New York: Schneiderman Says Flawed Election Procedures Marred State’s Primary | Wall Street Journal

New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said Tuesday that flawed election procedures and laws led to what he called an unprecedented number of voting complaints during the state’s April presidential primary. In announcing the results of his inquiry into voting complaints, Mr. Schneiderman said his office’s voter hotline received 1,500 calls around the primary, “10 times the previous high mark.” About two-thirds of the complaints stemmed from barriers created by voter-registration rules and practices, he said. Twenty percent of the complaints involved rules or laws related to the voting process, such as reduced poll hours in some counties and voters confused about polling places that had moved. He said 12 counties, including the five that make up New York City, account for more than 80% of the complaints statewide. “The voting issues we uncovered during the April primary were widespread, systemic and unacceptable,” said Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat. He said 2.9 million New Yorkers, or about a fifth of those eligible to vote in the state, cast ballots in the primary. The New York State Board of Elections didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Colorado: State to return to presidential primary, but with unaffiliated voters | Colorado Springs Gazette

Big changes may be on the way when it comes to how Colorado picks its political candidates, according to preliminary returns. As of 10 p.m., Proposition 107, which would bring presidential primary elections back to Colorado, replacing the caucus system, was leading 64-36 percent. If the lead holds, the measure would take effect in 2020, allowing about 1 million unaffiliated voters to take part in selecting candidates. Proposition 108 likewise appeared headed for passage, though with a tighter margin. That measure would let unaffiliated electors also participate in non-presidential party primaries, while the parties could in some cases select candidates by committee or convention. Voters cast 1,016,535 votes in support – about 52 percent – versus 926,420 against, according to the late results.

Virginia: GOP votes to switch from convention to primary to nominate 2017 candidates | Richmond Times-Dispatch

By the slimmest of margins, leaders of the Republican Party of Virginia on Saturday voted to select their 2017 statewide candidates in a primary rather than at a convention — a nominating change that could have significant implications for a host of Republicans planning runs for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. The 41-40 vote by the GOP’s State Central Committee effectively upended a compromise agreement reached last year by factions within the state party that called for a primary in the 2016 race for president to be followed by a nominating convention for statewide offices in 2017. It was a victory for the party’s more moderate, establishment wing, whose leadership was unseated by conservative grass-roots and tea party activists in 2013.

Hawaii: Federal appeals court upholds Hawaii’s open primary | Associated Press

A federal appeals court is upholding an earlier decision to support the way Hawaii holds its primary elections, rejecting the Democratic Party’s desire to exclude non-Democrats from advancing candidates to the general election. The Democratic Party of Hawaii had challenged the state’s open primary system where registered voters can choose any party’s ballot to cast their votes without formally joining the party. Party leaders wanted to limit primary elections to formal members or people willing to declare their allegiance, because they said the open primary system allows people from opposing parties to influence their party’s candidate selection. Judge Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said it was up to the Hawaii Democratic Party to prove that problem exists. But he said in an opinion Monday the party didn’t provide evidence that opponents are determining the Democratic Party’s election outcomes.

Florida: Attorney Wants Supreme Court To Reconsider The Case of the Phantom Write Ins | WFSU

Duval County State Attorney Angela Corey’s reelection bid would have been decided in the August 30 primary because she faced only Republican opposition. When that happens, Florida’s constitution says anyone can vote in the primary. But when local divorce attorney Daniel Leigh qualified as a write in, the primary was closed. It doesn’t matter that Leigh has no intention of running, that he is a Corey contributor, or that Corey’s campaign manager filed his qualifying papers.

US Virgin Islands: V.I. GOP Sues To Put Ackley On Ballot | St. Thomas Source

Gordon Ackley, write-in GOP candidate for Congress, and the V.I. GOP jointly filed suit Friday in federal court to demand the V.I. Election System hold a GOP primary or simply place Ackley on the November ballot, according to a statement sent Friday by Dennis Lennox, spokesperson for Ackley and the V.I. GOP. Ackley never filed a nominating petition prior to the statutory May 17 deadline for all candidates, but was chosen by the V.I. GOP to be its nominee for Congress at its June 11 convention on St. Thomas. The suit alleges V.I. voters were disenfranchised because there was no primary. “The actions of the defendants not only have the effect of violating the rights of Mr. Ackley and the Republican Party but also cast serious doubts on the ability of defendants to hold a fair and meaningful election in the U.S. Virgin Islands,” according to the complaint, filed in District Court on St. Thomas.

South Carolina: GOP rejects proposed changes to South Carolina’s first-in-the-South primary | The State

South Carolina and other early-voting Republican primary states have staved off efforts to weaken their influence in picking GOP presidential nominees. But GOP officials did agree to study the primary lineup sometime before the 2020 election cycle. South Carolina now goes third overall in that lineup — behind Iowa and New Hampshire — and first in the South. “We look safe for now,” said S.C. GOP chairman Matt Moore, a member of the Rules Committee, where the party’s primary system was discussed last week.

California: ‘Confusing’ California primary ends on sour note | Los Angeles Times

State officials will write the June 7 primary’s final chapter this week by certifying that more than 8.5 million ballots were cast, though it’s unlikely to assuage voters or local elections officials who complained that overlapping and confusing rules left them with a lingering political hangover. “It’s disheartening because people’s expectations were so high,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. “There were a lot of unhappy voters.” The primary’s sour ending note seems largely due to the asymmetric rules governing the presidential and statewide elections. Unlike the primary for state races – where anyone could vote for any candidate – the presidential contests were governed by a patchwork of rules that differed by political party. “The presidential primary is always the most difficult to conduct,” said Michael Vu, San Diego County’s registrar of voters. Independent voters, known in California as having “no party preference,” were allowed to vote in the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. But they were banned from voting in the Republican presidential primary.

California: One month later, California finishes its vote count, and Clinton wins | The Washington Post

It lasted longer than the 1979 conflict between China and Vietnam, but California’s slow-moving count of provisional and mail-in ballots is finally over — and as expected, Hillary Clinton won. Wednesday night, after ballots were finally processed in San Mateo County, Clinton had won 2,745,293 votes to 2,381,714 for Bernie Sanders. The eventual margin was 363,579 votes, or 7.1 percentage points, closer than the 2008 primary between Clinton and Barack Obama. It was closer, too, than Sanders seemed to get on election night, when a rout bigger than any poll had suggested effectively ended the Democratic primary. Since then, Sanders added 879,671 votes to his California total; Clinton added 804,713 votes. As expected, most of the outstanding ballots left on June 7 were cast for Democratic candidates, and as expected, they broke for Sanders. (For a sense of California’s scale, Sanders won more votes in the long provisional/mail-in count than he won, total, in the New York primary — 820,256 votes.)

Idaho: GOP presidential primary cost state $1.9 million | Idaho Business Review

Idaho’s Republican presidential primary election cost taxpayers $1.9 million this year, coming in just slightly under what state officials originally estimated. Idaho lawmakers agreed to move the presidential primary from May to March in 2015. The conservative-dominated Statehouse argued that doing so would allow the Gem State to play a bigger role in deciding the presidential nominee. The state’s Republican and Constitutional parties participated in the bumped up election — though Constitutional party votes made up just 500 of the 222,000 votes cast. While Idaho’s Democratic Party had the option to also participate in the primary, minority party lawmakers objected to the move. They argued that taxpayers should not pay for a separate partisan election, particularly because the Idaho GOP primary is only open to registered Republicans.

Colorado: Lots Of Questions As Colorado’s Primary Election Approaches | CBS

With so much attention focused on the presidential election in November, there’s some confusion around Colorado’s primary election in June. Since ballots went out at the beginning of the month, Denver Elections Division has fielded more than 1,200 calls. “Everything from why you don’t see the presidential candidates on the June ballot to you didn’t send us a secrecy sleeve this year,” said Alton Dillard with the Denver Elections Division. Anticipating questions, he said they included an instruction sheet with every ballot — that also serves as a secrecy sleeve — and a notice explaining that Colorado doesn’t vote on presidential candidates in a primary. There are caucuses for that.

Editorials: Virginia’s ballots are out of order | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Much of the support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump this year comes from voters who feel the system is rigged. On Monday the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond lent support to that notion. Sanders and Trump themselves agree — at least in broad strokes. Sanders says he “wouldn’t use the word rigged,” just “really dumb.” Trump is (surprise!) not so restrained: “It’s a rigged system, it’s a corrupt enterprise.” Those complaints look a trifle odd coming from those sources. Nationwide, Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Sanders did in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Trump complains the system is rigged and corrupt in one breath — and then boasts about how many states he won in the next. Merits aside, Trump and Sanders are complaining about the nominating processes of the Republican and Democratic political parties, which are essentially private organizations. Any advantages or disadvantages a candidate faces are imposed by internal party rules, not the machinery of government. That’s not the case regarding third parties, which face obstacles imposed by law.

National: Why Open Primaries Won’t Change Our Politics Much | Pacific Standard

One of the reforms Senator Bernie Sanders and his supporters have been pushing in recent months is open primaries. Many argue that more open primaries, allowing independents to participate, can produce more moderate nominees that are more representative of the electorate as a whole. Evidence suggests, however, that this doesn’t really happen. Here’s why. The logic of the open primary is pretty straightforward. Under a closed primary, only people who are registered party members (usually for some time) are permitted to vote. Those party registrants tend to be die-hard partisans, and the candidates they pick will tend to be from the ideological extremes. Independent voters, who might legitimately want a more moderate set of nominees, are forbidden from participating. Allow them in, and you end up not only with more moderate nominees, but nominees who recognize it’s in their interests to keep moderate independent voters happy while they serve in office. Eric McGhee, Boris Shor, Nolan McCarty, Steve Rogers, and I tested this assumption in a large-scale study a few years ago. We looked at two decades of voting behavior by state legislators across all 50 states, and we compared legislators based on the type of primary system that nominated them. Quite a few state parties have changed their primary rules one way or another over this time period, allowing us a good deal of leverage on the question.
People unaffiliated with a party tend, on average, to be less interested in politics and less likely to vote.

Colorado: A Switch From Caucus To Primary Is No Easy Matter | Colorado Public Radio

Voters unhappy with the political system this year and unsure about whether their vote matters have big complaints how the country’s two main political parties choose their candidates. A recent Associated Press-NORC poll found that about 40 percent of adults had hardly any confidence in the fairness of either party’s nominating process. In particular, party-run caucuses and closed primaries where only voters registered with a party are allowed to participate are viewed as unfair, with just 29 percent of respondents believing they’re the right way to pick a candidates for the general election. Those tensions are all on display in Colorado this year, where a series of events have caused voters to deeply question whether they should adopt a presidential primary open to all voters. But Colorado’s case also makes it clear that making big changes to how a state makes its picks for presidential nominees is no easy matter. For Colorado Democrats, the problem was crowding. Record turnout overwhelmed many precinct locations. Some voters waited hours to make their preference known, while others were turned away by fire marshals.

District of Columbia: Dead last — again — among U.S. primaries, D.C. Democrats chafe at a trivial vote | The Washington Post

Democrats heading to the polls Tuesday for the District’s presidential primary will participate in an odd ritual: They’ll vote, but the results won’t matter. The party’s intensely fought battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is over — decided last week, when Clinton racked up enough victories across the country to secure her party’s nomination. The city’s inconsequential status is largely a function of its dead-last place on the primary calendar, something Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) says she wants to change for future presidential contests. But that feeling of futility and sense of invisibility go beyond presidential primaries: They underscore the civic experience in the District, residents say.

Editorials: America’s voting system is broken. It’s time to overhaul it | Trevor Timm/The Guardian

There’s no debate at this point that Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote and the delegate count to win the Democratic primary. But even Clinton supporters should agree that our supposedly “democratic” system for picking nominees for president is terribly broken and should be dramatically overhauled. It’s not just Bernie Sanders’ campaign that should (and has) argued that the voting system in this country is “rigged”. Virtually every major campaign in both parties griped about how the other was winning at some point during this campaign, and along the way almost all of them were right. First, there are the delegates themselves – the “representatives” that voters “choose” to express their interests at the party conventions (but sometimes don’t have to comply). Each state has its own rules for how delegates are allocated, and they are almost always ridiculously complicated. In both parties, delegate counts regularly do not match up to the percentage of votes candidates received in the primaries. For example, as Fusion’s Felix Salmon demonstrated in March, Trump had dramatically more delegates than his percentage of the Republican vote at that point, and Sanders had dramatically fewer delegates than his percentage on the Democratic side.

Editorials: Ideas on Reconciling Critics of the Presidential Primary Process | Albert R. Hunt/The New York Times

It’s rare that President Obama and Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, agree. In recent weeks, they both have said that the presidential nominating process is not rigged. They are right. But that hasn’t stopped those displeased with the results — not only establishment Republicans but also Democrats who support Senator Bernie Sanders — from insisting on changing the rules for the next election. Some tweaks are always in order, but both sides are trying to craft procedures that would have benefited them this time. As with generals fighting the last war, experience shows this rarely works and often backfires. “Every time someone tries to game out this system,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, a leading Republican election lawyer, “the great law of unintended consequences rears its head.”

Editorials: Awarding presidential delegates by congressional district is unfair | Derek T. Muller/The Sacramento Bee

This year’s presidential primaries have exposed problems in the nomination process, and they’re highlighted by California’s uneven method of awarding its delegates. Most delegates in Tuesday’s primaries will be awarded to the candidates who win the most votes in each of California’s 53 congressional districts. While that system is designed to ensure that a candidate has widespread support and that delegates come from across the state, it produces bizarre results in districts dominated by one party or the other. The Republican Party will award three delegates per district. The Democratic Party gives districts between four and nine delegates, based on total population, plus extra delegates to districts with more Democratic voters. The 13th District in San Francisco has about 260,000 registered Democrats and gets eight delegates, or one delegate per 32,500 voters. But there are just 86,000 registered Democrats in the 42nd and 50th districts, and they each will award five delegates, or one delegate per 17,200 voters. It doesn’t take a math degree to recognize that Democrats in San Francisco will have less power than Democrats elsewhere in the state.

Utah: GOP to continue legal fight against SB54 | Deseret News

The Utah Republican Party voted on Saturday to continue its fight against a state election law that the party believes circumvents its caucus and convention system. Giving up “is not an option,” said state party Chairman James Evans. “At the end of the day, the Republican brand is greater than the skirmish of the day.” Evans counseled county chairpersons at Saturday’s State Central Committee meeting to make strategic decisions that will “lift the party” long-term, even though at least one person voiced concern about declining morale in their county due to a lack of support for candidates who went the signature-gathering route provided by SB54. “We have no guarantee they buy into any aspect of our platforms,” said Utah County Republican Party Chairman Craig Frank. “We call them the small r’s, by the way.”

California: Federal judge rejects lawsuit Bernie Sanders backers had hoped would boost his California chances | Los Angeles Times

A federal judge refused Wednesday to reopen voter registration in California ahead of next week’s presidential primary, telling a group led by backers of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that the rights of the state’s unaffiliated voters have not been harmed. “There’s absolutely no showing of any federal violation,” said U.S. District Judge William Alsup. Alsup also denied the request that volunteers at polling places be required to tell voters about the unusual rules surrounding which political parties have opened their presidential contests to unaffiliated “independent” voters. “The citizens of California are smart enough to know what their rights are,” the judge said in a brief court hearing in San Francisco. Attorneys for the Sanders affiliated group and California’s American Independent Party, both plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they would consider asking a federal appeals court to intervene. But they also suggested a last-minute case in state court, even though the primary is on Tuesday.

California: Hearing for California primary lawsuit set for after voting | Associated Press

A federal judge has set an Aug. 18 hearing date in a lawsuit filed by a Bernie Sanders supporter seeking to extend California’s voter registration deadline ahead of the primary election, meaning the plaintiffs likely won’t get a hearing before the state’s June 7 primary. Attorney William Simpich argued in the filing that the process for unaffiliated voters to get a presidential primary ballot – particularly those seeking to cast ballots in the Democratic primary contest between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – was too confusing and would leave many voters disenfranchised. He said at least two counties failed to notify some voters of their right to request a ballot to vote in the Democratic, Libertarian or American Independent Party contests.

Editorials: Two myths about the unruly American primary system | Richard Hasen/The Washington Post

In yesterday’s New York Times, a story suggests that after this year’s election, the U.S. political parties might struggle over whether to re-design our primary system. But before we think about potential changes, let’s examine the unique system we have today — and expose two myths usually told about how we got here. Many Americans will be surprised to learn that few democracies give primary elections a dominant role in selecting their parties’ nominees for the country’s highest office. In most systems, elected party members take a major role in choosing or filtering potential candidates. In Britain, for example, to be a Labour Party nominee for prime minister, you need to be nominated by 15 percent of Labour’s members in Parliament; the Conservative Party members nominate just two candidates. The wider party membership then chooses from this narrowed field, although only 1 percent of registered voters are party members (compared with 60 percent or so in the United States), because party membership entails more significant obligations. But starting in the 1970s, the United States stumbled — and I do mean stumbled — into a system that eliminated any meaningful role for party figures. Instead, unmediated popular participation, through caucuses and primary elections, came to control the way we choose presidential nominees. That uniquely populist system, which we now take for granted, has culminated in our current, stunning moment. Two essentially freelance, independent political figures — Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders — will either represent, or come surprisingly close to representing, the nation’s two major parties in the 2016 election.

National: Reeling From 2016 Chaos, G.O.P. Mulls Overhaul of Primaries | The New York Times

Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over what would be fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party. In a significant shift, Republican officials said it now seemed unlikely that the four states to vote first would all retain their cherished place on the electoral calendar, with Nevada as the most probable casualty. Party leaders are even going so far as to consider diluting the traditional status of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as gatekeepers to the presidency. Under one proposal, those states would be paired with others that voted on the same day as a way to give more voters a meaningful role much sooner. But in a move that would sharply limit who could participate in presidential primaries, many party activists are also pushing to close Republican contests to independent voters, arguing that open primaries in some states allowed Donald J. Trump, whose conservative convictions they deeply mistrust, to become the presumptive nominee.

Minnesota: State moves to presidential primary in 2020 | Pioneer Press

Minnesota will move from a presidential caucus to a presidential primary for the 2020 election. Gov. Mark Dayton signed the switch into law on Sunday. Under the new system, voters would make their February partisan presidential picks in an election run by the state, rather than in caucuses run by parties. Whether individual voters picked a Republican ballot or a Democratic one would become public, under the new law. But voters would not be bound in any way to their partisan picks in future elections nor would they have to register with any party in advance of the presidential primary.

Minnesota: Senate approves move to presidential primary | Duluth News Tribune

After two decades of complaints about the Minnesota presidential caucus system, the state is moving swiftly to adopt a presidential primary. The state Senate overwhelmingly approved a presidential primary measure, which would negate the need for a presidential caucus in 2020. The House is following in the same vein and may give the measure a final vote on Friday. After a crush of people crowded into thousands of caucus sites across Minnesota in February, Minnesota voters, party leaders and others decided it was time to switch to a primary. “Despite the valiant efforts from thousands of volunteers, we also experienced some chaos,” Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, said of the 2016 caucus crush. Rest is the sponsor of the bill making the switch. Under the primary plan, parties would still have caucuses but the binding presidential preference vote would be held during a primary.

Colorado: Presidential primary revival falls apart | The Coloradoan

Bipartisan efforts to revive presidential primaries in Colorado have failed — for now. A long debate over presidential primaries in Colorado ended in failure Tuesday at the state Legislature. Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature could not agree on how to revive a statewide primary instead of precinct caucuses in 2020. With a deadline looming Tuesday, talks broke down on two separate plans to bring back primaries. The legislative stalemate means that Coloradans could see a ballot measure this fall asking about bringing back the primaries, at a cost of about $5 million. Colorado held presidential primaries from 1992 to 2000. But the state switched back to caucuses in 2004 to save money. Political parties pay the tab for caucuses, though taxpayers would be responsible for running an election.

Colorado: Presidential preference primary would replace caucusing if House bill is successful | Colorado Springs Gazette

Colorado would hold a presidential preference primary in 2020 instead of caucusing on the nominee under a bill that passed the state House of Representatives preliminarily Thursday evening. The bill was introduced with only a few weeks remaining in the 2016 General Assembly in response to discontent about how the March 1 caucuses for Republicans and Democrats were conducted. It passed on second reading Thursday and now heads to the Senate for consideration. But it is also an insurance policy against a handful of proposed ballot initiatives that would ask voters in November to change Colorado’s primary system. Some of those would get rid of caucuses, but some also propose opening up Colorado’s primary process so unaffiliated voters could participate. Under current law unaffiliated voters would have to change their party registration to participate in that party’s caucus.

Colorado: ‘Folks Are Angry’ About Colorado’s Caucus System. But Is A Primary The Answer? | CPR

This year might have been your last chance to participate in a presidential caucus in Colorado. State lawmakers are considering switching to a primary after widespread frustration with how the process went this time around. For Democrats, record turnout meant overcrowded precincts, with some voters facing long waits and meetings that moved outside into the frosty March night. For Republicans, the party’s decision to drop their caucus straw poll left many members disappointed and disenchanted — especially supporters of Donald Trump, who felt the change was made specifically to disadvantage their candidate. “Folks are angry,” said state Rep. Dominick Moreno, D-Commerce City. “And if we want to show them we heard them, then we should do something this legislative session.”

Colorado: Bill to restore Colorado presidential primary is before lawmakers | The Denver Post

Legislation to restore a presidential primary in Colorado passed its first committee hurdle Monday, as lawmakers race to get it done by the end of the session May 11. House Bill 1454 would allow every voter — even those registered as unaffiliated with a party — to cast a mail ballot in a presidential primary in 2020. Coloradans would have their first presidential primary since 2000, before the state returned to the caucus system in 2004. The House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted 5-4 along party lines, with Republicans in opposition. Under the bill, unaffiliated voters would pick which party’s ballot they wish to receive, then that temporary affiliation would go away 30 days after the vote.

Rhode Island: Secretary of State Gorbea Under Fire for Voting Access at Primary | GoLocalProv

Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea is coming under stinging criticism for the organization and lack of polling places available for tomorrow’s primary in RI. Much of the criticism has come from those supporting Bernie Sanders that fear long lines will deter new voters. Gorbea has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Gorbea ran for Secretary of State on her platform of expanding access for voters. Her campaign web site promised, that she would “ensure fair, fast and accurate elections.” Her leading campaign priority on her campaign website promised,”Nellie Gorbea believes that democracy works best when people actively participate in voting. She will increase voting levels through public education campaigns, expand access to mail ballots and begin online voter registration to make it easier to vote. She will ensure that all eligible voters can vote.”