The California Voter Foundation has released this useful report on what information is asked on the voter registration form in each state. The study also summarizes to what extent the information about individual voters is a public record.

Thanks to Eric Reinhardt for this link.

On December 18, California attorney Roger William Clark, who wants to run for Attorney General of California in 2010 as a Republican, asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the California law that prevents him from getting on any primary ballot in 2010.

Clark was a registered Democrat until May 1, 2009, when he changed to the Republican Party. He can’t get his name on the Republican primary ballot because the law says no one may qualify for a primary ballot in a partisan race if that person was a member of a different party during the year before filing. The filing deadline for California non-presidential primaries is in mid-March. Clark originally filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in August 2009, but that Court upheld the law on October 28, 2009. That decision is called Clark v Bowen, BC420243. The lower court decision has a few errors; it says Clark wants to run for Secretary of State (which is not correct) and it says the primary is in March 2010 (actually the primary is in June 2010).

Clark depends on the California Constitution. In the past, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the California Constitution gives stronger protection for candidates than the U.S. Constitution does. But in 2002, the California Supreme Court seemed to strip that extra protection away, when it upheld a San Francisco Elections Department policy of not permitting write-in votes in run-off elections. That decision was called Edelstein v City and County of San Francisco, and it overturned a 1985 decision by the California Supreme Court that said the California Constitution protects write-in votes in run-off elections. Edelstein v City and County of San Francisco was a 4-3 decision, and was written by former Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who is no longer on the California Supreme Court. She now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

San Mateo County is the only county in California that elects all its county supervisors at-large. The county’s charter revision group is considering whether to suggest a change to some other election system. The county has a population of 700,000, so running countywide is very expensive. See this story.

San Mateo County, like all but one county in California, has five county supervisors. San Mateo County does have five districts for county supervisor elections, but the only function of the districts is to require that one supervisor be a resident of each of the five districts. Residence aside, the districts have no function.

San Mateo County is the county that is south of San Francisco but north of San Jose.

On December 31, the Oregon State Supreme Court issued an opinion in Vannatta v Oregon Government Ethics Commission, SC 057570. Here is the unanimous 19-page opinion. The opinion says that even though Oregon has a very strong free speech provision in its Constitution, the Constitution is not violated by an Oregon statute that makes it illegal for lobbyists to give public officials gifts of more than $50.

The opinion also says that a parallel law, making it a crime for a lobbyist to offer such a gift to a public official, is unconstitutional, because it violates free speech. The decision acknowledges that the right to offer such a gift is, practically speaking, of little significance, since the public official is legally required to refuse such a gift.

Finally, the decision says that the plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge a third law, which makes it illegal for a public official to ask a lobbyist for a gift. None of the plaintiffs include public officials, and only a public official would have standing to challenge that law. Obviously it is extremely unlikely that any public official would ever file a lawsuit against that third law.

On December 30, the Democratic Party’s Change Commission finished its report on suggestions for improving the party’s presidential selection process. See this description from the party’s blog. The Commission’s ideas now go before the party’s national bylaws committee for approval.

The Commission recommends (1) no presidential primaries before the 2nd Tuesday in March; (2) no presidential caucuses until February 1; (3) no more super delegates with voting discretion. There would still be super delegates, but they would be required to vote for the presidential candidate that the super delegate’s state was supporting.

In 2008, the New Hampshire primary was on January 8.

On December 31, an earlier Ohio Secretary of State ruling on ballot-qualified parties for the 2010 election was officially promulgated to county election boards in Ohio. The ruling says that the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist Parties are ballot-qualified in Ohio in 2010. Some time ago, the Secretary of State had posted this ruling on her web page, and no one made any negative comments, or comments as to why the tentative ruling should be reversed. The comment period is now over. The ruling is now final.

The four minor parties must nominate any 2010 candidates in their own primary. Candidates for statewide office in the primary of any of these parties need 500 signatures. Candidates for district and county office need 25 signatures. Signatures are due in February. The primary is in May.

The Ohio Constitution says all ballot-qualified parties must nominate by primary. Ohio and Oklahoma are the only states that have state constitutional provisions that require all parties to nominate by primary. Most states let small or new qualified parties nominate by convention. Allowing newly qualifying parties to nominate by convention allows for later petition deadlines for new parties, and also saves tax money.

Ohio still doesn’t have any valid election law to determine which parties are ballot-qualified. The 6th circuit invalidated the old laws in 2006 and the legislature has not replaced them. One bill, HB 260, would revise the laws, but it has not passed the State Senate. There is no bill pending that would revise the State Constitutional provision about mandatory primaries for all parties. Thanks to Kevin Knedler for the news about the final status of the Secretary of State’s ruling.

The New York Times has this editorial in its December 31 issue, recommending that voters in 2010 defeat every single New York state legislator. Unlike most states, New York State Senators only have two-year terms, so all of them are up in 2010, along with all the New York Assemblymembers as well.

The editorial also calls on the legislature to create a nonpartisan commission to draw the district boundaries of the legislative districts, but the editorial points out that many voices have been saying this in New York for many years, and no legislator is even talking about the idea.

The New York Times ought to be consistent and call for the statewide initiative to be implemented in New York, because so many of the reforms that the newspaper advocates have no chance without the initiative process.

The December 30 Seattle Times has this story about the upcoming decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, on the petition privacy case, Doe v Reed. The upcoming decision is whether that court will take the case. If the court declines to hear the case, the names and addresses of everyone who signed the Washington state referendum on civil unions will then immediately be released to the public.

Recently the Virginia Republican Party decided to hold a 2010 primary to choose its nominee for the U.S. House, 5th district. The 5th district seat was won by Democrats in 2008 in a very narrow race. The November 2008 vote was: Democrat Tom Perriello 158,810 votes, Republican Virgil Good 158,083 votes.

Now the Republican Party’s decision to use a primary instead of a convention is getting criticism from people who say it will cost the taxpayers $260,000. Virginia has no U.S. Senate race in 2010, and no state offices up in 2010, so there can only be primaries in 2010 for U.S. House, and partisan county office. If the Republicans had chosen a convention instead of a primary for the U.S. House in this district, elections officials inside the 5th district would mostly not need to hold any primary. See this story.

Virginia could save much more money if it would move its state elections to even-numbered years. Because federal elections are in even years, Virginia holds elections every year, for either federal office or state office. Other states that hold some or all statewide state elections in odd years are New Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.

According to this story, a city initiative has just been filed in Burlington, Vermont, to ask the voters if they wish to repeal Instant Runoff Voting. Earlier this year, the Progressive Party had won the Mayor’s race (Burlington has partisan city elections), even though the Democratic Party nominee had been expected to win. That caused some Burlington voters to dislike IRV.