On April 21, the 6th circuit ruled that Ohio violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment when, in 2002, it used punchcard ballots in some counties, and better voting methods in other counties. Stewart v Blackwell, 05-3044. The vote was 2-1. All three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. It is very likely that Ohio will ask for a rehearing en banc.

The majority based its decision on Bush v Gore. The dissent asserted that Bush v Gore is not a binding or meaningful precedent. Bush v Gore, the famous decision of December 12, 2000, which settled the presidential election of 2000, said, “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Also, “the idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” If Bush v Gore were followed faithfully by lower courts, and by the US Supreme Court itself, many problems that prevent voters from voting freely for a minor party or independent candidate could be swept away. Therefore, it is refreshing to find this most recent example of a lower court taking Bush v Gore seriously.

On April 19, the California Senate Elections Committee heard one hour and forty minutes of testimony on AB 583, by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, to establish public funding for state office. The Committee did not act on the bill, which would provide public funding for candidates who raised a certain number of $5 contributions from members of the public. The bill will be re-written and scheduled for a committee vote in the near future. Anyone can watch the testimony at caclean.org. C.T. Weber of the Peace & Freedom Party, and Richard Winger, who were the last two witnesses, were the only witnesses who complained about the fact that independent candidates and most minor party candidates would need twice as many qualifying contributions as other candidates.

On April 18, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 2097. It requires companies that sell vote-counting machines in California to make their software public. All Democrats voting voted for it; all of the Republicans abstained. The Secretary of State and several county elections officials testified against the bill. They warned that if vote-counting manufacturers are forced to make their computer software public, that these companies will refuse to do business in California.