On March 28, the Maryland State Senate passed SB634, the “National Popular Vote Plan” for presidential elections.
Reply
On March 27, the Montana House Administration tabled SB 117. This is the bill that had already passed the Senate, which would have provided that when a candidate is sued because his or opponent wants a recount, the government pays the court costs, regardless of which way the recount goes. The bill was retroactive and would have saved Rep. Rick Jore (the lone Constitution Party state legislator) from having to repay $18,000 court costs from the 2004 recount.
The same committee also tabled HB 760 on March 18. It would have instituted a “Clean Elections” system of public financing of candidates for state office.
On March 28, the Montana House Administration Committee passed SB 270. The bill is now three-fourths of the way through the legislature. It moves the deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from June to March. Montana had a similar March independent candidate deadline between 1973 and 1990, but it was declared unconstitutional by a lower state court in 1990. The state had then appealed to the State Supreme Court, which voided the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing. Nevertheless, the State Supreme Court didn’t uphold the March deadline. There is a high likelihood that if this bill is signed into law, it will be ruled unconstitutional. Montana holds its primary in June.
On March 27, SB 138 was introduced in the Alaska legislature, to implement the “National Popular Vote Plan” for presidential elections.
In 1975, the United States and many nations in Europe signed the Helsinki Accords, to set minimum standards for human rights in each of the signing nations. In 1990 the treaty was expanded to include political rights, and ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) was established to monitor how each nation is doing.
ODHIR observed the U.S. elections of 2006, and on March 9, 2007, issued a report about U.S. compliance with the Treaty. The report can be seen here. Pages 8 and 9 criticize excessive ballot access petition requirements in certain states. Pennsylvania is singled out as a bad example. Footnote 23 says, “For example, in Pennsylvania for the 7 November election this meant 57,000 signatures.” Actually, the footnote is slightly in error; the actual requirement was 67,070 signatures. Thanks to Michael Richardson for finding the ODIHR Report.