On December 1, the Connecticut legislature passed Bill 2103, which provides public funding for candidates for state office. All candidates would need to raise considerable amounts of private money, in order to receive public funding. But members of parties which polled 20% for Governor in the last election would not need to do anything else to qualify, except to raise enough private donations.

Independent candidates, and nominees of parties that had not polled 10% of the vote in the last election for that same office, would need to submit petitions. For full funding, they would need to submit a number of signatures equal to 20% of the last vote cast; for partial funding, 10%.

Parties that had polled 10% for that office, but under 20%, would get one-third of the funding; if they had polled 15% at the last election, two-thirds.

The amount of money that all candidates need to have raised privately is $250,000 for gubernatorial candidates; $75,000 for other statewide candidates; $15,000 for State Senate candidates; and $5,000 for State House candidates. Since these thresholds are quite severe, it seems obvious to unbiased observers that any candidate who reaches these thresholds should qualify. There is no need to add additional qualifiers for disfavored classes of candidates.

The Helsinki Accords, which the U.S. signed, pledge all nations to “respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office without discrimination” and to “provide political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law.”

Maine state representative Joanne Twomey recently changed her voter registration from “Democratic” to “independent”. The Maine House of Representatives now as one Green and three independents. Thanks to Austin Cassidy’s thirdpartywatch for this news.

On November 28, the paperwork was filed in federal court in Louisiana, to determine whether the state’s new law on congressional timing is contrary to federal law.

In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Louisiana could not continue holding its congressional elections in September. Louisiana, the only state that uses the “top-two” system, had been holding congressional elections in September. Only in the rare cases when no one got 50% did Louisiana hold a run-off (which was held in November).

A federal law, on the books since 1872, tells the states they must have congressional elections in November. If a state desires the winner to always be someone who got 50%, the states may hold a run-off after the November date. After Louisiana lost the case, it started holding the first round in November. If a run-off was needed, it was in December.

But in 2005, the legislature passed a law reverting to the old illegal September-November system. The only difference between the 2005 law, and the old law that was invalidated, is that the new law says anyone elected in September is “deemed” to have been elected in November. Most neutral observers feel that the U.S. District Court which has jurisdiction of this old case will tell the legislature that the 2005 law is just as illegal as the old law was. The case is now in front of U.S. District Court Judge Frank Polozola. It is called Foster v Love.