On March 26, the Maryland Senate passed SB1025, to move the primary in presidential election years from March to February. The House has already passed the identical bill, HB1434.

The Unity08 Rules Committee has released a tentative draft of rules on how presidential candidates will be eligible for the Unity08 on-line presidential selection process. The draft will not be final until or unless it is approved by the Delegates.

The proposal requires someone who wants the Unity08 presidential nomination to submit paper petitions signed by 500 registered voters, from each of 5 states. In addition, the candidate must also receive the on-line endorsement of 2,500 registered voters in each of 10 states. This dual requirement translates into a grand total of 2,500 written signatures, plus 25,000 electronic messages of support. See here for details.

On March 29, the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee passed HB148, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. The Senate had already passed the identical bill (SB 634). The full House will vote on March 30. Since the Governor has already said he will sign the bill, it seems likely that Maryland will be the first state to pass the Plan. The Plan does not go into effect until states containing a majority of the electoral college have approved it.

On March 26, Quebec Province held a provincial parliamentary election. The Democratic Action Party of Quebec (ADQ), which had held only 4 seats in the last Quebec parliament (out of 125 seats) won 41 seats, making it the 2nd strongest party in the province. The results are: Liberal Party 48 seats, ADQ 41 seats, Party Quebecois 36 seats.

Many of the ADQ candidates who were elected, had no idea they had any chance to be elected, and are inexperienced in politics.

Something similar happened in Ontario Province in the 1990’s, when the New Democratic Party won control of Ontario, again in an election at which no one had dreamed that would happen, and many of the elected members had never considered that they might actually win.

The Canadian experience shows that when ballot access laws, debate practices, and public funding, are all equal, minor parties can do well, even in a system which lacks proportional representation.

The ADQ believes that Quebec should remain part of Canada but that all the provinces should have greater autonomy.

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, is asking the Minnesota legislature to pass SF1298 and HF1110. These are identical bills that shrink the amount of time permitted for a group to circulate a petition to become a qualified party.

The Minnesota petition to create a new party has existed unchanged since 1913. It is a petition of 5% of the last vote cast, due in mid-July of election years. A group can start as soon as it wishes and take as long as it wishes. Nevertheless, it is so difficult, it has never been used on a statewide basis. For 2008, it requires 110,150 signatures.

Instead, unqualified parties invariably use the independent candidate petition, since the independent candidate petition is so much easier (only 2,000 signatures for statewide office). Minnesota lets candidates who use the independent procedure choose a partisan label, such as “Green” or “Libertarian” or “Independence.” Then, if the group polls 5% for a statewide candidate, it becomes a qualified party, without ever having had to do the statewide new party petition.

The bills change the new party petition deadline from mid-July to mid-May, and also make it illegal for a group to circulate the petition in an odd year. It would be very helpful if activists in Minnesota would ask the Secretary of State to amend his bills to lower the number of signatures needed, since he is shrinking the amount of time available, and since the 5% standard (having never been used) is obviously too difficult.

On March 28, New Jersey’s Governor signed A100. It provides for public funding for legislative candidates this year, but in only 3 districts (New Jersey has 40 legislative districts). Legislative leaders will decide which three districts participate, but they must choose a district that currently has three Democrats, a district that currently has three Republicans, and a district that has a mixed delegation (each New Jersey legislative district has one Senator and two Assemblymembers).

Democratic and Republican candidates can qualify for public funding of $50,000 if they raise $10 contributions from 400 residents of their district. Other candidates who raise the same amount of contributions would receive $25,000. In 2009, though, the “other” candidates would receive equal treatment if they had polled at least 10% in 2007. In the case of unqualified parties, if that unqualified party polls 10% for that legislative race in 2007, it gets equal funding in 2009.

On March 28, the North Carolina House tentatively passed H91, which lets people register as late as the Saturday before election day, at early voting sites.

On March 22, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Il.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced S936. It is called the “Fair Elections Now Act.” It provides for public funding for congressional candidates. It supposedly is modeled on the Maine and Arizona “Clean Elections” Laws. However, unlike the Maine and Arizona laws, S936 discriminates in favor of Democratic and Republican candidates, and against all others. If one is a Democrat or Republican, one only needs 2/3rds as many qualifying $5 contributions to qualify for public funding as all others need.

It is difficult to understand how Durbin and Specter can include such a provision, when the voters elected two independents to the U.S. Senate last November.

California State Senator Dick Ackerman has introduced SB 293. It would amend the existing law that requires a qualified party to notify the Secretary of State of its presidential and vice-presidential nominees by late August. The bill only applies to the Republican Party and is automatically repealed after 2008. It extends the deadline to September 4. It also asks the Republican Party state chair to make a preliminary certification if he or she feels it is obvious who will be nominated.

Bills have been introduced in both houses of the Alabama legislature to provide that write-in candidates must file a write-in declaration of candidacy, in order to have their write-ins tallied. They are SB69 and HB332. Currently, all write-ins in Alabama are valid and must be counted, but in practice, such write-ins generally don’t get canvassed. In 2006 the Alabama Secretary of State for the first time included all the write-ins in the official state returns, but she didn’t tally them. Anyone who wanted to know how many write-in votes were received by, for example, Loretta Nall (Libertarian candidate for Governor) had to add up her tally from each of the 67 counties. Presumably, if these bills pass, the Secretary of State will then tally the write-in totals for declared write-in candidates.

Unfortunately, the bills require the write-in declaration of candidacy to be filed 90 days before the election. That is poor policy; one of the chief reasons write-ins are allowed, is to take advantage of last-minute events, and a 90-day cut-off defeats part of the purpose of having write-in space on ballots.