Free Citizen

Mississippi-Style Primary System Struck Down

2011-03-28T20:54:00.006-05:00

UPDATE - 4/5/2011: The Idaho Senate has passed the bill for voter registration by party. If the new law is enacted, the case against the state-mandated open primary will be moot. Even if a new law is not enacted, intervenors do not automatically have standing to appeal in defense of a state law, when the state itself is not appealing. So it seems likely that Judge Winmill's ruling will stand.

UPDATE - 3/28/2011 - 10:22 PM: I have just learned that an appeal has been filed with the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This appeal is from the groups that the district court had permitted to intervene in the case: (1) a group of Idaho independent voters, (2) the American Independent Movement of Idaho, and (3) the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.

A shorter rendition of this piece appeared as a letter to the editor in the March 28 Clarion-Ledger.

******************************

A March 2 court decision in Idaho could have future consequences for 20 states, including Mississippi. Idaho's Republicans have been challenging the state law that prohibits them from enforcing their party rule that says that only Republicans may vote in GOP primaries. This is the first such case in which a party has presented empirical evidence that people not in sympathy with the party have been voting in its primaries. U. S. district judge B. Lynn Winmill, declaring the law unconstitutional, said that it violates the party's First Amendment freedom of association (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 08-cv-165).

The state of Idaho is evidently not going to file an appeal with the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as negotiations are underway in the heavily-Republican legislature[1] as to how best to comply with Judge Winmill's ruling. A bill for voter registration by party was introduced in the state Senate on March 28.

A federal judge has ordered that the South Carolina Republicans' similar lawsuit be expedited (Greenville County Republican Party v. State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-1407-HFF). Also, Tennessee's Republicans are considering taking action to gain the ability to stop non-Republicans from voting in GOP primaries.

These cases are like the lawsuit brought in 2006 by the Mississippi Democratic Party, in which U. S. district judge Allen Pepper held our state primary election law to be unconstitutional. In 2008, however, the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismissed that suit on a legal technicality[2] (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour, 07-60667).

If such a case should reach the U. S. Supreme Court, it could trigger a landmark ruling.

******************************

[1] Idaho is the most decidedly one-party state in the nation. The entire congressional delegation and all state officials are Republicans, and the GOP has controlled both houses of the legislature continuously since 1960. Currently, the Republicans have a 28-7 edge in the Senate and a 57-13 majority in the House. The joke is that the Democrats hold their caucuses in a broom closet.

[2] The Mississippi Democrats had not adopted a party rule for a closed primary.

This Kid Gets An A-plus

2011-02-28T07:13:00.004-06:00

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore, because the word 'God' is mentioned, a kid in Arizona wrote the following:

Now I sit me down in school,
Where praying is against the rule,
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen.

"Open Primaries" for Local Elections

2011-02-26T08:45:00.003-06:00

Nebraska has nonpartisan elections-- popularly called "open primaries"[1] in many places-- for its one-house legislature. The state lets municipalities decide whether to have party primaries or nonpartisan elections for their own city officials. Currently, the largest city that has party primaries is Fremont, but the city council there is considering changing to nonpartisan elections.

Ballot Access News reports that LB 214 has been introduced in the Nebraska legislature. It would mandate nonpartisan elections for all municipal and county offices.

Mississippi, of course, still has party primaries for municipal[2] and county elections. Since most of our counties decide their elections for county officials in one party's primary, many voters this August will have to choose between voting for state officials or county officials.

This situation could be remedied by the Magnolia State eliminating party primaries for county offices and having all county candidates run in the same election. In each county, all the candidates for county offices would be listed on both the Republican and the Democratic primary ballots. Then, regardless of which party's primary ballot the voter picked for state offices, he would also be able to choose among all the candidates for county offices.

Since the Mississippi legislature is very unlikely to make this change, we citizens will have to do it through a ballot initiative. Hopefully, we will get it accomplished in time for the 2015 state and county elections.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff.

[2] Some of Mississippi's smaller municipalities do not hold party primaries in electing their own officials. Rather, all candidates run in the general election, which is a one-round, first-past-the-post election. Thus some officials are elected with less than 50 percent of the vote.

Will McMillin Run as an Independent?

2011-02-23T20:15:00.007-06:00

UPDATE - 2/26/2011 - WLBT-Channel 3 reports that both Malcolm McMillin and Tyrone Lewis qualified for sheriff as Democrats on Friday, February 25. This sets up a rematch of their 2007 primary battle.

******************************

Mississippi will elect its state and county officials this year, and March 1 is the qualifying deadline for all offices except the legislature. The Democrats thus far are fielding candidates for just two of the eight statewide offices-- governor and attorney general. Moreover, the governorship looks to be the only contested statewide race in the August Democratic primary, as attorney general Jim Hood has no primary opposition. If this holds up, of course, the elections for the other six statewide offices will be determined in the Republican primary.[1]

Here in Hinds County, the most populous county and seat of the state capital, elections for county officials have for years been decided in the Democratic primary. Veteran sheriff Malcolm McMillin, one of only a few white county officeholders here, has announced that he will seek a sixth term; however-- interestingly-- he has not yet filed qualifying papers. In fact, just one candidate, a Democrat, has so far filed for sheriff. While I certainly am not privy to McMillin's thinking, I suspect that he may be contemplating running as an independent instead of as a Democrat. Here are some reasons why the sheriff, a very shrewd politician, may consider this to be his best route to victory this year:

~~ If the races for the six statewide offices are indeed decided in the August Republican primary, many whites will vote GOP and will thus be unable to vote for McMillin if he runs in the Democratic primary. Republican primary voters will be eligible to vote for him, however, if he runs as an independent, since the November general election is the only election in which independents are on the ballot.

~~ Johnny Dupree, the black mayor of Hattiesburg, promises to run a vigorous campaign for governor in the Democratic primary. This will presumably increase the black turnout in that primary. While Sheriff McMillin has a large following among blacks, a huge black turnout in the primary would seem to work against him overall (remember that Tyrone Lewis, who is black, gave the sheriff a tough contest in the 2007 Democratic primary).

~~ 50-plus percent is required to win a party primary, but a candidate can win the November general election with less than 50 percent.[2] With McMillin running as an independent, the winner of the Democratic primary would certainly be black. And if one or more black independents also run, that would split the anti-McMillin vote.

There are also potential downsides to an independent candidacy for McMillin:

~~ His longtime ally, Congressman Bennie Thompson of Bolton, is a diehard Democrat and would likely be reluctant to back a white independent against the winner of the Democratic primary, who would be black.

~~ Most black voters are accustomed to voting a straight Democratic ticket in November. Despite McMillin's support among blacks, many of them may find it difficult to choose a white independent over a Democratic nominee who is black. And many may think that it's high time that black-majority Hinds County elected a black sheriff.

We'll have some answers by next Tuesday.

******************************

[1] It's always possible, to be sure, that there will be independent and/or minor party candidates.

[2] This is true of all partisan offices except for statewide state offices.

5th Circuit Did Not Reject Voter ID

2011-02-11T06:20:00.003-06:00

The Clarion-Ledger ran an edited version of this letter to the editor on January 18, 2011.

******************************

In her column on voter ID ("Referendum vote could end lengthy voter ID debate," Jan. 11), Associated Press writer Shelia Byrd mentioned the lawsuit brought in 2006 by the Mississippi Democratic Party, the purpose of which was for the party to gain the ability to block non-Democrats from voting in Democratic primaries. Byrd made it sound as though that suit's dismissal by the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 was a rejection of voter ID. That's absolutely false.

U. S. district Judge Allen Pepper, ruling in favor of the Democrats, had declared our state primary election law unconstitutional. He also went further and injected voter ID and voter registration by party into the case-- erroneously, in my view. The 5th Circuit threw out the suit on procedural grounds[1], which had nothing at all to do with the issues in the case (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour, 07-60667).

At the time of Pepper's ruling in 2007, twenty-four states already had some type of voter ID.

This has nothing to do with voter ID, but Idaho's Republicans and South Carolina's Republicans subsequently filed federal lawsuits similar to the Mississippi Democrats' suit. A decision is expected any time now in the Idaho case (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 08-cv-165).

******************************

[1] The Democrats had not adopted a party rule for a closed primary.

Early Deadlines Unfair to Independents

2011-02-11T05:45:00.003-06:00

This appeared as a letter to the editor of The Clarion-Ledger on January 16, 2011.

******************************

Both Clarion-Ledger Editorial Director David Hampton and the Enterprise-Journal of McComb wrote about this year's ludicrous March 1 qualifying deadline for candidates for all offices except the legislature ("Time is now to consider running," Hampton, Jan.2; "Qualifying deadline should be moved to June 1," Enterprise-Journal, Jan. 1). This premature date is definitely a prophylactic for incumbents. Even more outrageous is the January deadline in presidential election years. That's some ten months before the general election, the only election in which independents run.

For years, Mississippi had a September qualifying deadline for independents. If anyone was dissatisfied with the choices produced by the August party primaries, one or more independent candidates could still get on the November ballot. But this was a big inconvenience for party candidates-- especially incumbents-- so in the 1980s, the Legislature made the deadline for independents the same as that for party candidates.

I wish that someone would file suit against the early deadlines, as numerous courts in other states have ruled that January, March, and even some later dates are unconstitutional for independent candidates.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was reelected in 2006 as an independent after losing the Democratic primary. In 2010, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski was reelected as a write-in candidate after losing the Republican primary. While I do not advocate letting candidates who lose party primaries keep on running, I would like to see Mississippi make ballot access easier for independents and write-in candidates.

Elections should be about more choices for the voters, not about less competition for incumbents.

Open Primaries and the "Top Two"

2010-12-02T11:43:00.004-06:00

Below is one of my comments from another website. It's a response to Jim Riley of Texas.

******************************

My state has state-mandated open primaries, in which each voter picks a party on primary day. The only change I personally favor here is the elimination of party primaries for county and municipal offices. Nevertheless, the federal courts for some 35 years have been ruling for greater autonomy for political parties. Just look at the reasoning, e. g., in the California Democratic Party v. Jones blanket primary[1] case, and it’s not hard to predict what the U. S. Supreme Court will say about the state-mandated open primary.

Let’s say the Supreme Court hears the Idaho case and strikes down its state-imposed open primary (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa). The Idaho Democrats have indicated that they will keep their primaries open to ALL voters. And any party in any other open primary state that did not want an open primary for itself would have to file suit. It would be an easy case, but it would take time.

The Mississippi Democrats brought suit against the open primary in 2006 (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour). They said if they won, they would invite independents but block Republicans from Democratic primaries. The Mississippi Republicans, for their part, indicated that they would keep their primaries open to ALL voters (that case was dismissed on a legal technicality).

So even if the high court strikes down the state-imposed open primary, there will continue to be open primaries. The difference will be that the parties– not the state– will decide who is eligible to vote in party primaries (the state does have the power to prohibit parties from inviting members of opposing parties to vote in their primaries). Even if a state can no longer force open primaries on parties, the parties will still be concerned with staying in the voters' good graces.

I think you’re engaging in wishful thinking in your prediction of a massive proliferation of the Louisiana-style “top two” system.[2] State legislatures are very unlikely to mandate the “top two” for state or congressional offices, and many states don’t have the initiative process.

No states now leave it to parties to maintain their own records for the purpose of excluding some voters from their primaries. In every state where at least one party wants to exclude some voters, the state registers voters by party (29 states and the District of Columbia now have party registration).

*******************************

[1] In a blanket primary, all the candidates of multiple parties are listed on the same ballot. The top vote-getter from each party moves on to the general election, where any independent candidates are also on the ballot.

[2] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff.

Earmarks and Term Limits

2010-11-24T06:49:00.005-06:00

Sidney Salter wrote about U. S. senator Roger Wicker's support of a two-year moratorium on congressional earmarks. Sidney compared this support to Wicker's endorsement of the House Republican candidates' 1994 Contract with America.

"... Republicans who are truly concerned about angering the Tea Party crowd might do well to review the last time they made promises to the voters and failed to keep them. Back in 1994, Wicker the candidate signed the ten-point 'Contract With America' — which promised to bring term limits to Congress. ... .
Yet Wicker the congressman never voted in favor of term limits.

"... Wicker got away with his rather blatant 1994 'Contract With America' flip-flop on term limits..."

The big majority of the Republican House candidates, including Wicker, signed the Contract with America in the fall of 1994. In doing so, they promised to bring each of the ten pieces of the Contract to a vote-- but not necessarily to passage-- on the House floor during the first 100 days of the new Congress. The first GOP House majority in 40 years, the Republicans kept this promise. While they had not pledged passage of the ten parts of the Contract, they did indeed pass nine of the ten parts-- all but term limits. Despite getting a simple majority (227 to 204), the term limits proposal did not receive the two-thirds vote necessary for a constitutional amendment.

Thus, since Congressman Wicker never pledged to vote for term limits, he did not "flip-flop" on that issue (the House Republicans voted for term limits, 189 to 40, whereas the Democrats voted against the measure, 163 to 38).[1]

If the term limits amendment had indeed gotten the required two-thirds vote in the House, it would then have also had to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate before being sent to the states for ratification.

In the end, President Bill Clinton signed seven of the ten pieces of the Contract with America into law.

******************************

[1] The independent Bernie Sanders, then Vermont's lone congressman, also voted against term limits. Sanders, an avowed socialist, is, of course, now a U. S. senator. He caucuses with the Democrats, where I'm sure he feels right at home.

Open Primary Trial in Idaho

2010-10-22T09:26:00.003-05:00

The three-day federal trial in the Idaho Republican Party's lawsuit against the state-mandated open primary[1] concluded on October 15. The Republican Party wants to be able to enforce its rule that says that only Republicans may vote in GOP primaries. According to Ballot Access News:

"A last round of briefs will be filed in the next few weeks. The decision, when it comes down, will be a landmark. This is the first case in which either major party has submitted empirical evidence that it needs to close its primary because persons not in sympathy with the party have been voting in its primaries."

The Republican Party presented evidence that 41 percent of the voters in the 2008 GOP primary were non-Republicans.

"The Mississippi Democratic Party case [against the state-mandated open primary] had lost on a legal technicality..."

The technicality was that the Democrats had not adopted a party rule for a closed primary. The U. S. district court declared the open primary law unconstitutional, but in May 2008, the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the district court (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour, 07-60667).

Dennis Mansfield attended the Idaho trial and produced several blog posts on it, starting on October 13. Another interesting post is here (Dennis's other posts on the trial are commingled with posts on different topics).

If the state-mandated open primary is ultimately struck down, each party will have the option of inviting independents to vote in its primaries (Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 1986).

Unless the state prohibits it, each party will also have the option of inviting members of opposing parties to vote in its primaries-- which the Idaho Republicans obviously won't do (Clingman v. Beaver, 2005).

******************************

[1] Each voter chooses a party on primary day.

Joe Sobran, Culture War Soldier and Statesman, RIP

2010-10-17T03:39:00.007-05:00

by Peter Gemma

Pundit Joe Sobran [SO-brun] honed the definition of pithy— and used it tactically— better than anyone I’ve read: “The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” That’s my favorite, but there are so many more. There’s his definition of a bigot as “one who practices sociology without a license,” and his observation that in America “freedom is coming to mean little more than the right to ask permission.”

Joseph Sobran, author, commentator, and a former editor with William F. Buckley’s National Review magazine, passed away last month. He was only 64 but, like his culture war colleague Sam Francis [1947-2005], his prodigious production of books, essays, and syndicated columns— Joe’s writing style was often compared to P. G. Wodehouse and G. K. Chesterton— ensures his legacy will be a long one. Joe will be remembered for several flash points in his career, one being his relationship with Bill Buckley who, for 21 years, featured and promoted Joe in National Review. WFB once observed that “Joe Sobran is unquestionably the wittiest, most trenchant— and yet, lyrical— moralist to have appeared in my lifetime.” In 1993 however, Buckley fired Joe, charging him with the politically pungent label of being an “anti-Semite,” a deadly misnomer. Joe summed up the contention this way:

“I couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. I’d merely applied conservative principles— the things National Review stood for— to Israel: it was a socialist country with no conception of limited, constitutional government, which discriminated against Christians, while betraying its benefactor, the United States, and turning the Muslim world against us. It seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and none of the reasons conservatives gave for supporting Israel made much sense.”

Controversial or not, he had admirers like Pat Buchanan (who called Joe “perhaps the finest columnist of our generation”) and Ann Coulter (“Every once in a while I think I’m a reasonably competent writer. And then I read a Sobran column. He is the master.”) Even the New York Times conceded in its obituary that Joe Sobran “made his mark with witty, thoughtful essays on moral and social questions. He was an unapologetic paleoconservative, opposed to military intervention abroad, big government at home and moral permissiveness everywhere.”

One sign of a brilliant mind is that its owner can be an expert on more than one issue— perhaps several disparate subjects. Joe’s book, Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time (Simon & Schuster, 1997) proved him to be one of the best known scholars on Shakespeare’s writings: he asserted that the Bard of Avon was actually poet and writer Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. The topic is a matter of fierce debate which Joe authoritatively addressed in speeches, columns, and as a featured participant in a forum sponsored by Harper’s magazine.

And then there’s Joe’s take, based on extensive research, on Abraham Lincoln:

“A few books have told the dark story of Lincoln’s suppression of liberty in the North, including the thousands of arbitrary arrests and hundreds of closings of newspapers; his war on the South required a war on the Bill of Rights in the North as well. All in the name of freedom, of course. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but since Lincoln the Constitution has meant not what it says, but whatever the U. S. Government decides it shall mean.”

Finally, I offer this personal observation of my friend: in a bar, with a cigar, there was no better story teller. Joe Sobran could quote Shakespeare (or perhaps it’s Edward DeVere) at length and attach it to such punch lines as “a bribe is an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government,” or “when a politician wrestles with his conscience, he usually wins.” In my estimation, a good man is defined by his appreciation of comedy, his consistency in convictions, and his courage to endure. In America’s culture war, we lost a very good man.

******************************

Peter Gemma is the editor of Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War, which carries a foreword by Pat Buchanan and an afterword by Joe Sobran.

(Reprinted with permission from Middle American News, November, 2010 edition.)

The Government Runs the Ultimate Racket

2010-09-30T21:13:00.004-05:00

"[Social Security benefits] were raised 15% in 1970, 10% in 1971, and 20% in 1972 in a competition to buy the elderly vote."

This was during the presidency of Richard Nixon. The 1972 increase resulted from a "bidding war" between Nixon and Wilbur Mills (D-Arkansas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The raise took effect with the November Social Security checks, which included a letter from Nixon. In the election a few days later, Nixon carried 49 states. ~~SR

******************************

by Gary M. Galles

"Seniors hurt in Ponzi scam" headlined the story of elderly Southern Californians bilked in a pyramid scheme. While sad, the story reminded me of Social Security, since it is also a Ponzi scheme involving those older, with high payoffs to early recipients coming from pockets of later participants. With Social Security, however, it benefits those older at others' expense.

Pyramid scams collapse when they run out of enough new "investors" to pay earlier promises. Some use this fact to deny that Social Security is really a massive redistribution scheme, since it has lasted over 70 years. That assertion misses two substantial differences between Social Security and other Ponzi schemes however: Social Security involves far longer generations, with people collecting on current promises far into the future; and it has been not one, but a series of Ponzi schemes.

Since Social Security began, each of the many times it has been expanded, those in or near retirement got benefits far exceeding their costs. Those already retired paid no added taxes, and those near retirement paid more for only a few years. But both groups received increased benefits for the rest of their lives. However, such "generosity" must be paid for by someone else, forcing later generations not only to finance their own retirements, but also to cover the unfunded benefits given early retirees. Therefore, the good deal Social Security has given retirees (e.g., Ida Fuller, Social Security's first retiree, received benefits 924 times her contributions) does nothing to prove it is not a Ponzi scheme; instead, it demonstrates why it is.

Social Security has been sustained only by repeated expansion. Originally applied only to private-sector workers, it has been expanded to farmers, self-employed workers, non-profit workers, the military and government workers, with each expansion starting a new Ponzi cycle benefiting older Americans, while leaving the tab to later generations.

Disability and dependents' benefits were added by 1960. Medicare was added in 1965, and benefits have been expanded (e.g., Medicare Part B, three quarters financed by others, and the new prescription drug benefit).

Social Security benefits have been dramatically increased. They doubled between 1950 and 1952. They were raised 15% in 1970, 10% in 1971, and 20% in 1972 in a competition to buy the elderly vote. Benefits were tied to a measure that effectively double-counted inflation, and even now, benefits are indexed to the CPI, which overstates inflation, raising real benefit levels over time.

The massive expansion of Social Security is evident from the increased tax burden since its $60 per year initial maximum. Tax rates have risen and been applied to more earnings, so that Social Security and Medicare took 15.3% of earnings up to $97,500 in 2007 (Medicare taxes also apply beyond that income level), with further increases scheduled and still more proposed.

Social Security's good deal for retirees has resulted from a series of Ponzi schemes to benefit those then older at the expense of later generations. That is why the system is in perpetual crisis now, always seeking new sources of money to keep the system of massive overcommitments from imploding. And with expansion tricks nearly exhausted and baby boom retirements starting, it will only get worse.

Social Security's "success" for seniors consists only in multiple expansions that have resulted in a fourteen-digit unfunded liability, imposing a very bad deal on the rest of us. And those burdens grow each year. But even worse than private Ponzi schemes, government has required each generation of "suckers" to participate.

The fact that Social Security's generational highjacking is politically well established doesn't make it ethically legitimate. We send private Ponzi scheme organizers to prison for good reason. The puzzle is why people laud government for doing the same thing on a far greater scale — why we see no headlines reading, "Seniors hurt others in Ponzi scam."

[VIEW THIS ARTICLE AT ITS ORIGINAL SITE]

For related posts, click here, here, here, and here.

"Fast Eddie"

2010-09-21T02:27:00.003-05:00

Ed Mezvinsky was married to Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, who, as a U. S. House member in 1993, changed her position at the last minute and cast the deciding vote in favor of President Clinton's gigantic tax increase. The voters in her Pennsylvania district booted her out in 1994. ~~ SR

******************************

Ever wondered what it is about the seedy world of politics that, like a moth to a flame, draws people of a certain ilk to it? Between Clinton's last-minute commutations and pardons along with Whitewater investments, I guess that all of the in-laws will find a lot of common ground to talk about. Welcome to the family!!!

******************************

by John Popovich

Before I came to Cincinnati, I was a news reporter at WOC in Davenport, Iowa. I covered a lot of city council activities and a lot of political stuff. One of the guys I covered was Ed Mezvinsky, who was the congressman from Iowa's first district. Seemed like a pretty nice guy, but when he ditched his wife for a New York reporter, the Iowa voters ditched him. My most vivid memory is that he sat on the House Judiciary Committee that was deciding the fate of President Nixon. Anyway, years later, "Fast Eddie" got caught with his hand in the till. He cheated investors out of more than 10 million dollars. He went to prison for several years. On a recent weekend, his son married Chelsea Clinton.

Who's the Democratic National Chairman?

2010-09-18T02:24:00.003-05:00

Sidney Salter's September 12 column handicapped Mississippi's District 1 U. S. House race.

"... Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean ..."

Since January 2009, Tim Kaine has been the Democratic national chairman. Kaine served as governor of Virginia from January 2006 until January 2010. He's the son-in-law of Linwood Holton, a Republican who was governor of the Old Dominion from 1970 to 1974.

What's your question or comment?

Richard Winger Appears on C-SPAN

2010-09-03T07:14:00.002-05:00

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday-- early Thursday morning-- I was channel surfing and happened to catch a re-run of Richard Winger's appearance on C-SPAN.

This was a pleasant surprise to me, since Richard has modestly neglected to mention this interview on his website, Ballot Access News.

I was also surprised to hear Richard say that he favors partisan elections for city offices. His state of California has had nonpartisan elections-- popularly called "open primaries"-- for municipal and county offices for almost 100 years.

In a partisan election system, of course, each party is empowered to place a candidate for every office on the general election ballot.

Looking For Work

2010-08-28T02:36:00.002-05:00

A doctor from Israel said, "In Israel the medicine is so advanced that we can cut off part of a man's testicles, put it into another man and in six weeks he's looking for work."

A German doctor commented, "That's nothing. In Germany we can take part of the brain out of one person and put it into another person and in four weeks he's looking for work."

The Russian doctor retorted, "That's nothing either. In Russia we can take half of the heart out of a person and put it into another person and in two weeks, he's looking for work."

The U. S. doctor chimed in immediately, "Well, that's nothing, colleagues. Two years ago in the U. S. A., we grabbed an individual with no brains, no heart, and no balls, put him in as president and now the whole country is looking for work!"

~~ Author unknown

Beam Me Up! Traficant Candidacy Looks Likely

2010-08-28T02:11:00.002-05:00

Former U. S. representative Jim Traficant has been fighting to get his name on the November 2 ballot for Congress in the 17th district of Ohio. It now appears that he has seven more petition signatures than he needs and will indeed be an independent candidate for the seat.

The maverick Traficant previously served in the U. S. House as a Democrat and later did time in federal prison.

The incumbent Tim Ryan is the Democratic nominee in the 17th district. There is also a Republican nominee, so a three-cornered race seems to be in the offing. The fall campaign could get interesting.

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the link.

California Lawsuit vs. "Open Primary"

2010-08-15T09:11:00.004-05:00

Gautam Dutta is the lawyer who has filed the lawsuit against California's newly-enacted, Louisiana-style "top two open primary" system. Dutta has written an article on the suit in the Huff-Puffington Post.

The two features of the "top two" that the suit seeks to eliminate are (1) the prohibition against counting write-in votes in the second round in November, and (2) only permitting candidates from ballot-qualified parties to have the names of their parties next to their names on the ballot.

As to the second feature: Dart v. Brown was a federal court ruling on that topic. Henry Dart was a Libertarian candidate for the New Orleans city council who wanted to have his party listed next to his name on the "open primary" ballot; the Libertarians were not then a ballot-qualified party in Louisiana. Dart lost the lawsuit.

However, Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and one of the plaintiffs in the California case, says: "Dart v. Brown was decided before Cook v. Gralike, a 2001 unanimous US Supreme Court decision that said discriminatory ballot labels violate the US Constitution. That case was from Missouri, and struck down a law that some candidates should have a politically damaging label next to their names on the ballot, whereas others wouldn’t."

A state Superior Court in San Francisco will hear oral arguments on September 14 in Field v. Bowen, cgc10-502018. Here is the brief.

There will be a trial next November in U. S. district court concerning Washington state's similar "top two" election system. Depending on the outcome of that trial, additional litigation may be brought against California's "top two open primary" in 2011.

California voters approved the "top two open primary" for state and congressional elections in June 2010. If this system is allowed to be implemented, the first regular elections to which it will apply will be the 2012 elections.

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the links.

Bloopers From Church Bulletins

2010-08-03T08:51:00.003-05:00

The following reportedly appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:

The Fasting & Prayer Conference includes meals.
----------------------------
The sermon this morning: 'Jesus Walks on the Water.' The sermon tonight: 'Searching for Jesus.'
----------------------------
Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands.
--------------------------
Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say 'Hell' to someone who doesn't care much about you.
--------------------------
Don't let worry kill you off - let the church help.
--------------------------
Miss Charlene Mason sang 'I Will Not Pass This Way Again,' giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.
--------------------------
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.
--------------------------
Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.
--------------------------
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
--------------------------
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow.
--------------------------
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be 'What Is Hell?' Come early and listen to our choir practice.
--------------------------
Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.
--------------------------
Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.
--------------------------
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered.
--------------------------
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.
--------------------------
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
--------------------------
The ladies of the church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
--------------------------
This evening at 7:00 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
--------------------------
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10:00 AM. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B. S. is done.
--------------------------
The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.
--------------------------
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7:00 PM. Please use the back door.
--------------------------
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' in the church basement Friday at 7:00 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.
--------------------------
Weight Watchers will meet at 7:00 PM at the First Presbyterian Church. Please use large double door at the side entrance.
--------------------------
The associate minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan last Sunday: 'I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours.'

~~ Via e-mail

Pray for President Obama

2010-07-29T09:01:00.002-05:00

A husband and wife were driving in slow-moving traffic recently, when they noticed a bumper sticker on the car in front of them. It read, "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8."

The woman's Bible was lying on the dashboard, so she got it, opened it up to the scripture and read it. She began laughing and laughing. Then she read the verse to her husband, who, incredulous, had a good laugh as well. Psalm 109:8 reads, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

If you want to voice a biblical prayer for our president, this one is perfect.

Now let us all bow our heads and pray.

Another Way to Screw the Taxpayer

2010-07-23T02:35:00.002-05:00

At this posting, there are 23 comments on this piece.

******************************

by Todd Starnes | FOX News Radio

A Minnesota town is outraged over reports that an illegal immigrant was implanted with a penis pump – paid for by taxpayers.

Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate said the expense to taxpayers was more than $50,000.

“It’s shocking,” he told FOX News Radio. “It’s certainly disturbing as well. You know it’s not going to set well with the public at large.”

Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto wants to know how an illegal immigrant was able to obtain tens of thousands of dollars in medical assistance.

“There’s no logical argument for why that should have been approved,” Ciliberto told the Shakopee News. “I don’t know how many illegal aliens are getting emergency medical assistance for such a procedure.”

Ciliberto told county commissioners the cost of taking care of illegal immigrants in their community is skyrocketing.

“It should be obvious when Scott County goes from seven bookings in 2006 to... Read more>>>>

How Great is Allah?

2010-07-22T23:49:00.003-05:00

"Islam may remain an irritation to the West for centuries yet, but not a fundamental danger. The real danger is our own apostasy... which has already done so much more harm than Islam ever could."

******************************

by Joseph Sobran

DUNN LORING, VA —Robert R. Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis (ISI Books, May 2010) will, I am sure, fascinate other readers as it did me. I could hardly put it down until I’d read it twice.

Reilly (a dear friend of mine, by the way) contends that Islam suffers from a flawed metaphysic that deforms its theology. It rejects reason and exalts will. It has no room for natural law: Murder is not wrong by definition but only because Allah chooses to forbid it. If he’d decided to enjoin it, it would have become our duty.

Islam understands his omnipotence to mean that he is superior to reason itself (thus, if he said that two and two make five, so it would be). Allah’s will is the direct cause of everything; no need to look for secondary causes. No wonder, given this primitive conception of nature, Islam rejects Western science. Allah’s will accounts for everything that happens. The world continues to exist because he recreates it continuously from moment to moment. He could decide to annihilate it at any time.

One noted atheist, the Marxist Christopher Hitchens, ridicules the very conception of God as that of a “celestial dictator” — a Stalin in the sky, as it were. But Christians address God as “Our Father.” Far from being a cruel deity who inflicts suffering on his creatures, he is a God who chooses to suffer himself. This is why G.K. Chesterton remarked that Christianity is unique among religions in ascribing courage to God. The Creator became a creature. Why would the omnipotent, impassive Allah need courage? Nobody could nail HIM to a cross. To Muslims, the Christian concept of a triune, incarnate God, insulted, tortured, and murdered by his own creatures seems blasphemous.

The primal Muslim error about God’s nature has led, Reilly argues, to a deep stultification of Arab culture for roughly the last millennium. He cites Hilaire Belloc’s 1938 prediction that the Muslim world would once more surpass Christendom, if only it... Read more>>>>

BlogNetNews: Requiem for an Aggregator

2010-07-17T16:02:00.003-05:00

If you're a regular visitor to this site, you've probably spotted the little blue BlogNetNews banner in the upper left corner. It showed this blog's ranking in the state of Mississippi. In the last several years, I've ranked as high as number three; for the week ending July 10, I was number 16 (not too shabby, considering that I only had one post during that week).

Last Tuesday, I noticed that the little blue banner had disappeared and assumed that something was wrong on this end; I was also unable to log on to the BlogNetNews site. I haven't been online nearly as much this week as usual, and today I finally took the time to investigate and discovered that BNN is no more. Too bad, since it was a great source for keeping tabs on blogging in the Magnolia State-- and other states as well. It was also a motivator for me to post on this blog.

BNN would not divulge the standards for its rankings, since it obviously did not want bloggers to be able to game the system. I suspect that the number of hits was a big factor in the system; it clearly was not the quantity of posts, since I have made the top 20 in a number of weeks in which I only had one post. Now that BNN is history, I wish they would reveal their secrets, but I'm not holding my breath.

Here are some links to commentary on BlogNetNews's demise:

Obit for BlogNetNews

BlogNetNews, RIP?

Blog Net News

BLOGNETNEWS CLOSES SHOP

BlogNetNews Goes Dark

Governor Hugh Lawson White

2010-07-10T19:02:00.007-05:00

Jere Nash, the "Blue" half of Red/Blue, blogged about David Waide, the retiring president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau and possible candidate for governor in 2011.

"... history has not been kind to candidates outside public life winning campaigns for Governor. Since Hugh White was elected in 1935, only one other businessman has won the right to live in the Mansion, and that was, of course, Kirk Fordice. Heck, since White, Fordice has been the only non-lawyer to win the state's top job."

Hugh Lawson White, who grew up in Pike County, was indeed a businessman, but he was also mayor of Columbia. He got 51.7 percent of the vote in defeating Paul B. Johnson Sr. in the 1935 Democratic runoff for governor. In 1951, at age 70, White won 51.1 percent to beat 35-year-old Paul B. Johnson Jr. in the Democratic runoff. Those were the days, of course, when our elections were decided in the Democratic primary.

In 1940, White lost a race for U. S. senator to the incumbent, Theodore G. Bilbo, the rabid racist from Pearl River County. After Senator Bilbo died in 1947, White hoped that Governor Fielding Wright would appoint him to fill the vacancy. But Wright decided not to appoint anyone, and White did not run in the special election, which was won by circuit Judge John C. Stennis of Kemper County.

Ironically, White and Bilbo were the only two in the 20th century who served two non-consecutive terms as governor. Starting in 1987, governors were permitted to succeed themselves, and Kirk Fordice was elected in 1991 and re-elected in 1995. He was the first Republican to occupy the governor's mansion in more than a hundred years. The only other elective office that Fordice held was Warren County election commissioner.

In another bit of irony, in antebellum times, there was a U. S. senator and Whig presidential candidate from Tennessee who was also named Hugh Lawson White. Our Governor White's forebears came to Mississippi from Ireland by way of South Carolina. As far as I know, there is no connection between him and the Tennessee politician.

Governor White is remembered as the creator of the Balance Agriculture With Industry (B. A. W. I.) program. A large man, he was often seen in his later years riding about Jackson in his chauffeur-driven car.

The Hankster on Proposition 14

2010-07-03T18:48:00.003-05:00

My friend Nancy Hanks commented on my post from yesterday about California's passage of Proposition 14, a measure for a "top two open primary" for state and congressional elections. A former Arkansan who now lives in New York City, Nancy is a strong advocate for independent voters; she's also a local official in the Independence Party. She's part of the campaign to put a proposal for nonpartisan elections ("open primaries") on New York City's November 2010 ballot. Nancy acknowledges that nonpartisan elections would put her party out of business, since the final choice in the "open primary" is almost always one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans.

Nancy says, "The OTHER selling point [for Proposition 14] was that 3.5 million independents (decline-to-state voters) will now be able to vote in the decisive first round of voting in California. Californians tried to implement open primaries in the past, and more than 2 million voted in favor of the referendum in a primary election."

For state and congressional offices, California independents already had their choice of either the Democratic or the Republican primary. That's a greater choice than was enjoyed by any party registrant, who was restricted to voting in his or her own party's primary.

I wouldn't call the first round of the "top two open primary" decisive, since its only purpose is to winnow the field to two candidates, both of whom may be from the same party (the fact that there is always a second round casts constitutional doubt on the "top two" in California and Washington state).

Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in that final round-- which is truly decisive?

In 1998 and 2000, California used the blanket primary, in which all candidates of all parties were listed on a single ballot; the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election. The U. S. Supreme Court in 2000 struck down the state-mandated blanket primary on the ground that it violated the political parties' associational rights (California Democratic Party v. Jones).

As long ago as 1915, 58.2 percent of California voters rejected a measure for a "top two open primary." Another such proposal, Proposition 62, was defeated in 2004, as it lost in 51 of the state's 58 counties.

The Golden State's "Open Primary"

2010-07-02T16:41:00.002-05:00

From the July 1, 2010 edition of Ballot Access News:

On June 8, California voters passed Proposition 14 by 53.7% to 46.3%. It provides that the only two candidates who can be on the November ballot for Congress and partisan state office are the two candidates who poll the most votes in June. The implementing language also says that write-in votes in November for Congress and state office can no longer be counted.

Proposition 14 was put on the ballot by the state legislature in February 2009. Most legislators did not favor that system, but they voted for it in return for state Senator [now lieutenant governor] Abel Maldonado's vote for the budget.

All of the state's large newspapers, except the Orange County Register, endorsed Proposition 14. Some newspapers not only endorsed the measure, they printed untrue statements about it.

The campaign against Proposition 14 was outspent 20:1. The campaign for the measure raised [more than] $4.5 million and spent a great deal on radio ads. The campaign against the measure raised $216,000. The Democratic and Republican parties raised money and arranged for Internet ads against the measure, and also arranged for some slate cards to recommend a "No" vote. But the only TV and radio ads against the measure were created and paid for by the Libertarian, Green, and Peace & Freedom parties. [The group] Free & Equal created the leading Web page against Proposition 14, and it, as well as Californians for Electoral Reform, organized press conferences and protests against the measure.

The "top two" system was tried in Washington state for the first time in 2008 and resulted in a Democratic-Republican monopoly on the ballot for all congressional and all statewide state offices. In Louisiana, which has used the "top two" ["open primary"] for state office since 1975, no minor party candidate ever qualified for the second round. Louisiana also used "top two" for congressional elections, 1978-2006, and again, no minor party candidate ever qualified for the second round. However, because the Louisiana system for Congress held its first round in November for the years 1998-2006, the Louisiana system did not have the effect of keeping minor party congressional candidates out of the November election after 1996.

Proposition 14 lost among the voters who voted on June 8. But approximately half the voters voted by mail during the period May 10-June 7, and those voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 14. The mail vote count was released at 8 p. m. on election day, and it showed the measure passing with 60%. Therefore, it appears that voters who voted at the polls rejected it, 48%-52%.

The reason for this disparity is that the campaign against Proposition 14 did not swing into full gear until two weeks before election day. Voters who voted early did not hear any message against the measure.

The selling point for the proposition was that the state legislature has been late with the budget [which requires a two-thirds approval vote] every year for the past nine years. Proponents insisted that Proposition 14 will change the type of people elected to the legislature. This was a winning message, and the political science research suggesting that there is no connection between openness of a primary, and whether the legislature is polarized, was largely unpublicized.

Lawsuits against Proposition 14 will be filed, but because the constitutionality of the "top two" idea will undergo a trial in U. S. District Court in Washington state starting November 15, 2010, challenges to California's new law will probably not be filed until 2011. There may be limited lawsuits brought this year against some particular problems with Proposition 14 that are not present in the Washington state "top two" system.

Supremes Rule on Petition Privacy

2010-07-02T15:18:00.002-05:00

Washington is one of the 25 states that permits citizens to use a referendum to veto an act of the legislature.

******************************

From the July 1, 2010 issue of Ballot Access News:

On June 24, the U. S. Supreme Court said that states are free to release the names and addresses of people who sign petitions, unless there is reason to believe that if the information is released, the signers will be harmed. Doe v. Reed, 09-559. The case is from Washington state.

The plantiffs signed a controversial referendum petition, and they don't wish to have their names and addresses made public. They sued to stop the state from releasing the information.

The referendum petition would have had the effect of suspending a 2009 law that set up procedures for same-sex couples to be treated by the state as though they were married.

The decision says that there is a state interest in releasing the data, because even though elections officials check petitions in Washington, they might make mistakes, and public exposition of the names might lead to the discovery of such mistakes in the petition-checking process. But, the decision says that if petition signers can show that they might be harassed, then they should file a new lawsuit and can stop the release of the information. In this particular case, the U. S. District Court will now hold a trial to see if the plaintiffs qualify for privacy.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say that the U. S. Constitution does not protect the secret ballot. None of the other justices expressed any opinion about that.

The decision may help other lawsuits that concern ballot access. [Chief Justice John] Roberts wrote that signing a petition to put something on the ballot is expressive activity. "Expressive activity" means that the activity is protected by the Free Speech part of the First Amendment. By contrast, a 1992 U. S. Supreme Court decision, Burdick v. Takushi, said that voting and (by implication) signing a petition are not expressive activity.

That language in Burdick v. Takushi has made it difficult to win ballot access lawsuits. Law Professor Rick Hasen, an election law expert, wrote on his... Election Law Blog that Doe v. Reed silently overrules Burdick v. Takushi on that point.

California Dreaming

2010-07-01T07:04:00.003-05:00

by Alan I. Abramowitz | Senior Columnist | Sabato's Crystal Ball

California voters recently approved a ballot [measure] that would drastically alter the Golden State’s election system. Instead of the traditional two-stage electoral process with separate Democratic and Republican primaries followed by a general election between the major party nominees along with any independent or third party candidates, the new system would feature an open primary in which all candidates would run together and the top two finishers regardless of party would face each other in the general election. Thus the general election could involve a Democrat and a Republican, two Democrats or two Republicans. Theoretically a third party or independent candidate could make it into the runoff, but that would be rather unlikely.

Backers of the “top two” primary system, including California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, argue that the reformed electoral process will encourage candidates to adopt more moderate positions in order to appeal to a broader primary electorate and that this will, in turn, make it easier to achieve bipartisan compromise and avoid the gridlock that has paralyzed the state in recent years.

But how realistic is the claim that the new primary system will reduce partisan polarization and gridlock? The assumption underlying this claim is that polarization is largely a product of the current election rules. Thus, according to reform advocates, by changing the rules you can reduce polarization and encourage bipartisan compromise. The fundamental problem with this belief, however, is that polarization is not an artificial by-product of California’s current election rules. It is a result of real divisions within the California electorate and changing the rules will do nothing to reduce those divisions.

The most important source of polarization in California politics is the ideological divide between supporters of the two major parties. ... . In both California and the nation, ideological polarization [has] increased considerably [since the 1970s], but it has always been greater in California. That’s because while California Republicans are as conservative as Republicans in the rest of the country, California Democrats are considerably more liberal than Democrats in the rest of the country.

The ideological divide between the two parties in California is exacerbated by the fact that supporters of each party are concentrated in different geographic regions of the state. The largest metropolitan areas of the state, Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area, are overwhelmingly Democratic while the few pockets of Republican strength are found in some of the outer suburban areas of southern California as well as small towns and rural sections of the state.

Contrary to popular belief, gerrymandering has had very little to do with the increase in one-party domination of California’s congressional and state legislative districts in recent years. California’s 58 counties, whose boundaries have not changed, have also exhibited a trend toward one-party domination. Thus, in the 1976 presidential election, the difference between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford was less than 10 percentage points in 45 of counties with two-thirds of the state’s voters and more than 20 points in only two counties with less than 10 percent of the state’s voters. In contrast, in the 2008 presidential election, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was less than 10 percentage points in only 12 counties with less than a quarter of the state’s voters and more than 20 points in 25 counties with more than half of the state’s voters.

The “top two” primary system is not going to change the realities of partisan polarization and one-party domination of large areas of California. Given the sharp ideological divide between Democratic and Republican voters, liberal Democrats will continue to dominate elections in Democratic regions of the state and conservative Republicans will continue to dominate elections in Republican regions of the state.

That’s exactly what has happened in the one state that has implemented a “top two” primary system. In Washington, which began using the new system in 2008, the electoral consequences were minimal. In all 9 of the state’s congressional districts the open primary produced a general election runoff between the Democratic or Republican incumbent and a challenger from the opposing party and in all 9 general election contests the incumbent was victorious. And based on the winners’ voting records in the 111th Congress, the new primary system has had no effect on partisan polarization—the gap between the state’s Democratic and Republican representatives was just as large in the current Congress as it was in the previous one. Expect the same results in California. [NOTE: Louisiana has had a similar system since the 1970s. The main difference is that Louisiana does not have a runoff if someone gets 50-plus percent in the first round. In Washington and California, however, there will always be a runoff.]

The Moderate Voice: "Open Primary" for Local Offices

2010-06-29T20:10:00.000-05:00

Free Citizen: "Open Primary" for Local Offices

"Open Primary" for Local Offices

2010-06-27T23:30:00.002-05:00

At this posting, there are eight comments on this letter, which appeared in the June 27 Clarion-Ledger.

******************************

Columnist Bill Minor wrote about Mississippi's past attempts to change to nonpartisan elections, popularly called "open primaries" ("Maybe Miss. is ready to install open primary system," June 18).

While we now have a two-party state, many of our counties still decide their local elections in one party's primary. In 2011, when we elect our state and county officials, many voters will again be upset over the lack of choice in the August party primaries. These people will have to decide whether to vote for their county officials or for their favorite candidates for state offices.

We could remedy this situation by eliminating party primaries for county offices and instead listing all candidates for each county office on both the Democratic and the Republican primary ballots. Then, regardless of which party's ballot the voter picked for state offices, he or she would be able to choose among all the candidates for county offices.

Click here to see how this plan would work.

Since the legislature refuses to make this change, we citizens will have to do it through a ballot initiative.

Why do we need party primaries for local offices anyway?

Steve Rankin

South Carolina GOP Files Suit vs. Open Primary Law

2010-06-26T02:53:00.006-05:00

On June 1, the South Carolina Republican Party and its Greenville County affiliate filed suit in U. S. district court against the state law that enables each voter to pick a party on primary day. The GOP wants to be able to block non-Republicans from voting in Republican primaries (Greenville County Republican Party v. State of South Carolina and Hudgens, 6:10-cv-1407-HFF).

Parties in the Palmetto State must pay the costs of their municipal primaries. The Republicans' lawsuit argues that this is a good reason for the party to be able to decide who is eligible to vote in its municipal primaries (less than 10 South Carolina municipalities still use party primaries in electing their city officials; the rest have nonpartisan elections, in which all candidates are listed on a single ballot).

The suit also attacks the "three-fourths rule." For federal, state, and county offices, parties may nominate by convention instead of primary; the law requires a three-fourths convention vote to trigger a nominating convention. The Republicans would seem to have a better chance of having this law struck down than the open primary law. The court(s) may well strike down the three-fourths rule and tell the party that, if it wants a closed process, it can choose by a simple majority to nominate by convention instead of primary (see Miller v. Cunningham, 2007).

"[The Republicans said the] lawsuit is aimed at forcing the Legislature to require voters to register by party before voting in primary elections."

"[Greenville County GOP chairman Patrick] Haddon said the party ultimately hopes the Legislature will force party registration as far in advance as 90 days."

It's worth noting that, in every state where at least one party excludes some voters from its primaries, the state registers voters by party. It's up to the state as to (1) whether there is registration by party, and (2) what the deadlines for registering are. Some states even let people register at the polls on primary day and vote in the primary of their new party.

"It's unclear how the proposal would affect people who vote in Republican primaries but consider themselves political independents."

In 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court empowered parties to invite independents to vote in their primaries (Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut). Thus, if South Carolina's open primary law were struck down, each party would be able to decide whether independents were eligible to vote in its primaries.

Unless state law prohibits it, a party may even invite members of opposing parties to vote in its primaries-- which the South Carolina Republicans obviously won't do (Clingman v. Beaver, 2005).

In May 2008, the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the district court and dismissed the lawsuit against Mississippi's open primary law (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour, 07-60667). The reason for this was that the Democrats had not adopted a rule for a closed primary. The South Carolina Republicans have apparently also not ratified such a rule.

The trial in the challenge to Idaho's open primary law is scheduled to start on October 12, 2010 in the U. S. district court in Boise (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 08-cv-165). Parties in the Gem State have no nominating option other than the primary.

Here's a brief audio of Chairman Haddon talking about the South Carolina lawsuit (a ruling from the 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, of course, can be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which has never yet reviewed an open primary case).

Texas Democrats Still Fighting Voter ID

2010-06-24T06:05:00.003-05:00

At this posting, there are 309 comments on this article.

******************************

by Christy Hoppe | The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – Texas Democrats have staked out political ground that trumpets their beliefs and will ignite supporters at the party's state convention this week – protecting the rights of eligible citizens to vote.

The only problem – especially for a political party that hasn't won a statewide office in 15 years – is that when it comes to whether voters should have to show a photo ID, 70 percent of Texans disagree with the Democrats.

Most Texans believe that if they need one to rent a video or get on a plane, it makes sense that there should be equal safeguards for the ballot.

But many Democrats believe it would mean turning away eligible voters – especially the poor, disabled and elderly who are the least likely to have driver's licenses.

Republicans have made a new law on the issue, usually referred to by the shorthand "voter ID," one of their top priorities. Democrats have vowed to fight, but it poses a political problem.

"It is, in the short-term, a loser issue," said Daron Shaw, a pollster and University of Texas political science professor.

In a poll he conducted last year, voters were told that "such a requirement has a negligible effect on voter fraud but places significant obstacles on elderly, low income, disabled and minority voters."

But an overwhelming majority of Texans still liked the idea of voter ID.

Support exceeded 50 percent among all...Read more>>>>

Trial in Idaho Republicans' Suit Begins October 12, 2010

2010-06-23T06:41:00.005-05:00

The Idaho Republican Party filed a lawsuit against that state's primary election law in April 2008. The law says that each voter picks a party on primary day, and each party's primary is open to any voter. The GOP wants to be able to enforce its rule that only its party members may vote in Republican primaries.

U. S. district judge B. Lynn Winmill determined that a trial is necessary, and that trial will start in the district court in Boise on October 12, 2010. The Republican Party will present evidence of non-Republicans voting in GOP primaries, while the state will presumably show evidence to the contrary (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 08-cv-165).

I have been predicting that, when such a case reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, the justices will strike down the state-mandated open primary. At this point, the Idaho Republicans' suit appears to have a better chance of prompting that landmark ruling than does the similar federal lawsuit that was recently brought by the South Carolina Republican Party.

In December 2007, in a suit filed by a local unit of the Virginia Republican Party, the 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, when a party is required to nominate by primary, the party-- not the state-- decides who is eligible to vote in that primary (Miller v. Cunningham).

In May 2008, the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the district court and dismissed the lawsuit against Mississippi's state-mandated open primary. The reason for this was that the Democrats had not adopted a party rule for a closed primary (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour). Notably, the South Carolina Republican Party has likewise not ratified such a rule, while, again, the Idaho Republican Party has.

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the news about the date of the trial.

David Bowen on the "Open Primary"

2010-06-20T23:02:00.004-05:00

David Bowen commented on the results of recent primary elections, including California's passage of Proposition 14, which would impose a "top two open primary" for state and congressional elections.

Bowen, who hails from the Mississippi Delta town of Cleveland, was a member of the U. S. House from 1973 to 1983. One of the Boll Weevil Democrats-- predecessors of the Blue Dogs-- he voted for President Reagan's income tax cuts. Prior to his House service, Bowen was part of the administration of John Bell Williams, governor from 1968 to 1972.

"... Proposition 14... could lead to the obsolescence of political parties. ... party primaries will be terminated next year, replaced by a single wide-open election, with the top two candidates facing each other in the [runoff]."

If Prop. 14 is upheld, the "open primary" will first be used in 2012. There will continue to be party primaries for president.

"This is similar to the open primary system in Louisiana and identical to the 'top two' system in Washington state, both of which have been upheld by federal courts."

The misinformation contained in the last part of that sentence was spread widely during the recent California campaign. The U. S. Supreme Court said in 2008 that Washington's "top two" is constitutional on its face, but the justices left the door open for an as-applied challenge. Now that the state has used the "top two" once-- in 2008-- it is facing a trial in U. S. district court in November 2010, as well as future litigation in the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

There have been two lawsuits involving Louisiana's "open primary," neither of which challenged the overall system. The more notable suit, Foster v. Love, concerned the timing of congressional elections. That case caused the state, in 1998, to change to a November/December format for its congressional elections.

The basic difference between the Louisiana system and the Washington/California systems is that Washington and California will always have a runoff; hence it's possible for a candidate who gets 50-plus percent in the first round to be defeated in the runoff. This-- along with other aspects-- casts doubt on the constitutionality of the Washington and California systems. Unlike in Louisiana, no one can be elected in the first round; rather, the purpose of the first round is merely to winnow the field to two candidates.

Washington permits write-in votes, but California and Louisiana do not.

"Mississippi has never been allowed by the Justice Department or the federal courts to establish such a system, because of a discriminatory application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

In 1971, the three-judge federal panel did not have the authority to order the "open primary" to be put into operation.[1] The Department of Justice (DOJ) mainly rejected the "open primary" in 1976 and 1979 because the Magnolia State, unlike Louisiana, had a recent history of black independent candidates. Another advantage that the Bayou State had in winning the DOJ's approval in 1975 was the considerable charm of Governor Edwin Edwards.

Mississippi's "open primary" was also stymied by the vetoes of two governors, Paul Johnson Jr. in 1966 and Bill Waller Sr. in 1975.

"[Prop. 14 was] bitterly opposed by hard-core Democratic and Republican party loyalists."

It was also opposed by California's four small parties, since it will ultimately destroy the small parties. The final choice in the "top two open primary" is almost always one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans. It's amazing that so many independents support this concept, since they will rarely have the opportunity to elect an independent to office.

"Proposition 14... is designed to bring the middle back into American politics..."

In the states where the "top two open primary" has been tried, there is no evidence of greater moderation. Louisiana, e. g., has used it since 1975, and the politicians there certainly are not more "centrist" than they were pre-1975.

"... we shall watch with great interest to see if this new model of electoral reform will spread across the nation."

"New" and "reform" are not words that fit the "top two open primary." As far back as 1915, 58.2 percent of California voters defeated such a proposal. In 2004, Prop. 62 lost in 51 of the state's 58 counties.

North Dakota voters rejected a similar proposition in 1921, and 66 percent of Oregon voters said "no" to Measure 65 in 2008. And I've already mentioned the five times between 1966 and 1979 that the Mississippi legislature passed the "open primary" in vain.

Bowen takes potshots at the "anti-tax crusade;" he even includes a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, a liberal from the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Any citizens who consider themselves to be undertaxed are free to make additional contributions to the local, state, and federal treasuries.

******************************

[1] Evers v. State Board of Election Commissioners, 327 F.Supp. 640

Louisiana Passes "Open Primary" for Congress

2010-06-19T17:53:00.002-05:00

On June 16, the Louisiana legislature enacted HB 292, which will reinstate the "open primary"[1] for congressional elections. The first round will be held on the first Tuesday in November, and there will be a runoff in December if necessary.

The Bayou State has used the "open primary" for its state and local elections continuously since 1975. It also used it for its congressional elections from 1978 through 2006; the November/December schedule was used from 1998 through 2006.

Governor Bobby Jindal (GIN-d'l) has signalled that he will sign HB 292, and it will then have to be precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The first regular elections that it will affect will be the 2012 elections.

Washington state first used its Louisiana-style "top two" for all of its state and congressional elections in 2008. The "top two" is facing a trial in U. S. district court in November 2010, as well as future litigation in the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2012, if the recently-passed Proposition 14 is upheld, California will become the third state to use the "top two open primary" for all of its state and congressional elections.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff. It's worth noting that Washington and California follow an August/November and a June/November scheme, respectively, for both state and congressional elections.

Mississippi and the "Open Primary"

2010-06-18T11:47:00.003-05:00

Bill Minor's column today discussed nonpartisan elections ("open primaries")[1] and Mississippi's past attempts to impose such a system.

"Mississippi's 'open primary' law... was left in a state of 'suspended animation' in January, 1971, by a three-judge federal panel..."

In reality, that was in April 1971. The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said that it needed more time and did not approve or disapprove the law (under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act). The judges, who included the DOJ's entire letter in their ruling, did not have the authority to order the law's implementation (Evers v. State Board of Election Commissioners, 327 F.Supp. 640).

"[Several times the "open primary" was] rejected [by the DOJ] on grounds it prevented black Democrats from running as independents in general elections."

Mississippi had a number of black independent candidates in the 1960s and 1970s (independents, of course, only run in the general election). Those blacks knew that, if they ran in the Democratic primary, they would not reach the general election, since they couldn't get 50-plus percent in a statewide primary. Also, except for our statewide state offices, 50-plus percent is not needed to win a general election. The "open primary," in contrast, does require 50-plus percent to win.

Minor mentions a woman from DeSoto County in north Mississippi: "... she was a political independent who moved South several years ago from Chicago, 'and I'm tired of not being able to vote in primaries.'"

For state and congressional elections, Illinois has a setup similar to the Magnolia State's, in which each voter picks a party on primary day. In 2003, Chicago began holding nonpartisan elections ("open primaries") for its own city elections, as do some three-fourths of U. S. municipalities.

"... Mississippi three times had enacted open primary laws..."

The "open primary" was enacted four other times, in addition to the 1970 law that was blocked in 1971. It was vetoed by Governor Paul Johnson Jr. in 1966 and by Governor Bill Waller Sr. in 1975; the DOJ refused to preclear it under the Voting Rights Act in 1976 and 1979.

Mississippi could give voters greater choice by eliminating party primaries for local offices.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. If no one gets 50-plus percent, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, meet in a runoff.

The Last Hope

2010-06-17T17:44:00.002-05:00

"The only remedy short of armed rebellion is civil disobedience at the level of the states. Clear constitutional justification for refusal to obey Washington lies in the Tenth Amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'"

******************************

by Fred Reed

Washington is out of control. It does as it likes, without restraint. It spends American money and American lives to fight remote wars for which it cannot provide a plausible reason. It determines what our children will be taught, who we can hire and fire, to whom we can sell our houses, whether we can defend ourselves, even what names we can call each other. The feds read our email and track the web sites we visit, make us hop around barefoot in airports at the command of surly unaccountable rentacops. They search us at random in train stations without even a pretense of probable cause. We have no influence over them, no way of resisting.

Except, perhaps, to ignore them.

Washington has learned to insulate itself from interference by the population. Huge impenetrable bureaucracies beyond public control make regulations that amount to laws, spending God knows how much money to do God knows what for the benefit of the interest groups that run the government. These bureaucrats cannot be fired and usually cannot be named. Congress, like the bureaucracies, serves not the United States but the big lobbies. The looters of Wall Street wreck the lives of millions, and get millions in bonuses for doing it instead of the end of a rope.

Further, the federal government simply doesn’t work. It is clogged up, constipated, gridlocked, using antiquated technology to do badly things it ought to do and things it oughtn’t. In large part this is because federal hiring rests on the desires of racist and feminist lobbies instead of suitability for the work to be done. Whole departments – HUD, Education – do much harm and little good. IRS is ruthless, incompetent, and unaccountable, the tax laws burdensome and crafted for the benefit of special interests and of Washington. I can change my address with my bank online in five minutes and know that it has been done; IRS requires a paper form and six to eight weeks to effect the change, and you don’t know whether it has been done. The goons of TSA leer at our daughters with their porno-scanners. The VA can easily take six months to provide a veteran’s records, when it could be done online in five seconds. The Pentagon spends a trillion a year, precious little of which has anything to do with defending America, but can’t defeat a small group of badly outnumbered men armed with rifles and RPGs; the intelligence agencies were unable to warn them of the prospect.

The government doesn’t work. It is broken. It can’t be fixed. It can’t be fixed because... Read more>>>>

******************************

Lew Rockwell interviews Thomas E. Woods Jr., on his new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

George Will on California's "Open Primary"

2010-06-14T04:47:00.011-05:00

At this posting, there are 58 comments on this piece.

******************************

On June 8, California voters approved Proposition 14, a measure for a Louisiana-style "top two open primary" for state and congressional elections. I wish that George Will had written about it several months ago, instead of waiting until after the election.

"... most new ideas are false, so most ideas for improvements make matters worse."

This is hardly a novel idea. 58.2 percent of California voters defeated such a proposal for state elections in 1915. Prop. 62, which would have imposed a "top two open primary" for state and congressional offices, lost in 51 of the state's 58 counties in 2004.

North Dakota voters rejected a similar measure in 1921, while 66 percent of Oregon voters said "no" to the "open primary" in 2008. Five times between 1966 and 1979, the Mississippi legislature enacted the "open primary" for state and local elections, but its implementation was stymied each time.

"[California's] Proposition 14 is an attempt to change government policies by changing the political process. ... . The two [candidates] receiving the most votes will be on November ballots, regardless of the desires of the political parties the nominees may claim to represent."

I would argue that the top two vote-getters are not "nominees," since the parties will no longer have any way of officially nominating candidates, except for president. The parties, of course, will still be able to endorse candidates, but there will be no guarantee that a party's candidate will reach the final, deciding election.

"Proposition 14's purpose is to weaken and marginalize parties, traditionally the principal vehicles for voter education and mobilization. It would strip them of their core function of selecting candidates who represent the preferences of their members. It infringes the First Amendment protection of freedom of association, which includes the right of parties not to associate with candidates they do not select."

There will definitely be federal litigation against Prop. 14. The only states now using this type of system for all state and/or congressional elections are Washington and Louisiana. Washington's "top two," which that state first used in 2008, is facing a trial in U. S. district court in November, as well as future litigation in the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"... such [minor] parties -- Green, Libertarian, [American Independent, and Peace and Freedom] -- which previously could place candidates on November ballots, will almost always be excluded from those [ballots] by failing to run first or second in [the first round.]"

Californians also won't be seeing independents on their November ballots, other than for president.

"But, then, blandness is the point of this reform. It seeks to generate a homogenized political class, one not lumpy with liberals and conservatives who, being conviction politicians, do not always play well with others."

This claim-- that it will produce candidates who are all more "centrist"-- was one of the reasons that the U. S. Supreme Court struck down the blanket primary.[1] However, there's no evidence that the "top two open primary" results in a more moderate political class. Louisiana, e. g., has used its "open primary" since the 1970s, and that state's politicians are certainly not more moderate than pre-1970s politicos.

"Putting Proposition 14 on the ballot was the price paid for the vote of Abel Maldonado. He was a Republican state senator last year when three Republican votes were needed to enable Democrats to pass another tax increase that supposedly would solve the budget crisis that preceded the current one.

"[Maldonado] worked across the aisle to reach a compromise that gave the political class access to more of other people's money."

That $13 billion tax increase was the largest state tax hike in U. S. history. There were absolutely no legislative hearings on the bill that sparked Prop. 14; in fact, the bill was drawn up and rushed to passage between 3 a. m. and 6 a. m.

As George Will notes, only 8.9 percent of California's eligible voters supported Prop. 14.

Will wrote an excellent column when the U. S. Supreme Court was considering the case against the blanket primary, California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000).

******************************

[1] In the blanket primary which California used in 1998 and 2000, all candidates of all parties were listed on a single ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

California's "Open Primary" is Unconstitutional

2010-06-11T20:32:00.005-05:00

And so is Washington state's "top two." California voters on June 8 approved Proposition 14, a measure for a "top two open primary" for state and congressional elections. The following was written in 2004, during the campaign for the failed Proposition 62, which was similar to 2010's Proposition 14. Richard says that his thinking has since evolved, so that he now considers the California/Washington state "top two" systems to be unconstitutional for ALL offices. The key to the change in his thinking is that no one can be elected to office in the first round. Rather, the purpose of the first round is simply to winnow the field to two candidates.

******************************

by Richard Winger, Publisher, Ballot Access News

The U. S. Congress, in 1872, exercised its Article One right to supersede state election laws concerning congressional elections. Congress told the states that they must hold their congressional elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And, Congress said that if a state desires to guarantee that the winner has 50-plus percent support, a state is permitted to hold such a runoff after the November election. (See the unanimous U. S. Supreme Court decision Foster v. Love, 522 US 67 [1997].) That decision told Louisiana to stop holding its first round (in its nonpartisan congressional election scheme) in September, with a runoff in November when no one got 50-plus percent. In 1998, Louisiana began holding its first round in November, with a runoff, if needed, five weeks later.

California's Proposition 62 could have been written to follow the Louisiana model, with the first round of a congressional election in November, and a runoff in December if no one got 50-plus percent. But instead, Prop. 62's authors gambled that they could keep the June/November pattern, if they provided that the second place finisher in June always gets another shot in November, even if in the first round, someone got over 50 percent. This idea, in contrast, has not been used in California for its nonpartisan county and municipal elections. In a California county or city election, if someone gets 50-plus percent in the first round, that person is elected. It's silly to hold a runoff if the first round was Jones 80 percent, Smith 20 percent. But likely because of the Foster v. Love problem, such a runoff was written into Prop. 62 [in Washington state's "top two," an August/November schedule is used].

The problem with that, legally, is the ballot access jurisprudence. The U. S. Supreme Court has issued 16 full opinions concerning ballot access for minor party and independent candidates. Minor parties and independents won nine of those cases and lost three, and there were procedural problems with the other four, so that there
was no final resolution in the U. S. Supreme Court. Nevertheless, all 16 decisions have something interesting to say. The net effect of these 16 rulings, especially in relation to congressional elections, is this: States cannot keep any candidate off the November ballot (remember, Congress says the first Tuesday in November is congressional election day) if that candidate (1) has a "modicum of support," (2) meets the constitutional requirements to be a member of Congress, and (3) has not sabotaged his or her own party (i.e., is not a "sore loser"). "Modicum of support" means five percent.

California [and Washington state] cannot constitutionally keep someone off "the" election ballot if that person meets the constitutional qualifications and enjoys voter support of at least five percent. When one looks at the 408 blanket primaries[1] California has held (all primaries in 1998 and 2000, plus all special elections starting in 1967), one finds that the average second-place finisher has polled 25 percent. So, in effect, Prop. 62 says, "If you don't show voter support of, on the average, 25 percent, in some pre-election voting procedures, you cannot appear on the congressional election ballot in November." But California cannot do that without violating the ballot access precedents [Washington state's threshold is 30 percent].

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 US 189 (1986), that "modicum of support" applies the same way to petition requirements as it does to primary vote tests. In that case, Washington state required all candidates for partisan federal and state office to poll one percent in the September blanket primary. The Socialist Workers Party candidate for the U. S. Senate failed to get one percent in the primary, so he couldn't appear on the November ballot. The Socialist Workers Party lost the case, but only because one percent is, indeed, only one percent. Since the U. S. Supreme Court had already ruled that candidate access to the general election ballot could require a petition signed by five percent of the voters, the justices said that the one percent primary vote test is also constitutional. The Court said on page 197, "We are unpersuaded that the differences between the two mechanisms are of constitutional dimenson" (the two mechanisms being a petition and a primary vote test).

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Lendall v. Jernigan, 433 US 901 (1977) that 10 percent is too high a petition burden. Although this was only a summary affirmance, I have a copy of Justice Potter Stewart's two-page, single-spaced memorandum to the other justices, recommending that the high court affirm the lower court decision, which had struck down the 10 percent petition requirement. Stewart's memo points out that the Court had already struck down a 15 percent petition requirement in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 US 23 (1968) and had hinted strongly in Storer v. Brown, 415 US 724 (1974) that five percent was as high as the states could go. The Court followed Stewart's lead and did summarily affirm the lower court.

Since the U. S. Supreme Court has said that "modicum of support" requirements cannot exceed five percent, and since California's Prop. 62 imposes a 25 percent (on the average) "modicum of support" barrier to "the" congressional election ballot, Prop. 62 is unconstitutional [and so is Washington state's "top two," with its 30 percent threshold].

******************************

[1] In a blanket primary, all candidates of all parties are listed on the same ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. The U. S. Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000).

California Voters Pass "Open Primary"

2010-06-09T00:34:00.007-05:00

On June 8, California voters enacted Proposition 14, a measure for a Louisiana-style "top two open primary."[1] Complete but unofficial returns show it with 53.8 percent of the vote.

The Golden State has used a similar system for its county and municipal elections for nearly 100 years, and Prop. 14 will affect state and congressional elections. The only other states with such a system are Washington and Louisiana. Washington first used it for its state and congressional elections in 2008, while Louisiana has used its "open primary" for state and local elections since 1975. The Bayou State is in the process of restoring the "open primary" for its congressional elections.

A comparable ballot measure, Proposition 62, lost in California in 2004, despite Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's support, and he evidently held a grudge about that. Spearheading Prop. 14, the governor raised more than $4.5 million for it, enabling backers to outspend opponents 20 to 1. Also, the state's major newspapers were almost unanimous in their advocacy of the measure, and they gave little space to those on the other side.

All six of California's registered political parties opposed Prop. 14. It will be particularly harmful to the state's four small parties, who will ultimately lose their ballot-qualified status. The final choice in the "top two open primary" is nearly always one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans. Californians will rarely see any independents or small-party candidates on their November ballots, except for president.

Another downside to this measure is that write-in votes will not be counted.

There will definitely be federal litigation against Prop. 14, which is almost certainly unconstitutional for congressional elections. A line of rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court has established that any candidate who has met a prior vote test of five percent is entitled to be on the November ballot for Congress. Prop. 14, however, sets a threshold of 25 percent for a candidate to be on the November ballot.

I am wondering how many Californians know about the trial that Washington state's "top two" is facing in U. S. district court in November. That state's system will also be subjected to litigation in the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Richard Winger, a Californian who publishes Ballot Access News, says, "[There will be] no one on the November ballot but Democrats and Republicans, no write-ins counted. We know top-two works this way because that is how it worked in Washington state in 2008. I will not be voting in midterm general elections in California any longer, if Proposition 14 is upheld, and I suspect thousands of other Californians feel the same way."

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff. Louisiana has a runoff only when no candidate receives 50-plus percent in the first round. Washington state and California, in contrast, always have a second round of voting; thus it's possible for a candidate who gets 50-plus percent in the first round to be defeated in the runoff.

1-Party County Elections in a 2-Party State

2010-06-02T17:06:00.004-05:00

Next Tuesday, South Carolina will hold its party primaries for federal, state, and county offices. Voters in some counties there will have to make a choice similar to the one that many Mississippians have to make every four years.

"Voters may have to make a choice between voting in statewide races of their choice, and voting in local races.

"At the local level, Chester County has a long history of being a Democratic county. Contested races are contested in the primaries, almost always. The winner of the primaries usually faces no GOP or independent challenges, so he or she wins the election, by default.

"But there is a long list of candidates on the GOP ticket. Four people are running for governor. Three people for lieutenant governor and six, yes six, people for education superintendent.

"If you want to vote in one of those races, but you also want to vote for County Supervisor, you’re out of luck. You have to make a choice. You cannot vote for both."

In Hinds County, seat of Mississippi's capital of Jackson, the races for county offices are decided in the Democratic primary. So any Hinds Countian who votes in the Republican primary misses out on voting for county officials (in 2007, for example, there was a hot race in the Republican primary for lieutenant governor between Phil Bryant and Charlie Ross).

In neighboring Rankin County, the reverse is true. Almost all of the candidates for county offices run in the Republican primary, so anyone who chooses a Democratic ballot doesn't get to vote for county officials (in 2007, Rob Smith of Rankin County ran in the Democratic primary for secretary of state).

The writer in South Carolina makes a suggestion that would also solve Mississippi's problem: Change to nonpartisan elections-- popularly called "open primaries"-- for county officials. Unlike in South Carolina, Mississippi citizens can make this change through a ballot initiative.

This has been a recurring issue in the Magnolia State for many years. Along about this time next year, many of our people will again be fired up about it.

When are we going to actually DO something about it?

Louisiana "Open Primary" Bill in Compromise Committee

2010-05-27T12:54:00.006-05:00

Louisiana has used a nonpartisan system-- popularly called the "open primary"[1]-- to elect its state and local officials since 1975. It also used this system for its congressional elections from 1978 through 2006 but then restored party primaries for Congress, starting in 2008. Now HB 292 would reinstate the "open primary" for congressional elections.

"At the urging of Rep. Hunter Greene, R-Baton Rouge, the sponsor of House Bill 292, the House voted 89-2 to reject changes made by Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Abbeville, in the Senate last week that would require the fall's [2010] elections to take place under the open primary scenario.

"His original House-passed bill would have set the open primary system for the 2012 congressional races. The six Republican members of the state's U. S. House delegation oppose the bill in its present form and prefer it to take effect with the 2012 elections.

"Greene said the U. S. Justice Department will have to approve the new election set-up and there is no guarantee it can be done on short notice.

"Whatever version emerges from the compromise committee has to be approved by both the House and Senate by the end of the session June 21."

Greene says that returning to the "open primary" for congressional elections will save the Bayou State about $6.6 million every two years.

My guess is that the change will take effect with the 2012 federal elections.

Washington state-- which calls it the "top two"-- is the only other state that uses a similar system to elect all of its state officials. And Washington, which first used it in 2008, is now the only state that uses it to elect its congressional delegation.

California will have a measure-- Proposition 14-- for a "top two open primary" on its June 8 ballots. This proposal is for the Golden State's congressional and state elections.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, meet in a runoff. Under HB 292, the first round would be held on the first Tuesday in November, and the runoff would take place in early December.

Senator Robert Bennett Won't Run as a Write-in

2010-05-21T12:12:00.003-05:00

Senator Robert Bennett, kept off the June 22 primary ballot by the Utah Republican endorsement convention, won't seek a fourth term as a write-in candidate.

"The deadline for running as an independent candidate passed in March, meaning a write-in campaign was Bennett's only option."

Ballot Access News says, "... that [March] deadline could probably be overcome in court. He also can’t get on the ballot in November as an independent because of the state’s sore loser law."

The "sore loser" law prohibits someone who has lost a party's nomination from then qualifying to run as an independent. According to Ballot Access News, "... a lawsuit against the sore loser law would probably lose, even though there has never been a precedent in which the 'sore loser' only lost at a convention, not at a primary."

Impending South Carolina Lawsuit

2010-05-21T07:49:00.005-05:00

South Carolina, like Mississippi, has true open primaries, in which each voter picks a party on primary day. The attorney who will be bringing suit against South Carolina's state-mandated open primaries recently contacted me. Below is my reply to him.

******************************

I read what the South Carolina Republican chairwoman said about filing the lawsuit during her term of office and am curious as to when her term ends.

As you probably know, the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and dismissed Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour. The reason for this was that the Democratic Party had not adopted a rule for a closed primary. So I would suggest that the South Carolina Republican Party adopt such a rule before the suit is filed (which I imagine will be tough to do from a political and public relations standpoint).

As you probably also know, Ken Cuccinelli, who brought the first suit against an open primary law, is now attorney general of Virginia (this suit began as Miller v. Brown and ended as Miller v. Cunningham). Virginia, like South Carolina, has nominating option(s) other than the party primary. Virginia, unlike South Carolina, lets incumbents pick the method by which they run for renomination. The 4th circuit said that, when an incumbent forces a party to hold a primary, the party-- not the state-- decides who is eligible to vote in that primary. The court reasoned that if the party had a choice, and if it wanted a closed process, it could nominate by a method other than the primary.

I know that South Carolina also has the convention option. As I understand it, a 75 percent vote of the state convention is required for a party to nominate by convention instead of by primary. I would think that this state-mandated super-majority would work in your favor in getting the open primary law struck down.

Registration by party is not the big deal that many people think it is. Its purpose is to identify voters' party preferences, and it's the most practical way to do so. The main thing, of course, is to get the open primary law declared unconstitutional (the district judge in the Mississippi case said the open primary law was unconstitutional, but he went further-- erroneously, in my view-- and ordered both party registration and voter ID. This is the first and only time that any court has ordered either one.)

If the South Carolina Republicans only wanted to block Democrats from Republican primaries, they could, on primary day, require anyone who had voted in a Democratic primary within a certain period of time to sign an oath of affiliation-- or loyalty pledge-- in order to vote in the Republican primary (I'm assuming that South Carolina now publicly records primary voters' choice of party). However, if the Republicans wanted to block independents as well as Democrats, I don't know of any other practical way to identify independents besides party registration.

In the 2000 blanket-primary case-- California Democratic Party v. Jones-- on which the open primary suits have largely been based, there's no mention of party registration. Justice Scalia, quoting from another case, said that political parties have "the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only."

Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, to be sure, was filed in April 2008 and is still in U. S. district court, since Judge Winmill decided that a trial is necessary. He may rule as early as September 2010 (Idaho does not have any nominating option other than the primary. As you may know, Michael Munger, a professor at Duke University, is the plaintiff's expert in that case, and he has found that 50-plus percent of self-identified non-Republicans have voted in at least one Republican primary.)

Speaking of party registration: Louisiana has registered voters by party since 1908, and yet that state did not have party primaries at all for many years-- other than presidential primaries.

Senator Robert Bennett May Run as an Independent

2010-05-17T15:27:00.002-05:00

According to Ballot Access News:

U.S. Senator Robert Bennett of Utah has been running for re-election this year. Bennett failed to get [enough] support at last week’s Republican convention, and thus he cannot get on the June 22 primary ballot.

On May 16, CNN’s “State of the Union” public affairs TV show interviewed Bennett. Hostess Candy Crowley asked him, “When can we call you up and get an answer to the question of whether you’re going to run as an independent?” Bennett’s answer was, “As soon as I make up my mind, you will be the second to know.” Bennett was on in the second half of the show.

Utah requires an independent (for office other than President) to submit a petition by March 15. If Bennett decided to run for re-election as an independent, he would need to win a lawsuit against that deadline. Getting the signatures would be no problem if it weren’t for the deadline, because only 1,000 are needed. As noted in earlier posts about Bennett, five [federal court] circuits have invalidated deadlines for non-presidential independents that are as early as the deadline for candidates filing in a primary, and only one circuit has upheld such a deadline. Also the U. S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed a 3-judge district court against an April deadline in Arkansas, when the state's primary at the time was in May.

Utah also has a “sore loser” law (for office other than President), and Bennett would need to overcome that law also.[1] Although “sore loser” laws are constitutional for people who have lost a primary, there is no precedent on Utah’s type of "sore loser" law, which even applies to someone who has not run in a primary, but merely failed to get enough support at a preliminary party meeting.

Bennett is also free to be a declared write-in candidate in November. Elections officials would be horrified at the thought, however; write-in votes cost far more time and money to count than votes cast for someone on the ballot. Someone as popular as Bennett would, if he campaigned hard, undoubtedly receive tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of write-in votes.

******************************

[1] A "sore loser" law prohibits a candidate who has lost a party's nomination from then qualifying as an independent in the general election.

Supremes Won't Hear Mississippi Case

2010-05-17T14:40:00.002-05:00

From Ballot Access News:

On May 17, the U.S. Supreme Court said it won’t hear the Mississippi ballot access case, Moore v. Hosemann, 09-982.

The original issue in the Mississippi case was whether Brian Moore, Socialist Party presidential candidate, should have been on the November 2008 ballot.[1] His presidential elector paperwork had been submitted ten minutes past 5 p. m. The chances of this case being heard in the U. S. Supreme Court were probably diminished when the Mississippi legislature this year passed a bill, saying such paperwork is due at 5 p. m. (previously, the law set a date for the deadline, but not a time).

The U. S. Supreme Court has said that ballot access lawsuits are not moot just because the election is over. But this case had a different type of mootness problem. This year, after Moore had filed his brief with the U. S. Supreme Court, the legislature had fixed the law that had been complained about. The Court has never... taken any election law case in which the legislature has already fixed the problem complained about while the case was pending.

******************************

[1] The Socialist Party is not ballot-qualified in Mississippi, so Moore, a Florida resident, was nominated here by the Natural Law Party. That was easier for him than qualifying for the Magnolia State's ballot as an independent.

New Yorkers May Vote on "Open Primary"

2010-05-16T10:01:00.003-05:00

New York City may have a ballot measure in November 2010 for nonpartisan elections, which are popularly called "open primaries" in many places. The city's voters soundly rejected such a measure in 2003, despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg's strong support for it.

"In most nonpartisan election systems, all registered voters can cast a ballot for any candidate in the first round (which replaces a traditional party primary), and the top two finishers [regardless of party] compete in the second round. Boston, Los Angeles, Detroit and Dallas have adopted some form of it."

Ballot Access News reports, "Over three-fourths of the 20 largest cities in the U. S. have non-partisan elections, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. The largest city to have partisan elections, other than New York City, is Philadelphia."[1]

While a nonpartisan system reduces their role, the parties, to be sure, still have the First Amendment right to support candidates. The difference is that a party is not assured of having a candidate in the final round, where both candidates may be from the same party.

Some who opposed New York's 2003 referendum, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, are now reconsidering their positions. It seems to make a difference that Bloomberg is today an independent presumably serving his last term, whereas he was a first-term Republican in 2003.

Nonpartisan elections ("open primaries") for municipal and county offices would give Mississippi voters greater choice. In 2009, the capital city of Jackson had six candidates in the general election for mayor-- a Democrat, a Republican, and four independents-- making it possible for someone to be elected with less than 17 percent of the vote. A nonpartisan system, in contrast, would guarantee that the winner always got 50-plus percent.

******************************

[1] In his book The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties, A. James Reichley says, "In 1909 municipal reformers in Boston, allied with Republicans in the Massachusetts legislature, made Boston one of the first major cities to adopt nonpartisan city government. This example was soon followed by other cities, particularly in the West and South. By 1929, 26 of the nation's 36 largest cities held nonpartisan elections for local offices."

Politics in Georgia

2010-05-12T06:07:00.003-05:00

Millionaire Ray Boyd, 67, wanted to run for governor of Georgia as a Republican; however, he refused to sign the loyalty pledge that the state Republican Party requires of everyone who runs in the GOP primary. Boyd, who calls himself a "Ronald Reagan Republican," now says he will run instead as an independent and will spend some $2 million of his own money on his campaign.

He will need to gather about 50,000 signatures by July 1. Any votes he gets in November can be expected to come out of the hide of the Republican nominee. There will also be a Libertarian draining votes from the Republican.

Ballot Access News says: "Southern Political Report has this story about Ray Boyd, who says he will be an independent candidate for governor of Georgia this year. ... . Georgia has not had an independent candidate for governor on the ballot since 1942. Before 1943, Georgia let any independent or minor party candidate get on the general election ballot with no petition, but Georgia has had extremely burdensome petition requirements for independents and minor parties ever since 1943."

Governor Ellis Arnall, who was elected in 1942, is often praised for lowering the Peach State's voting age to 18 in 1944 and for eliminating the poll tax. But I’m assuming that he also supported the restrictive petition requirements for independents and small parties.

Georgia, of course, was a one-party state back then, and the ruling Democrats apparently wanted as little non-Democratic competition as possible.

The late U. S. senator Herman Talmadge had some interesting things to say in his autobiography about Arnall, especially about his attempt to hold onto the governorship following the 1946 election (the "Two Governors' Row").

In his 1966 comeback bid, Arnall led the Democratic primary and then campaigned little in the runoff, which Lester Maddox won in an upset (the Republicans did not have a contested primary, and some observers believed that Republicans voted for Maddox in the Democratic runoff, thinking that he was the weaker candidate).

In the general election, a write-in campaign for Arnall drew enough votes to prevent either Maddox or the Republican Howard "Bo" Callaway from getting 50-plus percent. State law then specified that the legislature make the choice in such a situation; the heavily-Democratic legislature elected Maddox, despite his having finished second in the popular vote.[1]

Which is why Georgia is today the only state that has party primaries and runoff general elections.

******************************

[1] Mississippi has a similar provision. To win a statewide state office outright, a candidate must (1) get 50-plus percent of the vote, AND (2) carry at least 62 of the 122 state House districts. Otherwise, the state House of Representatives chooses between the top two vote-getters.

Action Likely to Benefit McCain

2010-05-10T17:08:00.004-05:00

Arizona registers voters by party, and state law says that independents may vote in either the Republican primary or the Democratic primary.[1]

The state Republican Party had been considering filing suit against the law, but the GOP recently gave up on the idea, at least for this year.

"While some members argue that Republicans should be choosing the party's nominee, state GOP spokesman Matt Roberts said the group decided to hold off until at least next year..."

This decision will presumably help U. S. senator John McCain in the August Republican primary. McCain is being challenged in the primary by former Congressman J. D. Hayworth, who is believed to appeal more to the staunch conservatives who are registered Republicans. McCain, on the other hand, has demonstrated a strong appeal to independents, both in Arizona and in other states' presidential primaries.

In 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court empowered parties to invite independents to vote in their primaries (Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut). To my knowledge, however, Arizona is the only state other than Nebraska which mandates that parties let independents vote in their primaries. The law in the Cornhusker State only applies to primaries for the U. S. Congress, whereas Arizona's law covers primaries for state offices as well as Congress.

******************************

[1] In 2007, the Libertarian Party, which sometimes has contested primaries, won an exemption from the law in U. S. district court (Arizona Libertarian Party v. Brewer).

Senator Robert Bennett Loses at Convention

2010-05-08T21:10:00.003-05:00

Three-term U. S. Senator Robert Bennett failed on Saturday to get enough support at the Utah Republican Convention to advance to the GOP primary. Utah law says that, to be listed on the primary ballot, a candidate must get at least 35 percent of the delegate votes. If a candidate receives at least 60 percent at the convention, he is the nominee, and there is no primary.

"Mr. Bennett was eliminated from the Senate race in the second of three rounds of delegate voting. He finished third in the vote; only the top two advance to the final round."

Having only two candidates on the primary ballot ensures that the winner will get 50-plus percent without the necessity of a runoff (or second) primary.

"... businessman Tim Bridgewater and lawyer Mike Lee... will compete in a June 22 primary. Running on populist platforms, they both have backing from tea-party supporters..."

"Mr. Bennett [who'll turn 77 in September] can't run as an independent Senate candidate because the filing deadline to do so has passed. He told the Associated Press on Saturday that he hasn't ruled out running as a write-in candidate in November."

However, Ballot Access News asserts that "if he did wish to run as an independent, he could probably overturn the deadline in court.

"Many courts have ruled that independent petition deadlines, or even independent candidate deadlines for filing a declaration of candidacy, for non-presidential office, cannot be earlier than the primary (or the day before the primary)."[1]

Among the reasons given by delegates for opposing Bennett were (1) his vote for TARP funds to bail out banks; (2) his co-sponsorship, with Democratic senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon liberal, of a healthcare bill that included a requirement that individuals buy health insurance; and (3) the belief that Bennett has been in Washington too long.

This reminds me of the 1980 Hinds County Republican Convention, where U. S. Senator Thad Cochran was defeated for delegate to the state GOP convention. The convention was dominated by supporters of Ronald Reagan for president, and Cochran, along with Haley Barbour, was backing John Connally, the former Texas governor and U. S. Treasury secretary.

******************************

[1] In presidential election years, Mississippi's qualifying deadline for all candidates for U. S. senator and U. S. representative is in January. This means that independent candidates must turn in their petitions by that date. A lawsuit challenging this deadline for independents would have an excellent chance of winning.

The Voice of God?

2010-05-02T08:17:00.003-05:00

Another round in my "comments war" with Jim Riley of Texas. Jim's remarks are italicized.

******************************

"... explain how non-majority elections with partisan candidates running against a fellow member of their party... are so useful."

You mean like Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Charlie Crist in Florida (and, for that matter, Theodore Roosevelt vs. William Howard Taft in 1912)?

Only Louisiana and Washington state use the "top two open primary"[1] to elect all of their state officials; Washington alone uses it to elect its congressional delegation. The only other state that requires a popular majority (50-plus percent) to win a general election is Georgia.

Thus 48 states[2]-- unlike you-- do not consider the voice of the majority to be the Voice of God-- although the winners of most general elections do get 50-plus percent.

A number of U. S. presidents have been elected with less than 50 percent of the popular vote--Lincoln, Wilson, Nixon, Clinton... to name several.

"I don’t see what… is so significant about the 2.8% of the vote received by the Green Party candidate, or [the] Libertarian candidate who received 0.8% [in Louisiana's 2008 general election for one U. S. House seat]."

What’s significant about those candidates is that (A) they gave the voters more choices in the final, deciding election, and (B) their supporters were able to vote for their favorite candidate in that final election. Also, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party had their messages presented in the campaign in which the larger number of voters were paying attention.

Your beloved “top two open primary” would, in all likelihood, eventually cause the small parties to become extinct. Then the voters would also have fewer choices in the FIRST round. But let’s face it: You don’t give a damn about political parties anyway-- large or small.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff.

[2] Since Washington state permits write-in votes, it does not mandate 50-plus percent for a candidate to be elected. This leaves solely Louisiana and Georgia that do require 50-plus percent.

"Open Primary" Vote Sparks Suit vs. Voting Rights Act

2010-04-29T01:37:00.002-05:00

At this posting, there are 15 comments on this article.

"... consider the astonishing fact that states like Georgia and Mississippi are covered based on evidence and election data that are more than 40 years old! When Section 5 was passed in 1965, coverage was triggered by data showing voter registration and turnout of less than 50 percent in the 1964 elections..."

******************************

by Hans A. von Spakovsky and Roger Clegg

Attorney General Eric Holder has undergone so much criticism in recent months that some in Washington are wondering how long he’ll keep his job. From the unexplained dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party (and the stonewalling of requests for information from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission) to the mishandling of the Christmas bomber and KSM terrorism cases, Holder has made multiple, repeated mistakes that could have damaging legal and national security consequences.

But one group that has been unwavering in its support of Holder has been the liberal civil rights organizations that heralded his appointment. Now, however, even those organizations may come to regret Holder’s appointment, because his inept handling of a voting case could lead to the overturning of a part of the Voting Rights Act.

When the Supreme Court heard a constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act last year in a case brought by a Texas municipal utility district, the justices were able to avoid deciding that issue by ruling instead for the district on statutory grounds. But a new lawsuit filed on April 7, arising out of a bizarre Justice Department decision in the small town of Kinston, North Carolina, is almost certain to bring the constitutional issue back to the Supreme Court. This time the Court may very well find the statute unconstitutional.

The Voting Rights Act is a complex law that causes a great deal of confusion. Parts of it are permanent – nationwide prohibitions against racial discrimination in voting. Their constitutionality is not being challenged in this case. But what the citizens of Kinston are questioning is the constitutionality of Section 5, which covers only nine states in their entirety and parts of seven other states.

Section 5 was passed in 1965 as an emergency, “temporary” measure that was supposed to expire in five years. But Congress has kept renewing it, most recently in 2006, when it was extended until 2031. Section 5 essentially puts covered states in federal receivership: They cannot implement any changes, no matter how small, in their voting-related procedures until they are approved by the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington. Also, state and local officials have the burden of proving that the changes do not have the “purpose” or “effect” of reducing the ability of racial minorities to vote.

Section 5 was an unprecedented and extraordinary intrusion into the sovereignty of local governments, but there is no question that something like it was needed in 1965. As Chief Justice Roberts said in the Texas case, discrimination was “rampant” in the South, where local officials engaged in systematic, widespread actions to prevent black Americans from registering and voting. Although this was illegal, many jurisdictions would simply pass new laws or switch to new discriminatory procedures if they lost a lawsuit. Section 5’s preapproval process was intended to prevent that widespread evasion of the law and court-ordered remedies.

Of course, as anyone with any common sense (but apparently not a majority of Congress) knows, we are a much different nation today. No one claims that discrimination has completely disappeared -- but there is no longer the systematic, intentional discrimination by state and local governments in large parts of the country. “Things have changed in the South,” the Court said in the Texas case. “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal [court] decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

No one can rationally argue that local governments in Virginia and Arizona, for example, which are covered by Section 5, are so different from local governments in, say, Arkansas and New Mexico, which are not covered, that they should be singled out and... Read more>>>>

******************************

Click here for a column from the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Click here for an editorial from The Washington Times.

Click here for an Associated Press article on the lawsuit.

Louisiana Senate Committee Passes "Open Primary"

2010-04-28T20:22:00.002-05:00

Ballot Access News says:

"On April 28, the Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee passed HB 292. It moves congressional elections back to the pattern used between 1998 and 2006. There are no congressional elections until November. All voters use the same ballot, and that ballot lists all candidates. If anyone gets 50% or more in November, that person is elected. Otherwise the top two finishers face off in December."

In presidential election years, of course, the presidential nominees would also be on the ballot on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The only December runoffs that would be held, if necessary, would be for Congress.

The Louisiana House of Representatives passed HB 292 on April 14.

The only state now using this type of system to elect its congressional delegation is Washington, which calls it the "top two." That state has the first round in August and the runoff in November. Louisiana and Washington are the only states that use this process to elect all of their state officials.

California's June 8 ballots will include Proposition 14, which would impose a "top two open primary" for the Golden State's congressional and state officials. The first round would be in June and the runoff in November.

Supremes to Decide on Mississippi Case

2010-04-27T20:16:00.003-05:00

Ballot Access News reports:

"The U. S. Supreme Court has set a conference date of May 13 to decide whether to hear the Mississippi ballot access case, Moore v. Hosemann, 09-982. The case originated in 2008 when the Secretary of State kept Brian Moore off the November ballot because his presidential elector paperwork was turned in at 5:10 p.m. instead of by 5 p.m. Moore was the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate."

Since the Socialist Party is not ballot-qualified in Mississippi, Moore, a Floridian, sought and received the nomination-- by conference call-- of the Natural Law Party.[1] This was easier than his other option of qualifying for the Magnolia State's ballot as an independent.

The Mississippi legislature has recently clarified 5:00 p. m. on the last day as the deadline for submitting presidential elector paperwork.

******************************

[1] Mississippi and Michigan are the only states in which the Natural Law Party is still ballot-qualified. In 2008, the Michigan NLP nominated Ralph Nader for president.

NY Libertarians Back Redlich for Governor

2010-04-27T03:11:00.002-05:00

On April 24, the New York Libertarian Party nominated Warren Redlich for governor.

Kristin Davis, the madam who provided prostitutes to former [Democratic] Gov. Eliot Spitzer, was expected to battle... for the nomination. But the Manhattanite did not show up at the convention...

Redlich also would like to run for governor as a Republican, saying Saturday he hopes to use his influence among some Tea Party activists to launch a challenge to GOP frontrunner Rick Lazio.

New York is one of the states that allows fusion, meaning that more than one party may nominate the same candidate.

Davis says that she will be listed on the November ballot under "Personal Freedom Party." She would likely take votes away from Redlich.

Lazio, a former U. S. representative, was the 2000 Republican nominee for U. S. senator. He lost to now-U. S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

New York's two U. S. senators will also be on the November ballot. Chuck Schumer is seeking his third term, while appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is running for the remaining two years on the term to which Hillary Clinton was elected. Both Schumer and Gillibrand are Democrats.

School Boards Elected With a Minority of the Vote

2010-04-21T21:19:00.009-05:00

Some of Mississippi's public school boards are appointed and some are elected. The members of Jackson's school board, for example, are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council (in my view, all school boards should be elected, since they have the power to raise taxes, but I digress). When a school board member is elected, it's a nonpartisan contest, in which all candidates run in the same election-- popularly called an "open primary."

In 2009, the Mississippi legislature enacted HB 877, which applies to county school boards and certain municipal school boards which embrace entire counties. HB 877 requires that, if no candidate gets 50-plus percent in the first round, there will be a runoff three weeks later.

Mississippi is one of the jurisdictions covered under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act. Anytime the state-- or a political party herein-- proposes to change anything related to our voting procedures, the change must be precleared by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[1]

Last year the state attorney general's office submitted a request for preclearance to the DOJ, which finally objected to the implementation of HB 877, asserting that the state has not provided the information necessary for the DOJ to perform its duty. Edward Still, who posted the DOJ's March 24, 2010 letter, comments, "The letter should be used as a case study in how a State can fail to carry its burden of proof in a Section 5 preclearance request."

The DOJ's letter notes that the state may either ask for reconsideration from the DOJ or file suit in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Unless and until HB 877 is approved, the covered school board elections will have to be one-round, first-past-the-post contests, in which it will be possible for someone to be elected with less than 50 percent of the vote.

The DOJ's letter refers to a 1971 ruling by a three-judge federal panel. In 1970, the Mississippi legislature-- for the second of five times-- had enacted nonpartisan elections ("open primaries") for our state, county, and municipal officials. The DOJ had failed to approve or disapprove the law, and the judges did not have the authority to order its implementation. Notably, all three of those judges-- Charles Clark, Dan Russell, and Walter Nixon-- opined that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional (Evers v. State Board of Election Commissioners, 327 F.Supp. 640 [S. D. Miss. 1971]).

******************************

[1] Last year the U. S. Supreme Court, in a Texas case against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, ducked the issue but left the door open for a future challenge. A new federal lawsuit was brought in North Carolina on April 7 against Section 5, and I will soon be blogging here about that case.

"Georgia Voter ID Law Upheld Again"

2010-04-21T19:56:00.002-05:00

by The Associated Press | April 20, 2010

Georgia's oft-challenged law that requires voters to show photo identification before they cast their ballots has survived another legal battle.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Tom Campbell on Tuesday ruled that the law does not violate Georgia's constitution.

Critics have long tried to block the law, claiming it places an undue burden on poor, disabled people and minorities.

But supporters say it's needed to combat voter fraud. Secretary of State Brian Kemp says in a statement Tuesday that the ruling "is a victory for the integrity of the state's elections process."

Louisiana House Passes "Open Primary" For Congress

2010-04-20T01:58:00.005-05:00

On April 14, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved what is popularly called the "open primary" for the state's congressional elections. The vote for HB 292 was 72-26, with a higher number of Republicans backing it than Democrats. If enacted, the change would take place with the 2012 elections. All candidates would be on the ballot on the first Tuesday in November; any necessary runoff would be held in December.

The Bayou State has used "open primaries" for its state and local elections since 1975. It also used this system for its congressional elections from 1978 to 2006, with the November/December schedule starting in 1998. The state restored party primaries for Congress in 2008, but the "open primary" proponents say that HB 292 will save the state some $6.6 million in every federal election cycle.

Jeffrey Sadow, associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University in Shreveport, says that the legislators voted on the bill based on misinformation: "... on three occasions [state Rep. Hunter] Greene asserted that '19 or 20' states had an 'open' primary..."

This was evidently a reference to the party primary system that Mississippi and 20 other states currently use. The parties hold separate primaries, and each voter picks a party on primary day.

The reason this matters is that a representative or senator who is not elected until December will presumably not have as good a choice of committee assignments as one who is elected in November. In reality, Georgia is now the only state in which it's possible to have a runoff for Congress in December (U. S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R] won such a runoff in December 2008). Georgia is also the only state that has party primaries AND runoff general elections.

The only state now using a system similar to the one passed by the Louisiana House for its congressional elections is Washington. That state-- which calls it the "top two"-- has the first round in August and the runoff on the first Tuesday in November[1] (Washington always has a runoff, even if one candidate gets 50-plus percent in the first round). As Professor Sadow notes, the Washington system, which the state first used in 2008, is facing ongoing litigation, including a trial in U. S. district court in October 2010 (Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State and Washington State Grange).

It will be interesting to see how HB 292 fares in the Louisiana Senate.

******************************

[1] California will have Proposition 14, a measure for a "top two open primary" for state and congressional elections, on its June 8 ballots. Like the Washington state "top two," Prop. 14 would limit the November ballot to only two candidates per office. As applied to congressional elections, this is almost certainly unconstitutional.

The United States Senate

2010-04-17T14:23:00.002-05:00

A commenter at Ballot Access News says, "The... U.S.A. Senate is one of the most ANTI-Democracy legislative bodies in the so-called free world..."

"Democracy” was a cussword to the Founding Fathers, who established a republic. Having a Senate comprised of two members from each state was part of the compromise that enabled the Constitution to be adopted. The small states wanted this provision in order to prevent the large states from running roughshod over them.

James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," wanted the Senate, like the House of Representatives, to be based on population, but he obviously lost out on that.

Once the founders decided that they wanted one-third of the Senate to be elected every two years, they had to determine whether they wanted the Senate terms to be six years or nine years. They finally concluded that nine years was too long, and they settled on six years.

While the House has always been popularly elected, senators were originally elected by the state legislatures. The founders implemented this as the state governments' main check on the federal government; senators were considered to be "ambassadors" from the state governments to the national government. Effective on May 31, 1913, however, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution established direct election of senators.

For years, a single senator could stop a measure from becoming law, and the federal government remained quite small. But the cloture rule was adopted in 1917[1], and the Welfare State has developed in the years since.

That a##hole Woodrow Wilson, of course, was president when both the 17th Amendment and the cloture rule took effect.

******************************

[1] Starting in 1917, a filibuster could be ended by invoking cloture with a two-thirds vote of the Senate. In 1974, during the Watergate scandal, the two-thirds requirement was lowered to three-fifths.

Selecting Versus Electing

2010-04-17T12:17:00.002-05:00

Here's still another of my exchanges with Jim Riley of Texas. It begins with a reference to a U. S. district court's ruling on Washington state's Louisiana-style "top two" election system.[1] Jim's remarks are italicized.

******************************

“… because [Judge Thomas Zilly's] decision was based solely on the facial political association issues, he never addressed the ballot access or trademark claims, nor did the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court.”

Correct… and the Supreme Court, in a footnote (#11, I believe), listed the as-applied grounds on which the Washington state “top two” could be challenged in the future.

“Are you saying that primary, secondary, and even tertiary elections are not all integral parts of the election process?”

I’m saying that party primaries are for the purpose of selecting the parties’ candidates for the general election, just as are conventions, caucuses, and other less democratic methods of nomination. For 30-plus years now, the federal courts have been moving in the direction of greater autonomy for political parties. The Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary[2] in California Democratic Party v. Jones, and I’m convinced, based on the reasoning in that case, that the justices will also strike down the state-mandated open (or pick-a-party) primary[3] when such a case reaches them.

In Jones, Justice Scalia, quoting from an earlier ruling, said that political parties have “the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only.”

Also in Jones, Justice Scalia said, “… [S]electing the candidate of a group to which one does not belong… has been described… as a ‘desire’– and rejected as a basis for disregarding the First Amendment…”

You make it sound as though the election process is merely a matter of citizens continuing to cast ballots until only one candidate is left standing.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff.

[2] All candidates of all parties are listed on a single primary ballot. There is no second primary, and the top vote-getter from each party moves on to the general election, where any independent candidates are also listed.

[3] This is the primary system now used by Mississippi and 20 other states. The parties hold separate primaries, and each voter picks a party on primary day.

Hawkeye Primaries

2010-04-17T05:22:00.002-05:00

21 states, including Mississippi, have classic open primaries, in which each voter picks a party on primary day.

Iowa is the only one of the 21 states that registers voters by party.

Even if you are not registered with one of the political parties, you can register at the polling place on the day of the primary and vote in that particular party’s election. It’s that easy.

The article fails to mention that a registered Democrat who wants to vote in the Republican primary may do so by changing his registration at the polling place on primary day. The same, to be sure, is true of a registered Republican who wants to vote in the Democratic primary (a voter, of course, can only participate in one party's primary).

It's my understanding that the system is the same for Iowa's quadrennial, first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses. A voter who is registered with the opposing party simply goes to the site of the party's caucus in which he wishes to participate, where he changes his registration.

Other states have same-day registration for voters not already registered, but Iowa is the only state that permits a voter to switch parties at the polling place (or caucus site) and vote in the primary or caucus of his new party.

Give-and-Take on the "Open Primary"

2010-04-13T21:40:00.003-05:00

This is my latest exchange with Jim Riley of Texas on issues related to Proposition 14,[1] which will be on California's June 8 ballots. Jim's remarks are italicized.

******************************

“There were no formal nominations [before there were government-printed ballots]…”

The parties in many places held conventions or caucuses to choose their candidates. In 1842, when the convention system became unwieldy for the Democrats of Crawford County, Pennsylvania, the party began using “primary meetings.” This featured secret balloting by party members and was the beginning of the direct primary election.

“After introduction of the Australian [state-printed, secret] ballot, beginning in 1888 and being universal by about 1920…”

Louisville, Kentucky was first to use the Australian ballot in 1880. By 1892, it was required by 3/4 of the states containing 72% of the people. By 1896, after its adoption by New York, the Australian ballot was used by 9/10 of the states with 92% of the people.

“… since the 1944 Smith v. Allwright decision [party primaries] have been recognized as being an integral part of the election process.”

The U. S. Supreme Court recognized that fact in 1941 in U. S. v. Classic. This ruling was prompted by a vote fraud case in the Democratic primary in a New Orleans U. S. House district (the Democratic primary was then tantamount to election). Hale Boggs, father of ABC's Cokie Roberts, was running against the Long machine.

Louisiana’s “top two” (“open primary”), incidentally, is part of the residue of that old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.

“… it is quite lawful for states to hold preliminary elections before November, so long as the final choice is made in November.”

From circa 1998 until 2006, Louisiana held the first round of its “open primary” for Congress on the first Tuesday in November, with the runoff in December if necessary. A series of federal court rulings has effectively said that that November ballot for Congress cannot be limited to just two candidates.

Thus the Washington state “top two” and California’s Prop. 14 (“top two open primary”), as applied to congressional elections, are almost certainly unconstitutional.

******************************

[1] This measure would abolish compulsory party primaries and put all candidates, including independents, on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would proceed to the runoff.

"Repeal and Replace!"

2010-04-13T19:46:00.003-05:00

Here's the YouTube of Rush Limbaugh quoting from the column below.

******************************

by Doctor Zero | April 3, 2010

The early battle cry of “Repeal and Replace!” has become stuck in a few Republican throats. The thinking among “top Republicans” is that outright repeal of ObamaCare might be impossible, leading to frustration among an energized base that demands nothing less. There is also some apprehension that an uncompromising push for repeal will alienate moderate and independent voters in otherwise winnable states. Declaring repeal to be “impossible” is a self-fulfilling prophecy of American decline. A slapdash pile of graft and fraudulent cost projections, passed by a fantastically corrupt Congress that claims it couldn’t hear the muffled screams of the outraged electorate through the thick doors of their smoke-filled rooms, instantly becomes an eternal component of our lives? That will only be true if we make it true… and even then, it won’t be true for long.

One way or another, ObamaCare won’t last far beyond the point where your kids go bankrupt trying to pay for it. The American entitlement state is the world’s tallest, shakiest house of cards. We can find the strength and self-respect to repeal this garbage now, or weep in shame and confusion when it implodes, after years of increasing poverty and decreasing public health. I encourage wobbly Republican politicians to take a long look at their preschool-age children, grandchildren, nephews, or nieces during the Easter holiday. Make peace with ObamaCare now, and you give life to a system that has already declared war on those kids… and will utterly defeat them before they graduate high school.

It’s true that the GOP cannot completely dedicate itself to the repeal of one piece of legislation for the next three years. Instead, they should dedicate themselves to slaying the blasphemous, rotting leviathan that gave birth to ObamaCare, and whose tentacles are visibly squeezing the life out of the American economy. Big Government is a parasite that is more than willing to kill its host. Ordinary people are beginning to see it for what it is. They understand that something is terribly wrong with their government. Now is the time to explain the origins of this leviathan, and put ObamaCare in its proper context… as the final, absurd contortions of a philosophy that acts in complete ignorance, and sometimes outright contempt, for what free people can achieve. Behold the toxic wonder of a bill that forces people to buy a product that it will also cause a shortage of.

In its final years, the Left can only communicate with the thundering stallions of American prosperity using curses and whips. It will answer every problem caused by the taxes and regulations of ObamaCare with more taxes and regulations, until the stallions of progress die beneath the lash, with the last impotent curses of angry and frightened liberals ringing in their ears.

Republicans, you know how this story ends. You’ve seen its miserable ending all over the world, from... Read more>>>>

Louisiana "Open Primary" Bill

2010-04-10T10:09:00.004-05:00

At this posting, there are 24 comments on this piece.

******************************

From Ballot Access News:

On April 7, the Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee passed HB 292 unanimously. It would convert Congressional elections from a semi-closed system, to [an "open primary"] system.[1] The first round would be in November. If no one got a majority [50-plus percent] in November, the state would hold a run-off in December. The author of HB 292 is Rep. Hunter Greene (R-Baton Rouge).

The Committee also considered HB 1157, by Rep. Cameron Henry. It would have retained [party primaries] for Congress, but abolished run-off [or second] party primaries. Both bills would have saved money. The Committee chair said the Speaker had told him to advance only one of these two bills, so HB 1157 did not pass. However, it could be revived if HB 292 does not get enacted into law. For more detail, see this story (scroll down).

Louisiana has used the "open primary" for its state and local elections since 1975. The state also used this system for its congressional elections from 1978 to 2006 but restored party primaries for Congress in 2008. The Democrats invited registered independents to vote in their congressional primary, but the Republicans did not. If HB 292 is enacted, it won't take effect before 2012, so the state will again conduct party primaries for Congress this year.

The Bayou State's adoption of the "open primary" relates to Mississippi's efforts to impose that system here. Five times between 1966 and 1979, the Mississippi legislature passed the "open primary" for our state and local elections, but its implementation was blocked each time. Meanwhile, Louisiana copied the concept from the Magnolia State and succeeded in putting it into effect over there.

Currently, Washington state-- which calls it the "top two"-- is the only other state that uses this type of system to elect all of its state officials. Washington alone now uses it for its congressional elections. As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the Washington "top two" is facing more federal litigation (Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State and Washington State Grange).

California's June 8 ballots will feature Proposition 14, a measure for a Louisiana-style "top two" ("open primary") for the Golden State's congressional and state elections.

******************************

[1} This is the popular name in Louisiana and Mississippi for nonpartisan elections, in which all candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff.

Obey the (Natural) Law

2010-04-10T06:10:00.002-05:00

by Sheldon Richman | April 9, 2010

Tax Day approaches, and I’ve been thinking of all the ways government bullies us, demanding we do – and not do – things — or else.

You can get into big trouble for not sending in a bunch of forms to the IRS by April 15 disclosing how much money you made last year. You can get into bigger trouble for not giving the government the cut to which it believes it’s entitled.

You can also get into trouble – admittedly lesser – if you don’t fill out and return that census form sent you without your consent.

You can get into trouble for hiring someone who doesn’t have the government’s permission to be within the politically defined borders of the United States. Even some people who claim to be for limited government like this idea — they favor tough employer sanctions and raids by armed government agents to break up such commercial relations between consenting adults.

You can get into trouble if you ingest a disapproved intoxicant or narcotic. Heck, you can get in trouble for ingesting some approved ones without permission.

You can get into trouble if you refuse to sell your land to the government at any price when politicians decide they want it for a public or private use.

You can get into trouble for putting a shop in an area zoned exclusively residential or vice versa.

You can get into trouble for doing some jobs without a government license, even if your customers are perfectly happy.

And, oh yes, soon you’ll get into trouble for not buying a health-insurance policy.

You can get into trouble for doing a long list... Read more>>>>

The Parties' National Conventions

2010-04-07T14:01:00.002-05:00

From Ballot Access News:

"Both major parties recently set the dates for their 2012 national conventions. The 2012 general election is on November 6.

"The Republicans will meet August 27-30, and the Democrats will meet September 3-6. Both major parties will be able to comply with state certification deadlines, which in some states are 60 days before the election. Sixty days before the 2012 general election works out to September 7.

"The locations for these conventions will be determined in the next six months."

For some years now, it has been traditional for the party of the incumbent president to hold its convention last. Hence the Democrats in 2012 will convene four days after the Republican convention has ended.

According to Michael Holt’s book, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War, the Antimasons, a regional party, held the first such convention in September 1831. They nominated their 1832 presidential candidate, William Wirt, and only 13 states were represented.

The National Republicans– most of whom joined the Whig Party when it was later founded– met in December 1831 and nominated Henry Clay for the 1832 election.

The first convention of what is today called the Democratic Party met in Baltimore and renominated President Andrew Jackson in May 1832.

The Democrats held their convention for 1836 in May 1835 and nominated Martin Van Buren. They did not convene again until May 1840, when they renominated President Van Buren.

The Whigs held their first convention in December 1839 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. They nominated William Henry Harrison for the 1840 election.

Today's Republican Party was founded in the summer of 1854. That party nominated John C. Fremont for president in 1856, and he lost to the Democrat James Buchanan.

The Republicans convened in May 1860 and nominated Abraham Lincoln on the third ballot.

Debate on the "Open Primary"

2010-04-06T20:06:00.003-05:00

On June 8, Californians will vote on Proposition 14, a ballot measure for a Louisiana-style "top two open primary." This has fueled another round in my perpetual debate with Jim Riley of Texas on this issue. Below is an excerpt from our latest exchange; Jim's comments are italicized. Prop. 14 was triggered by state Senator Abel Maldonado, a nominal Republican who more recently has been nominated by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to fill the vacant lieutenant governorship.

******************************

“Under Proposition 14 candidates from all parties and independents will appear on the June primary (sic) ballot where all voters… will be able to vote for the person they believe will best represent them.”

Yes, and since this is just a preliminary election, a voter will hope that his favorite candidate survives and makes it to the November ballot. If not, he then can only vote for the “lesser of the evils,” both of whom may be from the same party.

“… for these statewide offices, Congress, and the legislature, there will always be a runoff, even if one candidate happens to receive a majority in June.”

Right. So a candidate could get 100% of the vote in June and then be defeated in November– which is ridiculous. As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that if Washington state is permitted to continue using the “top two,” it will ultimately have to hold the first round for Congress on the first Tuesday in November; if the state wants to have a runoff for Congress, it will have to be at a later date.

“Parties will be free to support candidates in both the primary (sic) and general election, just like they do now.”

And what will happen when the two final candidates are from the same major party? Will the other major party endorse the “lesser of the evils”? And what will the small parties do in such a situation? For that matter, what will the small parties do when the final choice is one Democrat and one Republican?

“… [a candidate will] be able to take his case for election to all the voters.”

This will give an advantage to the big-money candidates, especially in a large state like California, in which paid media is already so crucial in campaigns. In order to have a chance to advance to the November election, a party-affiliated candidate will have to communicate with ALL the voters– instead of just his party’s voters.[1]

The top two vote-getters will thus have to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns, which, again, will give an even greater advantage to the candidates with the most money. This will discourage people without big bucks from even running.

“The basic idea is to have an election open to all voters and candidates that then reduces the field…”

Propostion 14 (“Maldonado’s Folly”) would reduce the field all right– to just two candidates, both of whom may be from the same party. Why should the voters be limted to just two choices in the final, deciding election?

You say you wouldn’t mind it if more than two candidates could move on to the November ballot. But the reality is that you’re stuck with the California proposal, which would only permit the top two finishers to advance.

******************************

[1] In California's current system of party primaries, registered independents are eligible to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary for state and congressional offices; thus independents have more options than registered party members. Also, a voter may change his registration up until 15 days before the primaries.

New York Libertarian Contest for Governor

2010-04-04T13:26:00.002-05:00

From the April 1 Ballot Access News hard copy:

"The New York Libertarian Party has never been ballot-qualified, and it nominates by convention. This year, there is a vigorous contest between Warren Redlich, an attorney who is also running in the Republican primary, and Kristin Davis, who has the backing of Roger Stone, a long-time political consultant who was once a Republican but who no longer feels loyalty to the Republican Party. ... . A group whose gubernatorial nominee polls 50,000 votes attains (or retains) qualified party status. There is no other way to get that status [in New York]. The [Libertarian] convention is on Saturday, April 24, in Albany."

New York is one of the states that permits fusion, which means that more than one party can nominate the same candidate. In 2006, William Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, ran an abortive campaign for governor of New York. He accepted the Libertarians' nomination with the promise that he would stay in the race even if he failed to also win the Republican nomination. After making little headway with the Republicans, Weld reneged on his pledge to the Libertarians and dropped out of the race.

Kristin Davis was the madam who procured call girls for then-Governor Eliot Spitzer. She says that her ballot label will be "Personal Freedom Party."

If memory serves, Roger Stone was a consultant for at least one of Ronald Reagan's presidential campaigns.

Washington "Top Two" Lawsuit

2010-04-04T12:48:00.002-05:00

From the April 1 Ballot Access News hard copy:

"Washington state started using a "top two" system[1] in 2008 [following a U. S. Supreme Court ruling]. A lawsuit is currently pending in U. S. District Court over whether the system violates the associational rights of political parties as applied, and also whether the system violates the U. S. Supreme Court's ballot access precedents, and finally whether the system violates the trademark of political parties that have trademarked their names. The case is Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State and Washington State Grange.

"On March 9, Judge John C. Coughenour [coon-our] rejected an attempt by the state and the Grange to eliminate the ballot access and trademark issues from the case. ... ."

This case is facing a trial in the U. S. district court in October on the associational rights question. The next court to hear the ballot access and trademark issues will be the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact that this litigation has not been settled could affect the voters' decision on Proposition 14, which will be on California's ballots on June 8. Prop. 14 would impose a "top two open primary" for the Golden State's congressional and state elections.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, proceed to the runoff.

Meg Whitman Opposes "Open Primary" Measure

2010-04-02T20:41:00.003-05:00

The putative Democratic nominee for California governor is attorney general Jerry Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983. Brown also sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976, 1980, and 1992. His father, Governor Pat Brown, was unseated in 1966 by a first-time candidate named Ronald Reagan. Jerry Brown is firmly straddling the fence on the issue of the "top two open primary."

******************************

From Ballot Access News:

On April 1, Meg Whitman, leading in the polls for the California Republican gubernatorial nomination, said that she opposes Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure.[1] She said that she is favorably disposed toward some sort of open primary, but she opposes Proposition 14 because it would lead to so few choices on the November ballot. She specifically criticized Proposition 14 because in some legislative or congressional districts there would be November elections in which no Republican appears on the ballot.

Whitman made this statement in Chico, at one of her public campaign events. Her comments were in response to a question from the audience.

Click here for a seven-minute video of a debate on Proposition 14.

***************************

[1] In this Louisiana-style election system, all candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the runoff. Louisiana and Washington are now the only two states that use this system to elect all of their state officials, and Washington alone uses it for its congressional elections. The California proposal is for state and congressional elections.

Pro-Life Measure Makes Mississippi Ballot

2010-04-01T18:37:00.002-05:00

At this posting, there are 123 comments on this article. Since the implementation of Mississippi's initiative process in 1993, only two initiatives have previously qualified for the ballot. Both-- in 1995 and 1999-- pertained to term limits, and both were defeated. ~~ SR

******************************

by Elizabeth Crisp
ClarionLedger.com

Abortion foes have secured enough signatures on a petition to get an initiative on the 2011 ballot to define life as beginning at the point of conception.

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann announced today that petitioners gathered 106,325 signatures— well over the 89,285 needed to get the initiative on the general election ballot.

Voters will decide whether a “person” should be defined as any life “from the point of fertilization, cloning or equivalent thereof.”

“We are trying to define — in the law — where life begins,” said Les Riley, a Pontotoc resident who spearheaded the petition efforts.[1] “A person is a person, no matter how small.”

The personhood petition is the second voter-led effort that has secured enough signatures to appear on the November 2011 ballot. The other seeks to require voters to show identification at the polls in Mississippi.

******************************

[1] Riley was the Constitution Party's 2007 nominee for state commissioner of agriculture.

Downsize the Mississippi Legislature

2010-03-31T16:09:00.003-05:00

This letter appeared in the March 31 Clarion-Ledger.

******************************

Burdett Rutland ("Reapportionment due in Mississippi," March 14 letter) notes that neighboring Alabama and Tennessee, with larger populations than Mississippi, both have smaller legislatures. Also, Louisiana has 39 senators and 105 representatives, and Arkansas has 35 senators and 100 representatives, whereas the Magnolia State has 52 senators and 122 representatives.

The Web site ncsl.org shows the number of legislators for each state. The most egregious example is California. With more than 12 times Mississippi's population, that state has 40 senators and 80 assembly members.

There are only two ways that the Mississippi Legislature could be downsized. Since the legislators themselves obviously won't do it, we citizens will have to do it through a ballot initiative.

Click here for two of my previous articles on this subject.

Here's another piece that relates to this topic.

An Irritated Senior Citizen

2010-03-31T15:43:00.002-05:00

o All 535 voting members of the U. S. Congress: it is now official that you are ALL corrupt morons:

a) The U. S. Post Office was established in 1775. You have had 235 years to get it right and it is broke.

b) Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 75 years to get it right and it is broke.

c) Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 72 years to get it right and it is broke.

d) The War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 46 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e) Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 45 years to get them right and they are broke.

f) Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 40 years to get it right and it is broke.

g) The U. S. Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year, and we import more oil than ever before. You have had 33 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats, while overspending our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE; IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT.

~~ Author unknown

NOTE: He left out FEMA, Amtrak, and the IRS, among others. Oh, and "Cash for Clunkers"-- how quickly we forget!

Netflix CEO Puts Cash Down "Open Primary" Rathole

2010-03-29T13:21:00.004-05:00

On June 8, the California ballots will feature Proposition 14, a measure for a Louisiana-style "top two open primary,"[1] and the campaign is heating up.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently transferred $500,000 from his campaign account to the campaign in favor of Prop. 14.

Also, Ballot Access News reports that Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, last week gave $257,328 to the campaign for Prop. 14.

What would be the motivation of the CEO of Netflix to throw a quarter of a million dollars down a rathole? I was on the verge of joining Netflix, but I just decided to join Blockbuster instead. Besides, you can return Blockbuster’s DVDs to their brick-and-mortar stores.

I guess Schwarzenegger doesn’t think he’s screwed up California quite enough yet, so he wants to add the “top two open primary” to his checkered legacy. In addition to Governor Ahnuld, these were among the backers of California’s 2004 “open primary” initiative: now-CIA director Leon Panetta (D), ex-Governor Pete Wilson (R), and ex-Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan (R). And yet the voters still had the good sense to defeat this monstrosity, as it lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.

The opponents of the “open primary” (Prop. 62) raised enough money in 2004 to beat this abomination. I’m confident that they will again be able to get their message to the voters.

I am continually amazed that some independents and small party members support the “top two open primary.” I guess they don’t give a damn about having a chance to elect independents and small party candidates to office, since the final choice in the “top two” is almost always one Democrat and one Republican, two Democrats, OR two Republicans.

Incidentally, I wonder how the Netflix CEO arrived at such an oddball figure as $257,328.

Maybe that was what he had left in his petty cash account.

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the runoff. The California proposal is for all state and congressional offices.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy

2010-03-29T10:31:00.004-05:00

From DiscoverTheNetworks.Org:

~~ Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven (today Piven is an honorary chair for the Democratic Socialists of America), the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

This was an example of what are commonly called... Read more>>>>

******************************

Additional sources:

Wikipedia article

American Thinker article

Preparing for Panic

Washington Times piece

Cuccinelli Attacks ObamaCare

2010-03-25T09:17:00.004-05:00

by Robert Romano

Today [March 23], Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will file suit against the federal mandate imposed by ObamaCare that individuals must purchase health insurance. He and other courageous state attorneys general deserve our thanks.

In short, the Federal Constitution does not permit Congress to enact a mandate for individuals to purchase anything, let alone health insurance. The Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall be… deprived of… liberty… without due process of law.” The American people have the liberty to choose their own health insurance plan — if they want one.

At issue in the case is a newly-enacted Virginia law that prohibits individual mandates — in direct contradiction to the federal statute.

Cuccinelli will argue that the Constitution provides no explicit grant of authority for Congress to mandate the purchase of insurance. According to the Roanoke Times, “With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce," Cuccinelli said. "We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate."

Such a line of attack is the most likely to disarm government-run health care at its inception in a efficient period of time, even more so than a repeal strategy now being promoted by Congressional Republicans.

Repeal will take time — a luxury not on the side of those who stand with liberty — and depends upon victory in 2010 in the least. Not to mention the transition of one if not two presidential election cycles to overcome an Obama veto. At the earliest, legislation repealing ObamaCare could be enacted in 2013, assuming a filibuster-proof majority can be secured in the Senate.

As with other entitlements, repealing them proves even harder than enacting them. Ronald Reagan once said that “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.”

One need only look at the present scheme of federal entitlements to see the difficulty involved. Despite bleeding red ink year after year, having their trust funds pilfered by Congress, and the prospect of complete insolvency by 2017 and 2037, respectively, Medicare and Social Security remain unreformed and as unsustainable as ever.

That is not to say that repeal... Read more>>>>

U. S. Supreme Court Requests Mississippi Response

2010-03-23T20:28:00.003-05:00

From Ballot Access News:

On March 19, the U. S. Supreme Court asked Mississippi to file a response to the certiorari petition filed by Brian Moore,[1] in the case over whether Mississippi should have put Moore on the ballot for President in 2008. The case is Moore v. Hosemann, 09-982.

This is the second indicator that the Court may be interested in this case. The first indicator was when Scotusblog flagged this case as a certiorari petition of interest. Scotusblog is a well-regarded news service that covers developments in the U. S. Supreme Court more closely than any other news source.

If the Court does take the case, it will be the first time since 1991 that the Court has taken a ballot access case filed with that Court by a minor party or independent candidate.

******************************

[1] Moore, a Florida resident, was the presidential nominee of the Socialist Party, which is not ballot-qualified in Mississippi. He was nominated here by the Natural Law Party.

Colorado Libertarians to Hold a Primary

2010-03-21T17:18:00.005-05:00

The Colorado Libertarian Convention, meeting on March 20, nominated most of the party's candidates for the 2010 general election. However, because of a 2003 change in state law, small parties must nominate by primary in certain circumstances. It will therefore be necessary to hold a statewide Libertarian primary for governor and U. S. senator. Colorado's primaries will be on August 12.

This will be the first Colorado party-- other than the Democratic and Republican parties-- to conduct a statewide primary since the Progressive Party did so in 1916.

Both of the candidates for Libertarian national chairman, Wayne Allyn Root of Las Vegas and John J. Meyers of Dallas, addressed the convention. Root, a recovering Republican, was the LP's 2008 vice-presidential nominee and has already announced his intention to seek the 2012 presidential nomination.

One of the candidates for governor, Dan Sallis, has an interesting nickname, "Kilo."

Mississippi law specifies that all parties nominate by primary; however, none of our six small parties have ever held a primary, since they have never had more than one candidate for the same office. The Magnolia State's ballot-qualified small parties are the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, America First, Natural Law, and Reform parties.

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the link.

Out-Of-State Petition Circulators

2010-03-17T23:00:00.007-05:00

Mississippi's initiative process has been in the news lately, with the measure for voter ID qualifying for the November 2011 ballot. It's also possible that an abortion initiative will appear on that ballot.

Mississippi is the only state that had the initiative process and lost it. This happened in 1922 as the result of a state Supreme Court ruling. In November 1992, some 70 percent of the voters approved our current initiative process, and the U. S. Department of Justice in 1993 okayed it under the Voting Rights Act. Since then, only two initiatives have qualified for the ballot, prior to the voter ID measure. Both of these proposals were for term limits-- in 1995 and 1999-- and both were defeated.

As though the Magnolia State's initiative process were not already tough enough, the state legislature in 1998 made it even more difficult by requiring that petition circulators be residents of the state. However, if a lawsuit were brought against this requirement, I believe that the suit would be successful. In 1999, for example, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law that mandated that petition circulators be registered voters in the state (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation).

Furthermore, seven of the federal circuit courts of appeals have issued rulings regarding residency requirements for petition circulators. Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News, says, "The 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits have thrown out laws that bar out-of-state circulators. The 2nd and 3rd circuits have thrown out laws that require circulators for district office to live in the district.

"On the other hand, the 8th circuit upheld a ban on out-of-state circulators in North Dakota, although that decision didn’t apply strict scrutiny, so it is disobedient to the U. S. Supreme Court precedent on who can circulate. There is a case pending against Idaho’s ban on out-of-state circulators in U. S. District Court that may get a ruling any day now. The Constitution Party is about to file a lawsuit against Kansas’ ban on out-of-state circulators." Independence Institute v. Buescher, a federal suit filed on March 15, challenges Colorado's prohibition on out-of-state circulators.

There has not yet been a case on non-resident petition circulators in the 5th circuit, which consists of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

"Scotusblog" Calls Mississippi Case a "Notable Petition"

2010-03-17T22:22:00.004-05:00

UPDATE-- 3/19/2010: Governor Haley Barbour today signed SB 3058, which sets a 5:00 p. m. deadline for turning in presidential elector paperwork to the secretary of state. The law previously set the deadline date but not the hour. The change was clearly brought about by the case discussed below. Meanwhile, the U. S. Supreme Court announced that it will consider at its April 2 conference whether it will hear Moore v. Hosemann, 09-982.

******************************

From Ballot Access News:

Scotusblog is a highly-regarded blog that reports on news from the U.S. Supreme Court. The editors of Scotusblog routinely read all the certiorari petitions filed in the U. S. Supreme Court. Then, Scotusblog editors choose the ones they feel are somewhat likely to be [heard] by the Court.

The March 12 edition of Scotusblog has chosen Moore v. Hosemann as a “notable petition.” See here.

Moore v. Hosemann is the Mississippi case over whether Brian Moore, the 2008 Socialist Party presidential candidate, should have been on the ballot. The ballot-qualified Natural Law Party nominated Moore, but it turned in its presidential electors ten minutes past five p.m. on the deadline day. Moore sued, arguing that the statute doesn’t indicate an hour on which such paperwork is due; by contrast, almost all other election law deadlines in the election law indicate an hour, generally 5 p.m. Moore also argued that because Article II of the U.S. Constitution says state legislatures (not states in general) have authority to write election laws governing presidential elector selection, the Secretary of State doesn’t have authority to impose a 5 p.m. deadline. The U.S. District Court said the case is moot. The 5th circuit said the case is not moot, and that Moore should re-file the case in state court.

Moore appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the 5th circuit should have itself certified the case to the State Supreme Court, instead of forcing Moore to file an entirely new lawsuit in state court. Moore also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide an auxiliary procedural point in the case. That procedural point is whether states that refuse to accept normal notice that the lawsuit is filed, and instead require the plaintiff to pay for a process server, ought to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of the process server.

These two procedural matters may seem uninteresting to many readers of this blog, but they are both of great interest to attorneys who sometimes sue state officials. The Fifth Circuit appears to be the only circuit that has ruled adversely on the procedural point about states and the costs of serving notice of a lawsuit. All the other Circuits seem to have ruled that states must reimburse plaintiffs for the cost of hiring a process server, if the states won’t accept service by postal mail.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is Moore v. Hosemann, 09-982. On March 2, Mississippi had told the U.S. Supreme Court that it doesn’t wish to file a response. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t set a conference date for Moore v. Hosemann. When it does, perhaps the Court will ask Mississippi to respond. Moore’s attorney is Law Professor Mark R. Brown of Capital Law School in Columbus, Ohio.

Health Care in a Free Society

2010-03-15T10:42:00.004-05:00

Click here for the audio podcast of this article.

******************************

"... I see health care reform of the kind promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders as part of a crusade against the American idea."

******************************

by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)

Someone once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican— as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.

The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.

Let me say here at the beginning that even though survey after survey shows that 75 percent or more of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care, no one I know in Congress denies that health care reform is needed. Everyone understands that health care in our country has grown needlessly expensive, and that some who want coverage cannot afford it. The ongoing debate over health care, then, is not about whether there should be reform; it is about what the principle of that reform ought to be.

Under the terms of our Constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. These rights are integral to our natural right to life—and it is government’s chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one’s health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.

Government’s constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets— markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal— and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case— government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.

With good reason, the Constitution left the administration of public health... Read more>>>>

Richard Weaver's Centennial

2010-03-03T15:03:00.002-06:00

A few minutes ago, I happened to stumble upon the fact that today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Richard Weaver (1910-1963), author of the classic book, Ideas Have Consequences (1948). I think it only fitting that I post something about this great man on such a noteworthy day. ~~ SR

******************************

by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Along with Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver was one of the most influential intellectuals of the postwar conservative renascence in America. A professor of English at the University of Chicago, Weaver was also a scholar of Southern history, and his defense of Southern civilization was at once so elegant and insightful that historians continue to study and discuss his work some forty years after his untimely death. Although despised in fashionable circles, the South, Weaver believed, possessed insight and wisdom that a world increasingly enticed by liberalism (in the American sense) neglected at its peril.

In 1830, one of the most famous debates in American history occurred between Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster and South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne. Weaver analyzed the debate in his essay "Two Orators," and much of what in Weaver’s judgment separated North and South politically, culturally, and ideologically came through in this celebrated exchange. Before a packed and rapturously attentive Senate chamber, the two men delivered a total of five speeches, in which they examined the nature of the American Union.

According to Hayne, the American Union was formed by distinct American states, acting in their sovereign capacity to establish a federal government to act as their agent in a few clearly specified areas. The political consequences of this view were plain. The United States was composed of independent, sovereign political communities, which retained all powers not delegated to the federal government, and which as sovereign states could, through secession, recall the powers delegated to that government. That Hayne’s position possessed merit was evident in the grammatical construction people generally used when speaking about the United States: the United States are rather than the United States is.

Webster, on the other hand, argued that the Union had been formed by the entire American people in the aggregate. In Webster’s conception, therefore, secession (and the less extreme method of resistance to unconstitutional federal action known as nullification) was metaphysically impossible. The Union was not, at root, a confederation of states, but rather an indivisible whole.

Weaver frequently observed that the Southerner was very much a local person, devoted to his particular plot of land and skeptical of distant authorities or grandiose political schemes – and he perceived this attachment to the locality in Hayne’s remarks before the Senate. Hayne’s historical argument, Weaver wrote, "was devoted to the proposition that the United States had been founded primarily to secure the blessings of liberty. For Hayne the implication was clear that liberty required the independence and dignity of the parts, with local attention to and disposition of local affairs. In what may seem to many an excess of particularism, he opposed local improvements financed by funds of the general government. Yet from a strict point of view Hayne was but facing and accepting the price of liberty. Freedom is something that gathers around the hearth, inheres in local associations, and endears to a man his place of habitation."

The issue could also be conceived another way: was the American Union... Read more>>>>

The Agrarians Took Their Stand

2010-03-02T21:11:00.009-06:00

The following is excerpted from a 1980 article written by Andrew Lytle (1902-1995). It's based on his presentation to the Philadelphia Society meeting held in New Orleans in October 1979.

******************************

Of the twelve agrarians who wrote the symposium I’ll Take My Stand [1930], only three are alive: Robert Penn Warren [1905-1989], the poet and novelist; Lyle Lanier [d. 1988], a psychologist and former executive vice-president of the University of Illinois: and myself, a writer and reader of fiction.

... all the writers were Southern and most of them, by accident, were associated with Vanderbilt University. These men were already known or were to become distinguished in their proper occupations, whether it was history or psychology or literature. Their agrarian writings merely displayed their common cultural inheritance, which was Christian and European. Let me quote a paragraph from the statement of principles as foreword to I’ll Take My Stand:

"Opposed to the industrial society is the agrarian, which does not stand in particular need of definition. An agrarian society is hardly one that has no use at all for industries, for professional vocations, for scholars and artists, and for the life of cities. Technically, perhaps, an agrarian society is one in which agriculture is the leading vocation, whether for wealth, for pleasure, or for prestige-a form of labor that is pursued with intelligence and leisure, and that becomes the model to which the other forms approach as well as they may."

Surely, then, it must be taken that a poet, a farmer, a banker, a historian, a school teacher, must live in a certain place and time and so exhibit the kind of belief and behavior defined by the manners and mores of that time and place. It was not necessary to be a farmer to be agrarian. It was merely the basic occupation of a commodity-producing society.

Only the Liberal mind could confuse equipment with the thing itself, but then the Liberal is always promising to relieve us of our common ills at somebody else’s expense. He is the propagandist of the power we opposed. It is an old fight and the agrarians were not the first to enter it. This is no time to reargue the case. The books are there to be read, and read in light of our present circumstances. I do want to emphasize that agrarianism was not an effort to reconstitute an ideal state, a utopia... .

From 1940 to 1974, the number of farms in the U.S. declined from approximately six million to a little over two million, 62 percent of our family units. Since the second world war, thirty million people have left the country for the city.

... at the time we wrote there were enough families living on the land and enough privately owned businesses in small towns and cities to counterbalance the great industrial might, which was a fact and had to be reckoned with. If our proposal had been listened to, this necessary industry might have been contained, might not have grown into the only idea of the kind of life everybody must be forced to accept. A family, and I mean its kin and connections, too, thrives best on some fixed location which holds the memories of past generations by the ownership of farms or even family businesses. Not only sentimental memories but skills passed down and a knowledge of the earth tended. And a knowledge particularly of the bloodstreams, so as to be warned and prepared for what to expect in behavior. Industry today uproots. ... . Promotion, except among the basic workers, means pulling up roots and being sent elsewhere, with the promise of a better car and another room to the house. The children, just as they are making friends and getting used to school, must begin all over again. This is a modification of the Spartan state, which reduced the family to a minimal role.

I’ve often asked myself: Why was it that so few people listened to us, although most were sympathetic. The kind of life they knew was at stake. I think the reason of their seeming indifference is this: Nobody could imagine the world they were born in, had lived in, and were still living in could disappear. Well, it has.

As my final word, I think we should have found a larger word than agrarian, for it was this whole country’s Christian inheritance that was threatened, and still is. But let there be no misunderstanding. We still are subjects of Christendom. Only we have reached its Satanic phase. I can’t believe that any society is strong which holds physical comfort as its quest. There is only one comfort, and it is the only thing that has been promised: the gates of Hell will not finally prevail.

Kristin Davis: Madam Governor?

2010-02-26T12:14:00.002-06:00

From LoHud.com

Gov. David Paterson may be out of the running for election this fall, but another candidate just announced her plans to run for the seat: Eliot Spitzer’s former madam Kristin Davis.

From her news release announcing her campaign event on Monday:

Kristin Davis, known as the Manhattan Madam who supplied call girls for Eliot Spitzer when he was Attorney General and Governor, will announce her candidacy for Governor of New York State as an Independent Candidate... on March 1, 2010... [Davis had earlier said she would seek the Libertarian Party's nomination].

Davis will announce her intention to petition her way onto the ballot and will outline her platform, which includes legalization, regulation and taxation of prostitution and marijuana to generate urgently needed new revenues for New York State and her support for gay marriage.

In attendance will be Penthouse Pet Ryan Keely and Penthouse Columnist Dr. Victoria Zdrok. Also in attendance will be supporter Susan Austin, Madam of The Mustang Ranch.

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the link.

Politics in the 1970s and 1980s

2010-02-26T10:35:00.003-06:00

Another of my missives to that group of political junkies...

******************************

The 1978 U. S. Senate election in Mississippi was actually a 4-way race, although the litigious Henry Kirksey of Jackson, another black independent, wasn't a factor. The Republican Thad Cochran got 45.0 percent; the Democrat Maurice Dantin of Columbia 31.8 percent; Fayette mayor Charles Evers 22.9 percent; and Kirksey 0.3 percent (Evers ran as an independent).

Evers was endorsed by boxing great Muhammed Ali and actor-singer Kris Kristofferson, who were shooting the movie Freedom Road in Mississippi.

I doubt that any Democrat-- Governor Cliff Finch, former lieutenant governor Charles Sullivan, or ex-Governor Bill Waller Sr.-- could have won under the circumstances, although the colorless Dantin's campaign would not have been hard to top. About all he said was, "Vote for me because I'm a Democrat." Retiring Senator James Eastland's endorsement and formidable organization didn't seem to help Dantin a whole lot. It was only Dantin's second statewide race-- he ran third in the '75 Democratic primary for governor-- so Sullivan had better name ID; it was his fifth statewide race. Sullivan won only one of those races, and only made the Democratic runoff in one other.

In 1972, Cochran had intended to run for the U. S. House as a Democrat until the Republican leaders approached him. He's led a charmed life: He benefitted from President Nixon's coattails and from a black independent running who was from the Democratic nominee's home county. Cochran carried only Hinds and Adams counties and won with 47.9 percent.[1]

In 1980, Republican congressman Jon Hinson, denying charges of homosexuality, was re-elected with 39.0 percent. The black independent Leslie McLemore was second with 31.6 percent, and the Democrat Britt Singletary got 29.4 percent. Hinson, of Tylertown, had succeeded Cochran two years earlier.

The blacks finally wised up and started working in the Democratic Party. Evers (age 87 this year) got only 3.9 percent as an independent in the 1983 governor's race (of course, his '80 support for Ronald Reagan for president had hurt him with many blacks).

On Christmas night, 1979, I went to see Kramer vs. Kramer at Deville Cinema in Jackson. The lobby was very crowded, but I spotted Hinson, and said, "There's our congressman!" He was wearing jeans and a pullover sweater, and he just looked at me with a blank expression. I thought that was a strange reaction for a politician, but subsequent events made it all clear (there was talk of the Libertarians running Hinson for U. S. senator in 1988, the year that Trent Lott was first elected).[2]

******************************

[1] State senator Ellis Bodron (D-Vicksburg) got 44.0 percent, while the independent Eddie McBride received a critical 8.2 percent.

[2] In early 1981, Hinson was arrested in a Capitol Hill restroom for committing oral sodomy with a black male employee of the Library of Congress. Hinson resigned in April. He died of AIDS in 1995 at age 53.

Mark Levin Chides Glenn Beck

2010-02-24T17:24:00.002-06:00

Starting a third party from the tea party movement would be a major mistake... a boon to the Democrats. Conservatives should, in my view, regain and keep control of the Republican Party.

I thought Glenn Beck's CPAC speech was fantastic. He was the first keynoter I ever saw use a chalkboard. George Will also delivered a great oration.

At this posting, there are 253 comments on the piece below. ~~ SR

******************************

by Andy Barr
POLITICO.com

Conservative radio host Mark Levin is criticizing Glenn Beck’s widely publicized CPAC speech this weekend attacking Republicans.

Beck trashed the GOP as being “addicted to spending” during the keynote speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee Saturday and has been a major advocate of the tea party movement, even suggesting the formation of third party of grassroots conservative activists.

But on his show Monday night, Levin called on Beck to “stop dividing us” and suggested he "stop acting like a clown."

“What I see across the horizon today in my 40 years or so of conservative activism is unity like I’ve never seen before,” the popular radio host and author said, which was first flagged by the blog Radio Equalizer. “It’s unity not because of hate for [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell or [House Minority Leader John] Boehner or whatever. It’s contempt for this president and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and what they are doing to this nation.”

“That’s what’s happening. That’s what’s going on,” he continued. “If Republicans deserve a lashing they should get it. But they are holding the fort and they deserve reinforcements.”

Levin also warned Beck to be wary of the mainstream media and told the Fox News host to stop “acting like a clown.”

“The mainstream media is not your friend. It will promote you for the purpose of destroying you,” he said, seemingly alluding to the somewhat favorable coverage of Beck’s speech. “Be careful playing footsie with the mainstream media.”

“Decide what you are,” Levin added, “A circus clown, self-identified, or a thoughtful and wise person. It’s hard to be both.”

The Political Career of Charles Sullivan

2010-02-20T16:31:00.007-06:00

This is a copy of an email that I sent to a group of political junkies in other states.

******************************

In 1960, Charles Sullivan of Clarksdale, Mississippi was the presidential nominee in Texas of the Constitution Party and got some 18,000 votes. His running mate was the party's presidential nominee in Washington state, the only other state in which the CP was on the ballot. Sullivan, a former district attorney, was simultaneously a candidate for presidential elector on a slate of unpledged electors in Mississippi, which won the state with 39 percent of the vote.

My understanding was that the strategy was that, if neither the Democrat John F. Kennedy (JFK) nor the Republican Richard Nixon had an electoral majority, the unpledged electors would bargain with both candidates and give their votes to the one who promised to "go slow" on civil rights legislation.

Nixon was age 47, JFK 43, and Sullivan 35. A couple of years ago, former Governor William Winter (now age 87) told me in an email that he debated Sullivan in 1960 and chided him for "wearing two hats" in the campaign. Winter, Senator James Eastland, and former Governor J. P. Coleman backed JFK, who finished a close second in the state. Winter was then state tax collector, whose job it was to collect the black market tax on liquor; it was a fee-paid position (the unpledged electors, all of whom are now dead, wound up voting for Senator Harry Byrd Sr. of Virginia, as JFK had won a majority of the electoral votes).

In the 1963 governor's race, Sullivan, who had first run in 1959, had an audiotape of Coleman praising JFK in '60, which he played on TV ("This Irishman from Boston, who wears the scars of battle!"). JFK, of course, was very unpopular here, and Coleman said that Eastland had asked him to back the Massachusetts senator. After finishing third in the Democratic primary, Sullivan endorsed Coleman over lieutenant governor Paul Johnson Jr. in the runoff. I later learned that Johnson's minions had spread rumors that Sullivan, who advocated ending Prohibition, had a drinking problem (Mississippi, of course, legalized local-option liquor sales in 1966, twelve years after Oklahoma had become the next-to-last "dry" state to legalize liquor).

In 1967, Sullivan ran for lieutenant governor. Governor Johnson, unable to succeed himself and seeing this as an opportunity to knock Sullivan out of the '71 governor's race, also ran for lieutenant governor. In what turned out to be Johnson's last campaign, he missed the Democratic runoff by a little over 300 votes. Sullivan beat state representative Roy Black of Nettleton in that runoff, which was tantamount to election.

In 1972, Sullivan, who ran all of his Mississippi races as a Democrat, endorsed the Republican Gil Carmichael over Senator Eastland, who had helped to defeat Sullivan in the '71 governor's race. (And Rubel Phillips [age 85 this year], the '63 and '67 GOP nominee for governor, backed Eastland-- go figure!) President Nixon tacitly supported Eastland in '72. Vice President Spiro Agnew headlined a GOP campaign rally here in Jackson, which I attended. All the GOP candidates down to dog-catcher were seated on the platform-- except for Carmichael (age 83 this year). [In the first-ever statewide GOP primary, Carmichael had beaten civil rights activist James Meredith, 79 percent to 21 percent.]

In 1978, the year that the Republican Thad Cochran was first elected U. S. senator, Sullivan finished third in the Democratic primary for the Senate. Former governor Bill Waller Sr. (now age 83), who had defeated Sullivan in '71, ran fourth. Maurice Dantin of Columbia beat incumbent Governor Cliff Finch in the Democratic runoff.

Sullivan was acquainted with tragedy, as two of his children predeceased him. An experienced military pilot, he had flown a number of supply missions to Vietnam. One spring day in 1979, he was having trouble with his landing gear, and the Memphis airport offered to let him land there, but he decided to fly on home. While trying to fix the landing gear, he didn't realize that he was losing altitude, and he crashed into some trees. He was age 54.

Prior to his death, there was talk of Sullivan running in '79 for governor or attorney general as a Republican.

Idaho Open Primary Lawsuit Progresses

2010-02-16T08:46:00.005-06:00

The Idaho Republicans' challenge of the state-mandated open primary[1] is proceeding toward a trial in U. S. district court in Boise (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, 08-cv-165). The party wants to be able to block non-Republicans from voting in GOP primaries.

All of the Gem State's major Republican politicians are opposing the lawsuit and have not helped raise money to pay for the evidence gathering and the expert witness (politicians do not usually favor changing the system by which they were elected). The suit's proponents have nonetheless come up with the funds and have now submitted their evidence to the state, which is the defendant. The state has 90 days to study the GOP's evidence, take depositions, etc., and produce any evidence of its own. The Republicans will then have 60 days to review any such state evidence. District judge B. Lynn Winmill will then schedule an evidentiary hearing (or trial), after which he will issue his ruling, possibly in September.

Former state Senator Rod Beck, one of the suit's top advocates, says, "... our evidence is strong and compelling." The GOP's expert witness is Dr. Michael Munger, chairman of the political science department at Duke University and an expert on political parties (and the 2008 Libertarian nominee for governor of North Carolina). Munger reports that 50-plus percent of self-identified non-Republicans have voted in at least one Republican primary.

The suit's advocates have proposed a new primary election law, a draft of which has been submitted to state legislative leaders and the state defendants. Notably, this legislation-- which has not been introduced in the legislature-- features party registration, but it also provides a way to avoid the upheaval of a statewide voter re-registration. In the two primary election cycles following the bill's passage, each already-registered voter would check a party box at the polls on primary day. A registered voter who did not vote in either of those primary cycles would then be designated an independent.

Each party, to be sure, would be authorized to invite independents to vote in its primaries.

This lawsuit has the potential to prompt a landmark ruling from the U. S. Supreme Court.

******************************

[1] The state does not register voters by party, and each voter picks a party on primary day.

How the "Stimulus" Works

2010-02-11T10:43:00.002-06:00

As the "Barack-y Horror Picture Show" plays on...

It is the month of August; a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

A rich tourist unexpectedly arrives in town.

He enters the one hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.

The hotel proprietor takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute, who in these hard times [no pun intended] provides "services" on credit.

The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the 100 dollar bill to the hotel proprietor for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 dollar bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.

At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, takes his 100 dollar bill, says that he does not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.

No one earned anything; however, the whole town is now free of debt and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States government is doing business today.

~~ Author unknown

The "Open Primary" and Other Systems

2010-01-21T17:02:00.003-06:00

"An Alabama Independent" commented at Ballot Access News: "… we need to have… a single 'OPEN PRIMARY'… . For in a single 'Open Primary' the top two candidates go into the general election – or, such can be designed where at least the candidate of each political party with the most votes in the primary – go into the general election. (There then can be such a thing as 'top two,' 'top three,' 'top four,' etc…"

My response:

You have mixed the “top two”[1] with the blanket primary. As a nonpartisan system, the “top two” does not include a nominating process, although each party has the option of endorsing candidate(s). And, instead of a “top two,” there could indeed be a “top three,” a “top four,” etc., although I’m not aware of any nonpartisan system having been used other than the “top two.”

In a blanket primary, all candidates of multiple parties are listed on a single primary ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election, where any independent candidates are also on the ballot.

Jim Riley and I have frequently mentioned on this site California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), in which the U. S. Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary.

In a system of open primaries, each voter picks a party on primary day. Much of the reasoning in Jones also applies to the open primary, which is why I predict that, when a suit challenging the state-mandated open primary reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, the justices will also declare it unconstitutional.

Click here for an article on the various election setups, including the “top two” and the party primary systems. Links to the Jones ruling are featured under “Blanket Primary.”

******************************

[1] The "top two" is also popularly called the "open primary." All candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the runoff (I'm always amazed when an independent praises the "top two," since it makes it nearly impossible for independents and small-party candidates to get elected).

A Message to Michael (Steele)

2010-01-14T09:53:00.002-06:00

by Dick Morris

Pessimism is no more attractive in a party leader than it is in a high school cheerleader. And in the case of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, it is unwarranted as well. Despite his prediction, on Fox News, that GOP congressional control will not come “this year,” the Republican Party has a very, very good chance of taking both houses of Congress in 2010.

We are in the midst of a political tsunami. To judge that the water will only ascend a hundred feet or two hundred or three hundred is entirely speculative. Generally, once these things start, they go further than anyone would have thought likely. Only rarely do they fall short.

President Barack Obama’s determination to march ahead with his full socialist agenda, including the imposition of a healthcare system a majority doesn’t want, can only strengthen the winds and the tide that is approaching. The 60-vote Democratic Senate majority is empowering such arrogance and disdain for the democratic process that it is easy to see how it will trigger an equal and opposite reaction in the 2010 elections.

The tsunami of 2010 is qualitatively different from the other slaughters of incumbents that took place in 1994 or 1974 or 1964. In those years, one party overstepped its bounds and the other exploited its rival’s vulnerability. They were classic instances of the voters correcting for the excessive liberalism, conservatism or dishonesty of the incumbent regime.

But 2010 is different. It is not only that Obama is too liberal or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.

2010 will be a unique year because voters have seen the myth of... Keep reading>>>>

Mississippi Bill for Write-In Votes

2010-01-12T05:49:00.003-06:00

From Ballot Access News:

Mississippi ballots have always contained write-in space, but the state has a unique law that says write-ins cannot be counted unless one of the candidates whose name is printed on the ballot has died after the ballots were printed, but before election day.

Representative John Mayo (D-Clarksdale) has introduced HB 56, which says that write-ins are generally permitted, without regard to whether any ballot-listed candidate has died. The bill covers write-ins in both primary and general elections.

Term Limits for Congress

2010-01-08T08:47:00.002-06:00

Walter Ellington of Clinton had a letter in the January 6 Clarion-Ledger advocating term limits for Congress. He is correct that this would require an amendment to the U. S. Constitution. A 5-4 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1995 said that an individual state cannot term limit its congressional delegation.

"Obviously, members of Congress would never vote such a restriction on themselves, but, through the referendum process, the voters can bypass Congress and pass such an amendment."

Article V of the Constitution says, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid... when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."

Thus far, all amendments have been proposed by the Congress and ratified by the state legislatures.

The Founding Fathers would have been horrified at the notion of amending the Constitution by means of a popular vote. They provided that the president and senators be indirectly elected; to this day, the president is not directly elected.

A proposed term limits initiative for state and local officials has been filed with the Mississippi secretary of state.

9th Circuit Says Felons Have Voting Rights

2010-01-07T04:02:00.002-06:00

From Ballot Access News:

The federal Voting Rights Act says, “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

For decades, ex-felons and felons have been filing constitutional lawsuits, alleging that state laws that deprive felons or ex-felons of the right to vote are in violation of the Voting Rights Act. In order for this claim to succeed, it is necessary that these plaintiffs establish that the criminal justice system disproportionately prosecutes and sentences racial minorities. Much statistical evidence does support that conclusion. Notwithstanding that statistical evidence, courts have not been willing to agree that the Voting Rights Act outlaws state laws that disenfranchise ex-felons or felons.

However, on January 5, the 9th circuit ruled in a Washington state case that the Voting Rights Act does apply. The decision, Farrakhan v. Gregoire, is here. The case was first filed in 1996. The 9th circuit decision is 2-1. The dissenter wanted the case sent back to the U.S. District Court again for still more evidence-gathering. But the majority notes that in Washington state, almost 25% of the black male adult citizens are or have been felons.

Although the 1st, 2nd, and 11th circuits have ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not relate to state laws on felon or ex-felon disenfranchisement, in all three of those other circuits, the decisions were not unanimous. One of the 2nd circuit judges who wrote that the Voting Rights Act does pertain to this issue was Sonia Sotomayor, now on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Where have all the flowers gone?"

2009-12-29T01:27:00.002-06:00

This letter appeared in The Clarion-Ledger of December 20, 2009. Hannibal, the British, and the Soviets had failed military adventures in Afghanistan, but, by God, the United States will succeed!

******************************

For those of us who lived during the Vietnam era, we have seen and heard all of this before. I'm talking about President Barack Obama's decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.

[Our leaders] called it the domino theory - meaning neighboring countries would also fall to the communists if south Vietnam fell. We all know now this was pure hogwash.

Remember the late Mississippi U.S. Sen. John C. Stennis telling us that there was "light at the end of the tunnel," meaning victory in Vietnam? Well, the only tunnels we found were full of Viet Cong.

We lost [nearly 60,000] dead in Vietnam and still counting; nearly 5,000 dead in Iraq and still counting; and nearly 1,000 in Afghanistan and still counting.

For what?

For those who say we must support the troops, I point out: Everybody does that. But if they are serious, they would demand that the only constitutional body authorized to do so, the U.S. Congress, officially declare war in Iraq and Afghanistan, raise taxes to pay for it and reinstate the draft.

Most military experts predict that it will take up to 10 years to complete the so-called mission in Afghanistan. President Obama will be out of office by then, even if he wins a second term.

This means our children now 10 and 12 years old will be dying in that god-forsaken country. And taxes will have to be raised to pay for it.

The Afghan war has become President Obama's war. As George Bush did in Iraq, he is rolling the dice. Isn't that right, [ex-US Rep.] David Bowen [D-MS]?

This war - not the health reform plan - will be Obama's Waterloo. And Republicans who approve this military action risk political suicide.

This military infusion into Afghanistan is pure folly. Let me point out that I was against the war in Iraq, too, along with other conservatives like George Will... Pat Buchanan [William F. Buckley Jr. and Robert Novak].

"Where have all the flowers gone? Long time passing. Where have all the flowers gone? Long time ago. Where have all the flowers gone? Young girls picked them every one.

"Where have all the young men gone? Long time passing. Where have all the young men gone? Long time ago. Where have all the young men gone? Gone to graveyards every one.

"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"

Wallace Dabbs
Canton, Mississippi

5th Circuit Returns Mississippi Case to Lower Court

2009-12-21T18:33:00.004-06:00

At this posting, there are 21 comments on this article.

From Ballot Access News:

On December 18, the 5th circuit issued an opinion in Moore v Hosemann, 09-60272, the case filed by Socialist Party presidential candidate Brian Moore last year, when the Mississippi Secretary of State refused to accept his presidential elector paperwork because it was submitted at 5:10 p.m. on the filing deadline. The Secretary of State rejected the paperwork because it arrived ten minutes after he had closed his office. The building itself was still open, so the paperwork had been left at the door of the Secretary of State’s office.

On March 10, 2009, the U.S. District Court had ruled against Moore, saying the case is moot. The District Court said, “It does not seem reasonably likely that other prospective presidential candidates will fail to timely file their qualifying papers before the Secretary of State’s office closes at 5 p.m. on the date of the qualifying deadline.”

But, the 5th circuit disagreed, saying, “The Secretary has made it plain that he intends to enforce the 5 p.m. deadline in future elections. He adds that the chance is very small that Moore or any other presidential candidate will miss the deadline again. That is beside the point, however. As long as the complained-of deadline is in place, future candidates in Mississippi will be subject to it and will need to conform to its demands. Thus, the effects of the deadline will persist.”

Therefore, the case goes back to the U.S. District Court, to settle the main issue. Moore’s case depends on the fact that Mississippi election laws do specify an hourly deadline for some kinds of paperwork. However, the law governing filings of presidential electors does not mention an hourly deadline, so the implication is that if the paperwork comes in on the deadline day at any hour, it is timely. The 5th circuit opinion also says that the U.S. District Court should refer the case to the Mississippi state courts, because generally, federal courts do not interpret or construe the actual meaning of state laws; that is a job for state courts. Therefore, probably a state court will eventually make the decision as to whether Moore’s paperwork should have been accepted.

The decision is by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, and is co-signed by Judge Edith Jones, another Reagan appointee, and Judge Harold DeMoss, a Bush, Sr. appointee. This is the first time the 5th Circuit has issued an opinion favorable to a minor party or independent candidate since 1996, when it invalidated a Texas law requiring independent candidate petitions to include the voter registration affidavit number of each petition signer. That case was Texas Independent Party v Kirk, 84 F.3d 178.

Health Survey Results

2009-12-14T09:07:00.002-06:00

This article reportedly came from Investor's Business Daily. It provides some very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada.

Moreover, it was Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (NV) who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
SHIP HIS ASS TO CANADA OR ENGLAND!!

The "Open Primary" Debate Rages On

2009-12-14T06:26:00.005-06:00

In June 2010, California will have a ballot measure for a Louisiana-style nonpartisan election system.[1] This is popularly called an "open primary," but its more accurate name is the "top two." Below is an excerpt from my latest exchange at Ballot Access News with Jim Riley of Texas, who considers the "top two" to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

JIM: But instead of a first election to choose party nominees, [the first round of the "top two"] would be to choose the nominees of the voters.

STEVE: You have a strange definition for “nominees.” Suppose the parties decided to exercise their First Amendment right to nominate candidates in advance of the first round of the “top two,” and two of those party nominees were the top vote-getters in the first round. Would those two candidates then be considered to be twice-nominated?

The purpose of the first round of the “top two” is to winnow the field to two candidates. In their book Primary Elections, incidentally, Charles Merriam and Louise Overacker refer to the "top two" as a “double election.”

JIM: There should be no way to keep candidates from running for office [in the "top two" after they have lost a party's nomination].

STEVE: Anyone who seeks a party’s nomination is indeed “running for office.” If you don’t believe it, ask Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

JIM: There should be no assurance that a party... has a candidate in the general election.

STEVE: Well, let’s see now. In all 50 states, each qualified party has the power to have one presidential candidate in the general election.

In 49 states– all but Washington– each qualified party is authorized to have one candidate for the US Senate and each US House seat in the general election.

In 48 states– all but Washington and Louisiana– each qualified party is empowered to have one candidate for all or most state offices in the general election.

So if you’re going to reverse this trend, you’ve got one helluva job ahead of you.

JIM: There should be no assurance that there won’t be two candidates from the same party in the general election.

STEVE: Why not? Again, given the numbers I’ve cited above, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you...

JIM: The national and California Republican parties supported different presidential candidates in 1912 [the national party backed William Howard Taft, while the California GOP backed the Progressive Party nominee, Theodore Roosevelt]...

STEVE: Yes, and a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, won the 1912 presidential election, didn’t he? That’s what usually happens when a party is split in the general election– it loses [of course, it's possible for both runoff candidates in the "top two" to be from the same party, which disenfranchises the other parties' loyal voters].

I keep wondering, Jim, when you’re going to tell at least one member of the Texas legislature about the glories of your beloved “top two.” Don’t you think your fellow Texans have suffered under the yoke of party primaries long enough?

******************************

[1] All candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the runoff. Currently, only Louisiana and Washington state use this system to elect all of their state officials; Washington alone uses it to elect its congressional delegation.

A New Plan for State and County Elections

2009-12-10T17:07:00.004-06:00

Mississippi elects its state and county officials at the same time, and the next such elections will be in 2011. In a number of our counties, all or most of the candidates for county offices run in one party's primary. In Hinds County, for example, the county races are decided in the Democratic primary, so anyone who votes in the Republican primary misses out on voting for county officials. The reverse is true in neighboring Rankin County, where the county races are decided in the Republican primary, and anyone voting in the Democratic primary misses out on choosing county officials.

Tennessee does not have this problem, as it holds party primaries for county offices several months earlier. The county primaries are in May, while the state and congressional primaries occur in August. The Volunteer State, like Mississippi, does not register voters by party, and a voter may cast a ballot in one party's primary in May and the other party's primary in August (Tennessee, incidentally, does not have party runoff [or second] primaries).

The general election for county offices is held in August, at the same time as the party primaries for state and congressional offices. The general election for state and congressional offices, of course, takes place in November.

Putnam County, whose seat is Cookeville, is located in northern Middle Tennessee. Its county commission-- comparable to Mississippi's board of supervisors-- in an effort to save money, is asking the Democrats and Republicans not to hold primaries in May 2010. The commission says the last primaries cost the county $60,000. Each candidate for county office would instead qualify for the August ballot as an independent, which requires 25 signatures on a petition.

There is a way that all Mississippi voters could cast a ballot in the party primary of their preference for state offices and still choose among ALL the candidates for county offices. This plan would also potentially make campaigns for county offices less expensive, while assuring that all county officials are elected with 50-plus percent of the vote.

Click here to see how this plan would work.

New Open Primary Suit in South Carolina

2009-12-07T07:03:00.004-06:00

South Carolina, like Mississippi, is among the states with compulsory open primaries. Any party holding a primary is required by law to allow any voter to participate in that primary. Each voter picks a party on primary day.

Last April, the Republican Party of Greenville County filed a federal lawsuit against the Palmetto State's open primary law. The party wants to be able to block non-members from voting in GOP primaries. In August, however, the suit was inexplicably dropped.

Now comes the news that a new suit will soon be brought against the open primary law in behalf of the South Carolina Republican Party and its Greenville County affiliate. The current state GOP chairman is reportedly very much in favor of this action.

This suit, of course, parallels the one that the Mississippi Democrats filed in 2006. U. S. district judge Allen Pepper ruled our state-mandated open primary unconstitutional, but the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismissed the case on procedural grounds (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour).

Meanwhile, the challenge to Idaho's compulsory open primary is moving forward. U. S. district judge B. Lynn Winmill has ordered a trial in that case (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa).

I won't be surprised if the South Carolina case moves through the courts faster than the Gem State suit, as the trial will slow the Idaho case down. Also, South Carolina is part of the 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already ruled, in a Virginia case, that, when a party is forced to nominate by primary, the party-- not the state-- determines who is eligible to vote in that primary (Miller v. Cunningham).

Signing the Pledge in Virginia

2009-12-05T09:52:00.002-06:00

Phil Rodokanakis commented on my article on Virginia's politics and election system. The Republicans held a "firehouse primary" to choose their candidate for the upcoming special election for a state Senate seat. Phil is critical of the pledge that the GOP required each voter to sign.

"... [the pledge is] meaningless as it's unenforceable. Furthermore, it alienates voters, even Republicans, because it asks them to pledge support for all Republican nominees."

There will only be one race on the special election ballot, so this must have been the standard form for the pledge. It sounds like the party was requiring voters to promise to vote Republican for all offices in future elections as well.

Yes, it's unenforceable because of the secret ballot.

"The quicker the GOP gives up on this silly notion of having voters sign pledges, the better off the party will be. What VA needs is voter registration by party. Then the majority will register as independents and the parties won't keep on taking the voters for granted."

I know that the Virginia legislature has refused to enact party registration; the GOP probably figures the pledge is the next best thing. Party registration is tough to get through a legislature, as most voters don't want it. Idaho Republicans have filed suit against their state-mandated open primary (Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa), but several bills for party registration have failed in the heavily Republican legislature.

Both Rhode Island and Utah have fairly recently adopted a system that deemed all voters already registered to be independents. The only voters who had to re-register were those who wanted to affiliate with a party (in both states, independents may vote in either party's primary).

Closer to home, North Carolina registers voters by party, and independents have their choice of either party's primary. The Republicans have invited independents to vote in their primaries since 1988, and the Democrats have since 1996.

Party registration is not the straitjacket that many people fear it is. Its purpose is to identify voters' party preferences, and it's the most practical way of doing so. But a party can still invite non-members to vote in its primary if it wants to. Utah, e. g., has party registration, and yet the Democrats invite ALL voters into Democratic primaries.

Getting back to the Virginia Republicans' pledge: As I recall, the party in 2008 announced that it would compel voters to sign the pledge in order to participate in the GOP presidential primary, but the reaction was so negative that the party was forced to abandon this requirement.