As noted in a previous post, AB 1294 had also passed the California Assembly today.
South Carolina has long been one of the very few places where parties pay for the administration of their own presidential primaries. On June 5, the legislature gave final passage to SB 99, which says the government will pay for them, starting next year. It is possible Governor Mark Sanford will veto it.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation was formed in 2004, mostly by people who had left the Workers World Party. The Party for Socialism and Liberation is pondering whether to run a presidential candidate in 2008. The party decision will probably be made in the next 30 days. The party’s web site is www.pslweb.org.
On June 6, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill, a Clinton appointee, held a hearing in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 3:06cv-1030. The judge seemed to give no indication of his thoughts, but he did indicate he would probably rule in a week or two. The issue is the discriminatory aspects of Connecticut’s public funding law for candidates for state office. All candidates who seek public funding are required to collect a certain number of $5 contributions (the number of contributions depends on which office is being sought). However, independents and candidates of new parties need a petition signed by 20% of the voters as well as meeting the contribution requirement.
Connecticut, assisted by the Brennan Center, argued that the case should not even receive a trial. The Brennan Center issued a press release on June 6, titled, “Brennan Center Urges Federal Court to Dismiss Challenge to Connecticut Campaign Finance Law.” The press release says “In 1976 the Supreme Court in Buckley v Valeo upheld a federal public financing system for presidential elections that is very similar to Connecticut’s law in its treatment of minor party candidates.” This sentence is not true.
The federal law treated all presidential candidates seeking the nomination of a party exactly alike. They all had to raise $5,000 in each of 20 states. Their party affiliation was irrelevant.
The federal law limited general election public funding to parties that had polled 5% of the vote in the last election (or, if they got 5% in the current election, they got funding immediately after the election was over). It is true that part of the federal program meant that certain parties received this type of funding and certain other parties didn’t. But the standard was objectively non-discriminatory. It was the same standard for every party. By analogy, if Connecticut required the same number of $5 contributions for every candidate, that would match the federal system. Some candidates would get the public funding and others wouldn’t, but the standard is the same for all.
By contrast, Connecticut has a lower standard for Democrats and Republicans, and a higher standard for independents and new parties.
The Brennan Center press release also mislead its readers, by saying that Tom Sevigny, described as a founder of the Connecticut Green Party, supports the law. The press release does not mention that Sevigny is no longer a member of the Green Party. He is a registered independent.
The Brennan Center was very helpful to minor parties from its founding in the 1990’s, through 2003. It has new leadership and has become an enemy of minor party members and independent voters.
On June 4, the North Carolina Senate Committee on Government & Election Reform passed HB 91, which lets people register to vote as late as 3 days before an election. The full House will probably vote on it late on June 6. The bill has already passed the House.
