National Vote Totals for Each Party, for Top Office

November 24th, 2006

At the November 7, 2006 election, each political party received this number of votes for the top office on the ballot: Democratic 40,264,560 (49.28%); Republican 37,379,872 (45.75%), Green 949,185 (1.16%), Libertarian 778,395 (.95%), Constitution 193,063 (.24%), Reform 97,677 (.12%), other parties that had their own nominees 245,289 (.30%), Independent Candidates 1,797,050 (2.20%).

Top-most office means Governor, in the 36 states that elected a Governor. For the others, it means U.S. Senate. In the three states that didn’t elect either, it is U.S. House.

In most states, the figures are still unofficial, so these totals will eventually be somewhat different.

Using this benchmark (the vote in the nation for the top-most office), this was the best mid-term year the Green Party has ever had, and the second best mid-term year the Libertarian Party ever had (2002 was better for Libertarians than 2006, partly because the party was on the ballot in more states in 2002 than it was in 2006).



New Registration Data

November 23rd, 2006

Every year starting in 1992, the paper edition of Ballot Access News has carried a chart showing how many registered voters there are in each party, in each state. These charts have been prepared only in even-numbered years (usually twice). Odd-year charts have not been prepared, since some states don’t do any registration tallies in odd years.

Although registration data is still outstanding for 5 states, it appears that the October 2006 data, for the first time since before 1992, will show that the percentage of independents has declined, compared to the previous chart (the previous chart was as of June 2006, and is in the July 1 2006 BAN). The percentage of voters registered as Democrats, as Republicans, and as members of other parties, by contrast, has all increased between June and October 2006.

Constitution Party Chooses a Stand-in Presidential Candidate

November 22nd, 2006

Most states enable a group that is not yet a qualified party, but which wants to become a qualified party, to circulate a petition that has the sole function of qualifying that group as a party. Such petitions are commonly called “party petitions”, and do not carry the names of any candidates.

Unfortunately, eleven states don’t have such “party petitions”, or any other procedure for turning a group into a qualified party in advance of any election. These eleven “bad” states force a group to circulate a candidate petition. If the candidate polls enough votes, then the group becomes a qualified party.

In these states that require candidate petitions to be circulated, it is generally legal for a group that wishes to start before it has chosen its presidential nominee to show a stand-in presidential candidate on the petition. Then, when the party chooses its actual presidential candidate, the stand-in withdraws and the group is permitted to substitute the name of the actual candidate.

Minor parties with experience understand this, and generally choose a stand-in presidential candidate. The Constitution Party has already chosen its stand-in presidential candidate. He is Jim Clymer, the party’s national chair, and already petitions with his name are being prepared for the Constitution Party of West Virginia, which wants to begin petitioning very soon.

Lame-Duck Congress May Pass D.C. Vote Bill

November 22nd, 2006

HR 5388, the bill in Congress to give the District of Columbia a member of the U.S. House, and also to temporarily expand the size of the House so that Utah gets a fourth seat, is considered likely to pass Congress in December 2006. Leaders of both major parties say they support the bill.

New Hampshire Ballot Access Case Loses

November 22nd, 2006

On November 21, the New Hampshire State Supreme Court upheld New Hampshire’s ballot access laws. The case is Libertarian Party v State of New Hampshire, 2005-0606. The outcome is very disappointing, since at oral argument, it had seemed that the court was leaning in favor of the plaintiffs.

New Hampshire requires a group to poll 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator before it can be recognized as a “party”. This definition, passed in 1997, has never been met by any group except the Democratic and Republican Parties. The former law, requiring 3% for Governor, had been met by the Libertarians in 1990, 1992 and 1994, but previously, had not been met by any party (other than the two major parties) since the 1910′s decade.

Since the lower court had also ruled against the plaintiffs, without even granting a hearing at which evidence could be presented, plaintiffs had felt sure that even if the Supreme Court didn’t uphold the laws, it would remand the case and permit evidence to be admitted. But, the Supreme Court denied even that. The Court depended on the unfavorable ballot access decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, and didn’t discuss the favorable decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The flaw in the New Hampshire State Supreme Court’s reasoning is this: the court said that the state is not making it more difficult for minor party members to run for office, since major party members must fight to win a party primary. However, minor party members may also need to fight to win their party’s nomination. For example, Pat Buchanan had a very difficult time winning the Reform Party nomination in 2000, since Ross Perot was fighting him. Buchanan spent over $1,000,000 on the battle for the 2000 Reform Party nomination. Another example is the New Hampshire Libertarian Party gubernatorial fight, when 3 Libertarians sought the nomination.

Since members of ALL parties must fight to win their own party’s nomination, but since only the Democratic and Republican nominee is on the November ballot automatically, it is not true that state laws are giving each candidate an “equal opportunity to be elected” (The State Constitution mandates that all candidates must be given an “equal opportunity to be elected”).

Nader Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Pennsylvania Case on Court Costs

November 22nd, 2006

On November 20, Ralph Nader asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that said he must pay $82,102 in court costs from 2004. Pennsylvania is the only state that has ever removed a candidate from the ballot and then tried to charge him money for the costs of removal. The idea is so odd, there are very few relevant precedents. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard a ballot access case from Pennsylvania; possibly this will be the first one. The case is Nader v Seroty, 06-696.

Pennsylvania State House Government Committee Cancels Meeting

November 22nd, 2006

Ballot access activists had been looking forward to a meeting of the House Government Committee, set for November 28 at 10 am. The Committee had invited all those interested in reforming the ballot access laws to attend and discuss the matter. But on November 22, the meeting was cancelled. The chair of the committee said it can probably be held in January, but he can’t be sure since the new session of the legislature may have different committee chairs.

Washington State Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear “Top-Two” Case

November 21st, 2006

On November 20, several Washington state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the state’s appeal, on the validity of the “top-two” primary. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t assigned a case number yet, but the case, if accepted, would be called “State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party”.

The issue is whether the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause permits a state to hold elections with party labels on the ballot, yet give the parties no ability to nominate candidates. The 9th circuit had ruled earlier this year that if Washington wants to have an election system in which all candidates run for a particular office on the same primary ballot, and the only the top-two vote-getters are allowed onto the November ballot, party labels must be omitted.

How to Expand the 2008 General Election Presidential Debates

November 21st, 2006

In the opinion of Ballot Access News, the only realistic hope to expand presidential general election debates in 2008, is for people to pester the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for president, and get them to say that if they are nominated, they will agree to participate in at least one debate in the general election campaign that includes the leading minor party and independent candidates.

The only general election presidential debate in U.S. history that included the Republican nominee, the Democratic nominee, and anyone else, was in 1992. Ross Perot was included because both major party nominees wanted him included. The opinion of the debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, didn’t really matter.

Democrats and Republicans who want to be president will be spending lots of time in New Hampshire and Iowa, during the next year. If, every time they speak to a group of voters, someone asks them to agree to at least one inclusive general election debate, perhaps eventually some of them will make this commitment. A Republican or Democrat who makes such a commitment would gain certain degree of popularity, since polls consistently show that the public likes debates with more than just two participants.

North Dakota Constitution Party Turns in Its 2008 Party Petition

November 20th, 2006

On November 20, the North Dakota Constitution Party turned in its petition to be on the ballot as a party in 2008. The North Dakota Libertarian Party had turned in a similar position several weeks ago. The Maryland Green Party is about to submit its 2008 party petition, and the Arizona Green Party has begun its 2008 party petition. The Nebraska Libertarian is half finished with its 2008 party petition.

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries
Next Entries » — Next Page »

 

  

Paper Issues:

Blog Archives

Syndication

Subscribe to Ballot Access News via PayPal. Subscriptions are $15 for 12 issues a year ($20 foreign). Additional donations are welcome.

Subscribe to Ballot Access News via PayPal.
If you use your credit card to pay via PayPal, use this button.

 

Search Ballot Access News

Loading

 
Access to this site is free. Your donations support this site and the activities of Richard Winger in lobbying for free and open elections.

To subscribe via mail, click here and print out the form to mail.

Welcome to the OFFICIAL online home of Ballot Access News, a non-partisan newsletter reporting on the trials and tribulations of folks trying to put candidates on the ballot in the United States of America. There are many surprisingly restrictive ballot access laws in this country, which the average voter has no knowledge or conception of; part of our purpose here (besides reporting on progress made) is to report on these restrictive ballot access laws so that more people are aware of them. I hope you find these materials interesting and exciting; if you do, you can support the newsletter by subscribing!

Ballot Access News is edited and published by Richard Winger, the nation's leading expert on ballot access legal issues.

Issues available:

2012:

2011:

2010:

2009:

2008:

2007:

2006:

2005:

2004:

2003:

2002:

2001:

2000:

1999:

1998:

1997:

1996:

1995:

1994:

1993:

1992:

1991:

1990:

1989:

1988:

1987:
   

Essays by Richard Winger:

Additional articles/essays:

  • Politics, Soviet-style by S. Philip Gordon, regarding recent ballot access issues in Georgia – the US state, not the Russian territority!

Extra Features:

Other information:

  • Here's how to subscribe to Ballot Access News!

  • Here's information on Presidential Ballot Access as well as the vote totals of recent Presidential elections.

  • Here are some other sites which may also be of interest:

    Project Vote-Smart

    Project Vote Smart is a citizens' organization dedicated to serving all Americans with accurate and unbiased information for electoral decision-making. It was inaugerated in 1992 by former US Presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and other leaders. Its webpage offers information about all ballot-listed candidates for all federal and state office.
    [Added:040729]

    The ACE Project
    An interesting site concerning itself with the "Administration and Cost of Elections", including issues of fairness and regulatory approaches in various countries. They seem to be almost blind to the ways that third parties in the USA are harmed by campaign finance rules crafted for the problems characteristic of the larger parties, or the ways that third parties would be disenfranchised by various proposed rules, but this is nevertheless a useful resource, particularly for the international comparisons it makes.
    [Added:001206]

    "Unofficial" B.A.N. Page

    At first, it looks like there's not much here. But then you follow the "Charts" link, and click on one of the listed candidates, and you'll get some truly wonderful nationwide maps of voting patterns.
    [Checked:991014]

    ThirdPartyNews.net

    A site that covers news about minor parties.
    [Checked:060414]

    Third Party Central

    Collects lots of good information and links relating to various third parties into one convenient location. Nice set of writings on why one should vote third-party.
    [Checked:991014]

    Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

    A surprisingly complete listing of votes cast in Presidential elections, including numerous third-party candidates and nice maps of vote distribution by state and (on the individual state pages) by county.
    [New-URL:010309]

    D.C.'s Political Report

    Very good presentation of candidate and party information, including virtually every known third-party group in the USA. Election results, candidate information, etc.
    [Updated:991214]

    Initiative For Texas

    A group trying to establish the right to Initiative and Referendum in Texas. Their work has intriguing parallels and overlaps with ballot access work. Every page at the site seems to have some music on it, which can get annoying after awhile, but otherwise it's an interesting site.
    [Checked:991014]

    Center for Voting and Democracy

    Folks concerned with alternative voting systems, and related issues, from a moderately leftist perspective. Useful articles describing how better systems of voting and electing actually work.
    [Added:000823]

The newsletter is published by and copyright by Richard Winger.