As the Louisiana Legislature enters a special session to adjust the election calendar to change potentially its congressional map, Democrat legislators responded with futile attempts to reduce the state’s chances at complying with the U.S. Constitution.
The session would give the state greater latitude to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could invalidate its current map. It’s unpredictable when the Court will rule, but last year cases heard in October on average took about four months for a decision to come out (least was about two weeks, most was almost five months), so that would place the decision in the middle of February.
Essentially, three bills to date have been introduced on this issue, two of which essentially duplicate each other in the different chambers. These push back the electoral calendar four weeks that would place the first deadline, for non-major party general election aspirants to turn in nomination petitions to secure a place on the ballot, in mid-January. If the Court hits that average, that would be the only deadline potentially altered, because if then a new map is drawn then the petitions might not have enough signatures matching a new district. Close would be qualifying by major party candidates, which would become mid-February.
A later Court decision still might work with administrative rule-making powers granted by the bill to the Department of State, such as by shortening the petition time or allowing candidates to qualify for the general election – which all non-major party candidates can’t do under current statute – by paying a fee. However, at a certain point, basically the end of March, a decision would have to be rendered to stuff in a new map, and even then it’s uncertain whether emergency rule-making could give a chance for a new map to work.
The other bill, HB 4 by Republican state Rep. Mike Bayham, is much more suspect. It pushes party primary elections to the primary election date for non-party primary office (those other than federal, Public Service Commission, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Supreme Court offices) on Nov. 3 and the general election to the date for non-party primary offices on Dec. 12. Essentially, unamended this would go back to the previous blanket primary system, because its text kicks election determination to R.S. 18:511 and 512 that defines that system – unless one candidate wins an outright majority in the primary, two candidates could advance to the general election. As such, it may be a nonstarter for legislative leaders.
Democrats can’t stop the month delay but as their initial Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee argumentation demonstrated, they’ll try anything to try to score propaganda points over the issue. Throwing out the most absurd arguments conceivable, they tried to contend that making a date change created constitutional problems (hypocritically ignoring that if the Court finds the state’s map in violation of the Constitution that would create a definitive problem that is real instead of the wildly off-base assertions they made), that it would create confusion (incredibly unlikely since the new semi-closed primary system would overshadow immensely another date change in creating voter befuddlement) and would cost extra (the existing election calendar would accommodate the change without any extra money spent, so the only extra expense comes from the special session which is far from the crazily exaggerated “millions” of dollars Democrats slung around).
Also worth considering with the timeline established for only the 2026 election by these bills: with other states’ primaries approaching, including Texas qualifying ending Dec. 8, and given that much of the case had been argued last term, this may argue for a relatively early decision rendered. Then again, on big issues such as this the Court likes to take its time.
Still, given these facts, chances are at least 50/50, if not better, that the Court will have a decision before the changed qualifying deadline kicks in. If, as seems almost certain, it decides in favor of tossing the current map, and further likely molding a jurisprudence that allows a radically different map from now but much more like the 2022 map junked in 2024, then the Legislature could act within days in a special session to produce something like the 2022 map. Elections pushed back 28 days facilitates making sure Louisiana elections comply constitutionally is well worth whatever dollars are spent on a special session to accomplish this.
No comments:
Post a Comment