Lawmakers Go on the Offensive to Prevent
Reform
ALASKA: The effort to
repeal the state’s Top 4/Ranked Choice Voting initiative adopted by
voters in 2020 cleared its final hurdle late last night as the
Alaska Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the sponsors. A
lawsuit filed by opponents of the repeal had alleged state election
officials had no authority to allow sponsors to fix errors in a filed
initiative petition on a rolling or piecemeal basis. A lower court had
already rejected that claim. Justices did not immediately explain their reasoning. Voters
will now decide whether or not to continue using the final four
(nonpartisan primaries with Ranked Voting general elections)
system.
ARIZONA: Just last
week, the Make Elections Fair Campaign was qualified for the November
ballot. Now, after yet another opposition
challenge, the Arizona Supreme
Court ruled late Wednesday night that a Maricopa judge who qualified the
signatures “was wrong in refusing to consider some evidence from foes
of Proposition 140.”
The order directs the trial judge
to examine the evidence "and determine whether the exhibits prove any
duplicate signatures by clear and convincing evidence.''
Meanwhile, just yesterday
afternoon, the same court rejected another
challenge claiming that the
measure violated the state’s “single subject rule.” That clears Prop. 140 for the ballot on
constitutional grounds.
We should have final rulings in the
next several days. The hard fight to bring nonpartisan primaries to
Arizonans continues.
IDAHO: ID Attorney
General Raul Labrador has re-filed his lawsuit to try and stop the forward momentum of
Idahoans for Open Primaries campaign to let all Idahoans
vote.
Luke Mayville, Spokesperson for
Idahoans for Open Primaries:
“Raúl Labrador is wasting
taxpayer dollars to pursue a frivolous lawsuit. The people of Idaho
have made it clear that they want an opportunity to decide for
themselves. We are committed to moving forward and ensuring that every
voter has a chance to participate in all elections, regardless of
party affiliation.”
TENNESSEE: A Judge
in Tennessee has dismissed a lawsuit brought forward by the League of Women
Voters of Tennessee challenging the Tennessee intimidation
law.
"After being targeted for
voting in a primary for someone I've known since childhood, I feel
strongly that this law is simply meant to intimidate voters and
suppress the vote in Tennessee."
–Tennessee voter and plaintiff Gabe Hart.
“This law has discouraged
Tennesseans from voting and will continue to cause unnecessary
confusion for voters”
–League
of Women Voters Tennessee President Debbie Gould
The judge ruled that these
plaintiffs “did not have standing in the case, and even if they did,
the secretary of state and attorney general are entitled to "sovereign
immunity." The plaintiffs are now weigning their options on
challenging the ruling.
|