[EL] 7th cicuit decision on limited nomination, not limited voting

Fri Sep 11 06:17:27 PDT 2015

I wanted to clarify that this seventh circuit ruling involves use of
 limited nomination, not limited voting.  Limited voting is what we call a
"semi-proportional voting system"  (one with a name that creates some real
public relations issues!) in which voters have fewer votes than seats. The
more limited the vote, the more voters who have the power to elect a
preferred candidate. Limited voting was not an issue in this 7th circuit
case, and has been upheld regularly and was the remedy in two Section 2
cases brought by the DOJ in recent years (in  Lake Park, Florida and
Euclid, Ohio).

Limited nomination involves  elections for partisan elections where parties
are not able to nominate as many candidates as seats to be elected -- a
relatively common practice that in fact was established by Congress for
four at-large city council seats in Washington, DC (two up each cycle, with
parties limited to nominating one).

In Indianapolis, for example, there  are 20 judges being elected, and
parties can only nominate 10. In the event that  there are no third party
or independent candidates, that means the general election has 20 candidate
for 20 seats. Judges in this case  so far seem to be assuming no other
viable non  major-party candidates, and are reacting to meaningless general
elections after all the action takes  place in the primary. That doesn't
happen in all limited nomination elections -- in DC, independents and minor
parties regularly (and often successfully) challenge Republicans for the
"second seat",  and the Working Families Party has had some success in
Connecticut elections with limited nomination in cities like Hartford.

Limited voting and limited nomination often go together in partisan
elections in the United States -- indeed, it's the law for at-large city
council elections in Connecticut (with 76 jurisdictions overall there using
limited voting) and established by law for most county commission elections
in Pennsylvania (affecting 47 county elections). Adopted  to settle dozens
of voting rights cases, limited voting (usually with one vote, which we
call  simply the "single vote system") is also used on its own in
jurisdictions in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio,and Texas -- -see
FairVote's list of jurisdictions with non-winner-take-all systems
<http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/fair-voting-in-the-united-states/jurisdictions-using-fair-voting>
.

This Indianapolis case is an interesting one. Indianapolis' current law
recognizes that in partisan elections for judges, parties often "vote the
ticket" and regularly wipe out one side -- so the primary still remains the
determinative election, with it often being a fiction that the general
election is going  to be a competitive election across party lines. Indeed,
FairVote analyses have pointed out, most state legislative elections have
general elections that are only contested on paper, with several whole
legislative chamber represented today by state representatives whose party
affiliation matches up perfectly with the partisan affiliation of the
presidential nominee who carried their legislative district.Indeed, today
regularly more than four in ten state legislative elections aren't even
contested on paper.

If there is a constitutional right to meaningful choices in November, we
could be in for some creative legal challenges ahead!

Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Seventh Circuit Strikes Down Limited Voting for Indianapolis Judicial
> Races” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75921>
> Posted on September 10, 2015 10:31 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75921> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ballot Access News:
> <http://ballot-access.org/2015/09/10/seventh-circuit-strikes-down-limited-voting-for-indianapolis-judicial-races/>
>
> On September 9, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court
> that Indiana cannot provide for limited voting in partisan judicial races.
> The case is Common Cause Indiana v Individual Members of the Indiana
> Election Commission, 14-3300. Here is the 32-page opinion
> <http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D09-09/C:14-3300:J:Springmann:aut:T:fnOp:N:1618296:S:0>
> .
>
> Indiana’s limited voting law only applies to Marion County, which is
> identical to the city of Indianapolis. The law says no party may run
> candidates for more than half the seats for Superior Court Judge. Some
> years 16 seats are up; in those years no party may run more than 8
> nominees. Other years, 20 seats are up; in those years no party may run
> more than 10 nominees. The purpose of the law is to prevent one party from
> winning all the races.
>
> The decision is on shaky grounds, because elsewhere around the nation,
> limited voting has been upheld.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75921&title=%E2%80%9CSeventh%20Circuit%20Strikes%20Down%20Limited%20Voting%20for%20Indianapolis%20Judicial%20Races%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in alternative voting systems <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,
>  judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org

Thank you for considering a *donation <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>*
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>to support our reform vision
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50uJohIw4c>.
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*  My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150911/9637f7e6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150911/9637f7e6/attachment.png>