According to this story, the Arizona Green Party this year is again suffering from insincere candidates running in its primaries. This is an old problem for the Arizona Green Party. It shows once again that small qualified parties ought to have the ability to nominate by convention.
On April 14, the Hawaii Senate passed HB 1716 after amending it. This is the bill that eases the definition of a qualified party. Because the Senate amended it, it must return to the House to see if the House agrees with the amendment.
As amended, the bill says that if a party has been on the ballot two elections in a row, then it is automatically on the ballot for the next ten years. Current law is similar, but says the party must have qualified three elections in a row, not two.
The Senate vote was unanimous, except that one Senator voted “yes with reservations.” Hawaii is the only state that lets legislators choose to cast a “yes” vote with no reservations, or instead to cast a “yes” vote with reservations.
Supporters of fusion sued Wisconsin almost a year ago, arguing that the State Constitution requires the state to let two parties jointly nominate the same candidate. After months of gathering evidence, the pro-fusion side has filed its brief in Dane County Circuit Court. Here is that brief. United Wisconsin v Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2025cv001438.
Somewhat similar lawsuits are pending in Kansas and New Jersey.
On April 13, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed SB 322, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. Virginia is the first state to join the compact since Minnesota joined in 2023.
The Governor waited until the very last day. The bill had passed the legislature on February 25.
On April 13, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney mostly upheld the California top-two system. Here is the 26-page decision. The judge did find problems with (1) the state’s refusal to let members of unqualified parties have their party label on the ballot; (2) the early filing deadline in presidential election years, which is in December of the year before the election. So the plaintiffs are free to amend their Complaint with more details about how those two provisions are faulty.
For the main issues in the case, the judge simply relied on the fact that the State Court of Appeals upheld the top-two system in 2014, and the same plaintiffs in the current case were mostly in the 2014 case. The 2014 decision was deeply flawed and factually incorrect. It said that the state interest in a top-two system was to let independents vote in primaries, and stated erroneously that before top-two came into existence, independents could not vote in Republican and Democratic primaries. The reality is that there are many types of primary systems that let independents vote in primaries, and yet don’t restrict access to the general election ballot. But Judge Chesney did not delve into problems with the 2014 decision.
