Monthly Archives: January 2007
On January 30, HB 63 was introduced in the Pennsylvania House. It would move the primary in 2008 from April to March 4. The bill has 34 co-sponsors.
Oregon HB 2084 would let the Secretary of State set a presidential primary date. The bill was requested by Bill Bradbury, current Secretary of State. Presumably if the bill passed, he would use his new authority to move the presidential primary to a month earlier than May (current law puts the Oregon presidential primary in […]
Arkansas Representative Michael Lamoureux (R-Russellville) has introduced HB 1351, requiring cities to use Instant-Runoff Voting in their elections for city offices.
Ten Washington State Senators, all Democrats, recently introduced SB 5356, which would make it illegal for petition circulators to be paid on a per-signature basis. The bill applies to initiatives and other types of petitions as well. The sponsors are Adam Kline, Darlene Fairley, Karen Fraser, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Craig Pridemore, Debbie Regala, Erick Poulsen, Karen […]
Maryland State Bd. of Elections Still Fighting to Avoid Paying Green Party Attorneys Fees for 2003 Victory
In 2003, the Maryland Green Party won a spectacular ballot access lawsuit in Maryland’s highest state court. That court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to require double petitioning. That is, it is unconstitutional to require a minor party to submit one petition to qualify itself, and then separate petitions for each of […]
Voters in three California cities, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro, approved use if Instant-Runoff Voting in certain city elections, some time ago. However, IRV has not yet been used in those cities because the vote-counting systems haven’t been ready for it. All three cities are in Alameda County, which uses electronic vote-counting equipment made by […]
Montana State Senator John Cobb has introduced SB 117, to protect candidates who are told they won a close election, and who are then sued by the loser. Under existing law, when that happens, and the recount reverses the outcome, the original “winner” must pay all the court costs associated with the recount. The bill, […]