Rhode Island requires candidates running in a presidential primary to submit 1,000 signatures. On June 22, the legislature passed H6229/S765. That bill eases the deadline to submit the signatures from December of the year before the election, to mid-January of the election year. Also, it says that the signatures are presumed to be valid, unless someone challenges them. Challengers have only one day to file the challenge. The Secretary of State had asked for this bill to bring the state into compliance with Democratic National Committee rules. The Democratic National Committee rules won’t recognize presidential primaries (except in New Hampshire and South Carolina) if candidates are required to file in the year before the election.

Other election law bills of interest failed to pass, and the Rhode Island legislature has now adjourned. They include the National Popular Vote bill, a bill to ease the definition of “political party”, a bill to study Instant-Runoff Voting, a bill to let the voters decide on whether to eliminate straight-ticket devices, and a bill to move the presidential primary from March to February.

Another bill that failed to make any headway would have injured write-in voting. H6017 would have provided that write-ins should no longer be counted, unless the vote-counting computer showed that there were more write-ins cast than the number of votes cast for any particular ballot-listed candidate in that race.

Ever since 2006, the Independence Party of New York has been engaged in an internal battle between the state officers and the branch of the party in New York city. First, the state officers tried to expel all the New York city activists who are allied with Lenora Fulani, but the Supreme Court in both Manhatten and Brooklyn ruled that state party officers could not do that. Those cases were McCarthy v Conroy, Kings County 26041-06, and McKay v Mandell, New York County 109502-06. They were issued in August and September 2006.

Then, the state officers passed a Bylaw giving themselves power to remove any county party officers, even if those county party officers had been chosen by county committees that are composed of elected precinct committeemembers. Having passed that bylaw, the state officers tried to remove the county officers in New York city. But a Supreme Court in Brooklyn ruled the bylaw conflicts with state election law and is invalid. That case was Conroy v State Committee of Independence Party, Kings County 700012-07, issued March 12, 2007.

Then, the state officers passed a new Bylaw on June 10, 2007. It says that in cities of more than 1,000,000 population, the State Committee, not the county committees, has the power to designate candidates. This means the state officers, not the local officers, may decide whether to let candidates who are not members of the party seek the nomination of the Independence Party. But the rule only applies to New York city, not the remainder of the state. The Fulani forces filed a new lawsuit on June 10, arguing that the new Bylaw is also contrary to the election code, and also to the State Constitution, since the Bylaw doesn’t apply statewide, but merely to New York city. The new lawsuit is also called Conroy v State Committee of the Independence Party, no. 700025-07, Kings Co.

A U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, Florida, heard from witnesses during the week of June 18-22, in Reform Party USA v O’Hara. Closing arguments are set for Monday, June 25. The case concerns a 3-way battle over the identity of the national Reform Party officers. Judge Robert Hinkle is limiting the closing arguments to only two hours, so the case will go to the jury on Monday. The faction that recognizes Charles Foster as national chair is represented by an attorney. However, the other two factions are pro se. John Blare is representing the faction that recognizes Rodney Martin as national chair, and Jerry Heinemann is representing himself.

The California State Senate Elections Committee will hold a hearing on AB 583 on July 10. This is the public funding bill. It is mildly discriminatory against minor party members, but very discriminatory against independent candidates. It has already passed the Assembly.

The California Assembly Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing on SB 293 on June 27. This bill eases the deadline for the Republican Party to notify elections officials of its presidential and vice-presidential nominees. It only applies to 2008. Assuming this bill passes, it will be legal in all 50 states for the Republican Party to submit its national nominees as late as September 4, 2008. The bill has already passed the Senate.

Two election law bills of interest are pending in the extended session of the Illinois legislature. HB 1685 is the National Popular Vote Plan, and HB 1752 is the timid improvement in ballot access laws. Both bills were supposed to be enacted by June 22, but on June 22 the legislature extended the deadline for both bills to June 30.

On June 21, leaders of the Democratic Party of Florida met with national Democratic chair Howard Dean. They emerged from the meeting optimistic that the national party will not fully enforce its bylaws, which severely punish state Democratic Parties that hold primaries before February 5 (except for the New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic Parties). The story is here.

The voters of Ontario Province will vote on October 10, 2007, on this question: “Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? (1) The existing electoral system (first-past-the-post); or (2) The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens Assembly (mixed member proportional)?” The question will be presented in French as well as English.

British Columbia had voted on proportional representation a few years ago, but the British Columbia referendum required 60% for Proportional Representation to win. It failed in British Columbia because it only got 58%. But in Ontario, proportional representation (choice #2) will win if it outpolls choice #1, the existing system. UPDATE: thanks to the individuals who corrected this statement. The Ontario vote also requires a 60% vote.

Mixed member proportional representation means a system in which voters vote first on a district representative, and then, in a separate vote, choose their favorite political party. If, for example, the Green Party wins no district seats, but polls 5% in the “favorite party” question, then it gets 5% of all the seats in the Provincial legislature. Each party submits a “party list” in advance of the election, with their spare candidates listed in order of priority. The “make-up” members are chosen from this list. Thanks to Dan Tokaji and the Election Law blog for this news.

On June 21, the Delaware House of Representatives passed HB 61 by 35-5. It says that no one may appear on the ballot for any office unless he or she files an oath that his or her income taxes and property taxes are paid up (or that the candidate has received an extension). The oath must also say that the candidate is not delinquent in child support payments.

The bill does not exclude candidates for federal office. It is therefore unconstitutional, as applied to federal candidates, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton. That decision, issued in 1995, says states may not add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution. Even felons have a right to run for federal office while they are in prison.

On June 21, SurveyUSA released a poll of hypothetical general election presidential match-ups, including Mike Bloomberg, for 16 states. The entire survey included 500 voters in each of the 16 states, or a total of 8,000 voters. Every combination for these five major party candidates was tested: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. The poll is here. Bloomberg’s highest showing was 29% in New York state if the major party nominees were Romney and Obama. The results in general show a likely Democratic Party win, in a 3-way race.

On June 21, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee passed HB 63 by 16-13. It moves the primary for all office (in presidential election years) from April to February 12.