On March 16, the Democratic Party candidate for Governor of Guam asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his lawsuit over whether Guam should have held a run-off election for Governor last year. The case is Underwood v Camacho, 06-1268.

At the November 2006 election, the vote was: Republican (Camacho) 19,552; Democratic (Underwood) 18,688; write-ins 668; overvotes 504. An “overvote” is an instance at which the voter (whether accidentally or on purpose) voted for two candidates. This can happen if the voter votes for one of the candidates listed on the ballot and also casts a write-in vote; or it can happen if the voter votes for both candidates listed on the ballot. The federal law that governs Guam says that a run-off must be held “if no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.” In this case, no one received a majority. But the Guam Election Commission, following a local Guam law, ruled that Camacho did receive a majority because the Guam Election Commission treated the overvotes as though they didn’t exist.

The Democratic candidate found one of the nation’s leading election law firms to represent him in the U.S. Supreme Court. The attorney is Paul M. Smith of Jenner & Block. Jenner & Block is also representing New York judge Margarita Lopez Torres in her election law case in the U.S. Supreme Court. That case will be heard in October or November 2007 in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court already had to rule on Guam gubernatorial run-offs once before. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blank ballots do not count for determining whether a Guam gubernatorial candidate polled a majority. That case was called Gutierrez v Ada.

On March 14, Congressman Sander Levin (D-Mich.) introduced H.R. 1523. It divides the U.S. into six regions for purposes of determing the dates of presidential primaries and caucuses. It also sets up six dates (from March through June of presidential election years). It provides for a lottery to determine which region would vote on which of the six permitted dates.

The bill does not define “political party”, so it is unclear whether it would include parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. Also, the bill does not seem to consider that parties probably have a Freedom of Association to set their own caucus dates (for those states that use caucuses, not primaries). Party caucuses are not paid for by state governments, and consequently it is difficult to imagine that a court would let congress tell any party when to hold caucuses. Thanks to Tony Roza for this news.

The California Secretary of State has released new registration data. There won’t be any further California registration tallies until the late autumn of 2007. The new data shows some slip in Republican registration, and continuing gains for independent voters, compared to October 2006.

Republicans slipped from 34.33% of the state total, to 34.19%. Democrats gained slightly, from 42.48% to 42.52%. Independents went from 18.74% to 18.83%. All other parties went from 4.45% to 4.46%.