On June 19, Georgia held a special election in the 9th U.S. House district to fill a vacancy. Georgia special elections do not feature party nominees; instead any individual who wishes to run, pays a filing fee to get on the ballot. Six Republicans, 3 Democrats, and a Libertarian were on the ballot. The Libertarian, Jim Sendelbach, received 1.34% of the vote, placing 8th in the 10-candidate field.

The six Republicans combined received 70.3% of the vote; the three Democrats combined received 28.3% of the vote. In November 2006, the Republican nominee, Charlie Norwood, had defeated his Democratic opponent by 74.3% to 25.7%.

There will be a run-off on July 17 in the Georgia special election. It will probably be between two Republicans, Jim Whitehead and Paul Broun, since no one got a majority and since those two placed first and second. However, the results show only a 200 vote difference between the 2nd-place finisher and the 3rd-place finisher, Democrat James Marlow. Since the results aren’t final yet, it is conceivable the run-off could be between Whitehead and Marlow.

Georgia special congressional elections have always been open to anyone, without the need for a petition. In the past, though, no party labels were permitted. The last time any minor party members were on the ballot in a Georgia special election was 1983, when a Socialist Worker, Sara Jean Johnston, polled .07% of the votes; and a Prohibitionist, Marshall Uncapher, polled .04%. It is always difficult for a minor party member to poll a large vote when there are ten or more candidates running.

Last week, a U.S. District Court Judge in Mississippi ruled that if the Democratic Party doesn’t want an open primary, it has a right to a closed primary. His opinion puzzled and surprised everyone when it also said that when the state holds a closed primary for the Democratic Party, it must require voters at that primary to show photo-ID.

The Democratic Party, which brought the lawsuit, filed a request for reconsideration on that point. And the state has also said it will ask the judge to explain further. No one involved in the lawsuit had expected anything whatsoever about photo-ID at the polls.

The Democratic Party’s request for reconsideration also asks that the closed primary start in August 2007, not in April 2008. Mississippi holds primaries in August 2007 for all state office. Thanks to Steve Rankin for this news.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said on June 19 that Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be an “excellent” presidential candidate. He stuck by his statement even after Bloomberg announced he is switching his voter registration to independent. The story is here.

On June 20, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 37, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. The bill has already passed the Senate.

On June 19, New York city Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that he is changing his registration from “Republican” to “independent.” See here for the story.

The Green Party is holding a national conference in Reading, Pensylvania, on July 14. Ralph Nader will be one of the speakers. He reportedly will talk about the decision of the Pennsylvania State Courts to require candidates in 2004 and 2006 to pay between $80,000 and $90,000 in costs for having tried to get on the ballot and being challenged and then removed. The 2004 candidate who was victimized was Nader himself; the 2006 candidate was Carl Romanelli, Green Party nominee for U.S. Senator. Romanelli’s appeal on the matter of costs is now pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On June 15, a U.S. District Court Magistrate upheld Oregon’s law that makes it illegal for a primary voter to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The case is called Wasson v Bradbury, no. 06-6205-TC. Some federal cases are assigned to Magistrates because judges have too many cases to handle them all.

It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “primary screen-out” laws, in 1974. However, the Texas law upheld in 1974 covered both petitions for minor and new parties, as well as independent candidates. The Oregon primary screen-out law only covers independent candidates. In other words, Oregon in 2004 required a minor party to collect 18,000 signatures from the ranks of all registered voters; but required an independent candidate to collect 18,000 signatures only from people who are registered yet who didn’t vote in the primary. Therefore, the 2005 law made it far more difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot, than an entire new party to get on the ballot.

The amicus brief filed by COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) pointed out all the court precedents that say states can’t make it more difficult for an independent candidate to get on, than an entire new party. The magistrate completely ignored this point in his decision.

The magistrate said the purpose of the screen-out is to prevent “spoiler” candidates from getting on the ballot. The magistrate’s point is nonsense. The primary screen-out makes it very difficult for any independent candidate to get on the ballot, whether he or she is perceived as a “spoiler” or not. Whether someone is perceived to be a “spoiler” candidate is a matter of partisan politics. The Constitution does not permit any state to choose whether or not to let a candidate on the ballot based on his or her political views, and how they compare with the political views of the major party nominees. And since a “spoiler” is generally considered to be someone who has at least a fair amount of voter appeal (compared to an independent candidate who is not considered a “spoiler”), the magistrate really seems to be saying that the state has more interest in keeping candidates with substantial support off the ballot, than it has an in keeping a candidate with little or no support off the ballot. This is backwards.

An omnibus election law bill is currently pending in the extended session of the Illinois legislature. It is HB 1752. It makes ballot access improvements for independent candidates, as mandated by the 7th circuit last year. It makes many other election law changes.

Recently, the bill was amended to also change primary ballot access requirements. Current law requires candidates running in a primary to submit a petition signed by one-half of 1% of that party’s last general election vote. The amendment to HB 1752 provides that in the case of candidates running in a primary for county office in DuPage County, they need petitions signed by 1.5% of that party’s vote in the last general election. The amendment is by Senator Dan Cronin. It is not known why anyone in the Illinois legislature thinks that primary ballot access in just one particular county should be 3 times more difficult than it is in all other counties. Cronin is a Republican from DuPage County. DuPage is a populous county near Cook County.

HB 1752 must pass by June 22 or it will fail. It is expected that the bill will pass.

COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) held its annual Board meeting in New York city on June 16. COFOE was founded in 1985 and is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties, as well as other organizations that support fair treatment for minor parties. Representatives attended from the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Reform Parties, from the Committee for a United Independent Party (CUIP), and from the Ralph Nader 2004 campaign organization. Also, an observer was present from the Working Families Party, and a representative was present from Unity08.

The group discussed hopes that an initiative will be circulated in Oklahoma this fall, asking the voters if they wish to reduce the ballot access hurdles for new and minor political parties. Greater coordination between the group in Oklahoma that is working on this goal, and COFOE, will be sought, particularly on how to raise funds.

On other business, the COFOE Board passed three resolutions. The first resolution puts COFOE on record as opposing public financing that establishes different standards for qualifying, based on party affiliation or lack thereof.

The second resolution declares that political parties should be free to nominate any candidate for public office who meets the constitutional qualifications to hold that office.

The third resolution supports the right of U.S. citizens living in U.S. territories and commonwealths to vote for president and for presidential electors.

The Illinois legislature has expanded the deadline for HB 1685 to finally pass. This is the bill for the National Popular Vote Plan. The new deadline is June 22. Since the Illinois legislature is in extended session, only bills that have permission to be considered can advance. Although both houses passed the bill earlier, the versions were different, so further legislative action is needed before the bill can be sent to the Governor.