On February 9, a U.S. District Court determined that the city of Martin, South Dakota, should use cumulative voting to elect its city council. Cottier v City of Martin, no. 02-5021-KES.

The court had earlier ruled that Martin’s plan for electing its city council violates the Voting Rights Act, as applied to Native Americans. The court had given the city a chance to suggest a remedy, but the city refused, so the court authorized its own plan. In the past, Martin has elected its 6-member city council from three districts (2 members from each district). Although Native Americans comprise 36% of the voting age population of Martin, and 31% of the persons who voted in the last election, they have never been able to elect one of their own to the city council. Furthermore, they are so dispersed throughout the city, experts on both sides agreed it was not possible for the boundaries of the three districts to be drawn so that Native Americans comprised a solid majority in any district.

Therefore, the court ordered Cumulative Voting. Elections will be at-large, with three to be elected in each election. Each voter will receive three votes. Each voter will be able to cast one, two, or three votes for any one (or more) of the candidates.

Under current New Hampshire law, an independent voter can “join” a qualified political party at the polls on primary day, vote in that party’s primary, and then immediately sign a form (at the polls) to go back to independent status. HB 196 would still let independent voters join a major political party at the primary polling place, and vote in that major party primary, but the bill would provide that that voter must then remain a member of that party, until he or she (after primary day) goes to the town clerk and requests a change back to independent status.

This bill has a hearing on Feb. 14. Also being heard on Feb. 14 is HB 272, which gives the Secretary of State even more authority than he already has, over the date of New Hampshire’s presidential primary. He already has the power to set the date of the primary, and state law tells him to set it 7 days before any other state’s primary. The bill adds a sentence that also gives him the authority to define what is meant by “primary”. The bill, if passed, would let him define “primary” to include a caucus.

The House Elections Law Committee still hasn’t voted on HB 48, the bill to ease the definition of “party” from a group that got 4%, to a group that got 2%, of the vote in the last election.

As expected, Ohio’s Secretary of State did not appeal Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell to the US Supreme Court.