Vermont SB 108, to use Instant Runoff Voting for the state’s congressional races (both Senate and House) may still pass. It seems fairly likely the Senate Government Operations Committee will pass it on April 13. Unfortunately, the Governor had been hinting that if it reaches him, he may veto it.
On January 3, 2007, New York State Senator John Defrancisco (R-Staten Island) introduced S29, which cuts the number of signatures in half, for all types of ballot access petitions. So far the bill has not made any headway, but the New York legislature meets almost all year long. The statewide petition would drop from 15,000 to 7,500 signatures. Thanks to M Carling for this news.
On April 12, a 7-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 that a group of voters may proceed with a lawsuit, challenging the use of Electronic Vote-Counting machines that leave no paper trail. Banfield v Cortes, 442 MD 2006.
The majority opinion is 26 pages long, and depends partly on the Pennsylvania Constitutional provision (Art. I, sec. 5) that “elections are free and equal.” The opinion quoted from a 1992 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that says, “When every voter has the same right as any other voter; when each voter under the law has the right to cast his ballot and have it honestly counted”, only then is the State Constitution satisfied. The decision then says, “Because Electors have a right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to have their votes honestly counted and because Electors have no way of knowing whether the votes will be honestly counted by DREs that are not reliable or secure, Electors have pled an injury.”
The majority also depended on sec. 1105-A of the Election code, which says an electronic voting system shall “provide for a permanent physical record of each vote cast.” That law was added in 1980, before the newest technology had been invented.
The 3-judge dissent says, “The statute does not say ‘paper’; it says ‘physical record.’
By chance, 5 of the 7 judges on the panel are women. All of the dissenters were women. The judges in the majority are Doris Smith-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini, Rochelle Friedman, and Robert Simpson; the dissenters are Bonnie Leadbetter, Renee Cohn Jubelirer, and Mary Hannah Leavitt. The state may appeal to the State Supreme Court.
The voters of Georgia’s 10th congressional district will choose a new member of the House on June 19. Anyone who pays a filing fee of $4,950 will appear on the June 19 ballot, with a party label of his or her choice (Georgia doesn’t have registration by party). The dates for filing the declaration of candidacy and paying the fee are between April 24 and noon on April 26. No petition is needed, since this is a special election.
One Libertarian, Dr. Jim Sendelbach, has already announced that he will run. His participation will be historic. This will be the first time since 1942 that a candidate will have appeared on the Georgia ballot for U.S. House, with a party label other than “Democratic” or “Republican”. In regularly-scheduled elections, Georgia not only requires the same large filing fee; Georgia also requires a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters in the district is required. No third party candidate has ever complied with that law, which was passed in 1943. An independent last complied with it in 1964.
On April 12, two members of Unity08’s Rules Committee participated in an on-line question and answer session. The transcript is already posted by an independent web site, Political State Report, and can be seen here, along with remarks by the people who posted it. The transcript should soon be on Unity08’s web page as well.
