Joint Resolution: An action in Congress – often used to convey Congress’s opinion on an issue – that both branches must approve by a two-thirds vote before the president can sign it into law. A joint resolution, and not a bill, is used to propose a constitutional amendment. Those type of amendments are not sent to the president, but three quarters of the states must ratify them to become law.

Real-life example in the Indian Country Today:

Maine endorses UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

by: Gale Courey Toensing

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives voted unanimously April 15 on a joint resolution in support of the declaration, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly Sept. 13, 2007, in a historic vote of 143 states in favor to 4 against, with 11 abstentions. The U.S. joined Canada, Australia and New Zealand as the only nations opposing the declaration. Significantly, all four countries have substantial indigenous populations that can claim large areas of land.

Blanket primary: A primary in which all candidates from both parties are included on the same ballot. This is different from single party primaries when Democratic and Republican nominees use separate ballots.

Real life example in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

State’s ‘Top Two’ primary upheld by U.S. justices

By ANGELA GALLOWAY
P-I REPORTER

Washington voters might again enjoy free-for-all primary election ballots, thanks to a Supreme Court decision that struck a blow to political parties’ long-running battle to control the rules of such elections.

The high court voted 7-2 Tuesday to uphold the state’s “Top Two” primary, which allows voters to select freely among political parties for various contests without pledging even temporary allegiance to a party.

While the political parties said their legal battle is far from over, Secretary of State Sam Reed said Washington will use the “Top Two” system for the first time in August.

“This is a great day for the voters of Washington state,” Reed said. “We’ve had a history in our state of people believing that they have the right to control the election process that selects their public officials.”

Still, the political parties might renew their legal challenge before voters cast a single such ballot, party officials said.

“The story is not over yet,” said Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser. “This is just the end of Chapter 1.”

David McDonald, attorney for state Democrats, said the ruling was “narrow” and the underlying lawsuit is still in play. “They haven’t necessarily validated the (open primary) statute in all circumstances,” McDonald said.

Under a “Top Two” system, whichever two candidates get the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation or the preference of the state party organizations. Handily approved by voters in 2004, the system has never been tried here because of the parties’ lawsuit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said overturning voters’ decision now would have been an “extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people.”

It was the second time the state’s major political parties sued to block Washington’s popular, populist primary election tradition.

The “Top Two” plan was meant to replace Washington’s previous “blanket primary,” one of the nation’s oldest systems to allow voters to split their tickets. That system was tossed out by federal courts after the major parties sued, asserting a First Amendment right to select their own nominees without outside interference.

Seeking to similarly block the “Top Two” system, the parties said it was their prerogative to choose who represents their organizations in general elections, which is achieved in many states by allowing only registered party members to cast primary ballots.

By contrast, the “Top Two” rules allow candidates to self-identify party affiliations on ballots. In other words, they may describe themselves as Democrats or Republicans, even if they were not the chosen nominee of the party organizations.

In order to help people who read this blog but don’t really follow politics, I’m going to take one of these words a day and define it and provide a real example of the term. Hopefully you guys will find it interesting!

Ad Hoc Committee: A Latin phrase, meaning “for this purpose.” Committees are often deemed “ad hoc” when they form to propose temporary solutions for issues that require immediate attention. Once the issue is solved, the committee disbands.

Real life example: New Jersey newspaper The Daily Journal, in an article about a mayoral race:

The decision by Mayor Perry Barse’s administration to exclude the public from meetings by an ad hoc committee created to suggest changes to the city’s master plan shows a lack of transparency and accountability on the mayor’s part, his opponents in the May 13 municipal election say.