Texas State Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) has introduced SB134, to abolish the straight-ticket device.
5
On December 1, a U.S. District Court struck down Virginia law that mandates open primaries, in some instances. The case is Miller v Brown, 3:05cv-266, e.d. The decision says that when a party is required to hold a primary, then it may impose restrictions on who can vote in that primary. In this particular case, one unit of the Virginia Republican Party (the party unit in one particular State Senate district) has a bylaw, saying no one who voted in any other party’s primary in the last 5 years may vote in the Republican primary, unless that person signs a loyalty pledge to the Republican Party. The decision says that the party bylaw trumps state law, but only when the party is required to hold a primary.
Virginia law lets a party choose whether to have a primary or a convention. But when the office is one in which the party already has an office-holder, then the office-holder, not the party, dictates whether the party should hold a primary or a convention for that office. So, the ruling only applies when the incumbent office-holder is forcing the party to hold a primary.
This case is historic. It is the first time a federal court has ever ruled that parties need not use an open primary, if they don’t wish to. In 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court had said that parties need not use a blanket primary if they don’t wish to, and this year the 9th circuit had said parties need not use a “top-two” primary if they don’t wish to. But those cases had relatively little impact, because so few states use blanket primaries or top-two primaries. But open primaries are very common and are used in approximately 22 states.
The outgoing Ohio Attorney General has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an extension of 60 days, to file any request that the U.S. Supreme Court review Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell. In that case, on September 6, 2006, the 6th circuit had invalidated Ohio’s procedures for new and minor parties to get on the ballot. Normally, the losing side has 3 months to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision. In this instance, Ohio’s request (which is certain to be granted) will give the state another 2 months to decide whether to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review. By then the new incoming Democratic Attorney General and the new incoming Democratic Secretary of State will make the decision. The outgoing Ohio Secretary of State, and the outgoing Ohio Attorney General, are Republicans.
Maine has released approximate registration data for June 2006. It isn’t exact because a few tiny towns still haven’t reported the data. The state’s estimates for June 2006 are: Democratic 302,000; Republican 275,000; Green 26,000; independent and others 364,000. The Green percentage is 2.69%.
This contrasts with the November 2004 figures, when Maine Greens had 2.36%. The new Green figure for Maine is the highest percentage any state Green Party has ever had, of any state’s registration.
Currently, the highest registration for the Constitution Party in any state is Nevada, where it has 3.48% of that state’s registration. Best Libertarian registration is Alaska, with 1.88%. Complete registration data for all states, for all parties, will be in the January 2007 paper edition of Ballot Access News.
On November 27, 2006, the Oregon Democratic Party intervened in a pending federal lawsuit, for the purpose of supporting the law passed in 2005 in Oregon that makes it illegal for primary voters to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The case is Wasson v Bradbury, 06-cv-6205.
The brief uses the term “one man, one vote” and claims that the law making it illegal for primary voters to sign for an independent petition is required to defend the principle of “one man, one vote”. It says, “It is hard to imagine a rule more closely tailored to the ‘one person, one vote’ purpose than the one-nomination rule embodied in ORS 254.069.”
“One man, one vote” was coined in South Africa in 1960. It means that each voter should be treated equally. “One man, one vote” is not violated when a state lets all voters make multiple nominations. The law in 48 states (all but Texas and Oregon), lets all voters make multiple nominations. Therefore, all voters are being treated equally by those 48 states. It is logically absurd that any attorney should claim that the policy of 48 states violates “one man, one vote”, since “one man, one vote” has been the law of the land in the U.S. since 1964, when the Supreme Court required equal populations in legislative and congressional districts.