Justice David Souter to Retire

April 30th, 2009

On April 30, news media announced that U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to leave the Court, although he will remain for the current term, and until a replacement has been chosen.

Souter has never seemed very interested in the problems of minor parties or independent candidates. Although he wrote the ballot access decision Norman v Reed in 1992, which reiterated that strict scrutiny applies (which means that restrictions on ballot access are unconstitutional unless they are needed for a compelling state interest) later that year he was part of the majority in Burdick v Takushi, which said that strict scrutiny only applies if the burden is severe. The problem with that is that whether a burden is “severe” is utterly arbitrary.

Souter supported debate inclusion for government-sponsored debates in the 1998 case Arkansas Educational TV Commission v Forbes, and he supported fusion in the 1997 case Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party. But, in his separate dissent in Timmons, he said that the argument that the “two-party system” needs to be protected is a strong argument. He said, “There is considerable consensus that party loyalty among American voters has declined significantly in the past four decades, and that the overall influence of the parties in the political process has decreased considerably (scholarly citations omitted). In the wake of such studies, it may not be unreasonable to infer that the two-party system is in some jeopardy. Surely, the majority is right that States ‘have a strong interest in the stability of their political systems, that is, preserving a political system capable of governing effectively. If it could be shown that the disappearance of the two-party system would undermine that interest, and that permitting fusion candidacies poses a substantial threat to the two-party scheme, there might well be a sufficient predicate for recognizing the constitutionality of the state action presented by this case. Right now, however, no State has attempted even to make this argument, and I would therefore leave its consideration for another day.”

This statement encapsulates all the confusion about the meaning of the term “two-party system” that has permeated the United States for almost sixty years. “Two-party system” was coined in 1911 to describe the British party system. It doesn’t mean a system in which only two parties have any influence or power. It is a descriptive term for a system in which two parties are far larger than all the other parties. Two-party systems exist even when the election laws are not discriminatory, for example as in Canada and Great Britain. The idea that voting rights, or the rights of two political parties to jointly nominate the same candidate, should be sacrificed to uphold a supposedly fragile “two-party system” is wholly illogical.



Federal Court Holds 3 Hour Hearing on Rhode Island Ballot Access for New Parties

April 30th, 2009

On April 30, a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island held a hearing in Block v Mollis, no. 09-47. The case challenges certain aspects of Rhode Island’s law on how a group can become a qualified party by petition. Rhode Island makes it illegal for such a petition to be circulated in odd years, and requires a number of signatures equal to 5% of the last vote cast. The 5% petition procedure has existed since 1994 and no group has ever managed to use it. The case was filed by the Moderate Party, which needs 23,589 valid signatures to become a qualified party, and which would like to begin working on that petition as soon as possible.

The Director of the Elections Division testified that the state doesn’t want such petitions turned in during odd years, because the Division is busy in odd years, cleaning up the list of registered voters. A decision is likely in a month.

U.S. District Court Upholds Oklahoma’s 3% Independent Presidential Petition

April 30th, 2009

On April 30, U.S. District Court Judge David Russell upheld Oklahoma’s procedure for independent presidential candidates. Barr v Ziriax, civ-08-730-R. The decision is only eight pages long. The decision does not try to rebut either of the plaintiff’s two most powerful arguments. Oklahoma required 43,913 signatures for an independent presidential candidate in 2008, but didn’t require any signatures for independent candidates for other office. The U.S. Supreme Court had said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states have less interest in keeping independent presidential candidates off their ballot, than in keeping independent candidates for other office off the ballot. Yet the decision does not acknowledge that point.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that courts are supposed to examine how often a challenged ballot access law is used. No one has qualified under the Oklahoma independent presidential petition procedure since 1992, yet the decision simply says that since the law was upheld (by the same judge) in both 1996 and 2000, the matter is closed. Plaintiffs will appeal to the 10th circuit.

British Columbia Voters Vote on Single Transferable Vote on May 12

April 30th, 2009

On May 12, British Columbia voters will vote on whether to use Single Transferable Voting for provincial parliamentary elections. This article, from an Alberta newspaper, describes the proposal and focuses on how passage in British Columbia might advance the idea in Alberta.

Possible Referendum in Washington State on National Popular Vote Plan

April 30th, 2009

On April 29, David John Anderson of Washington state filed initial paperwork to begin a Referendum petition, to ask the voters if they wish to repeal the National Popular Vote Plan law in that state. He needs 120,577 signatures by July 25, 2009. If his petition succeeds, the voters would vote on the law on November 3, 2009. See this story. Anderson has experience with initiatives; the article says he managed the campaign for I-872 in 2004. I-872 imposed “top-two” on Washington state.

Panel at Harvard Discusses National Popular Vote Plan

April 30th, 2009

The April 30 edition of the Harvard Law Record has this description of a panel on the National Popular Vote Plan, held on April 27. Both panelists, Law Professor Akhil Amar, and New Yorker editor Hendrick Hertzberg, support the plan, so in no sense was the panel a debate.

Major Polls Show 4% or 5% of Americans Choose “Other” When Asked About Partisan Affiliation

April 29th, 2009

For decades, pollsters have been asking U.S. residents if they consider themselves to be Democrats, Republicans, or independents. Recently, however, two of the biggest polls have added “other” to those choices. An NBC News/WSJ Survey released April 29 finds that 4% of respondents choose the “Other” category. A Washington Post/ABC Poll released April 21 found 5% chose “Other”.

When one examines voter registration data, only 2% of voters are registered as members of parties other than Democratic or Republican.

The full poll results, for the partisan affiliation question, are: NBC News/WSJ, Democrats (including independents who lean Democratic) 42%, Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) 31%, strict independents 19%, “Other” 4%, undecided 4%. For the Washington Post/ABC Poll, the results are Democrats (including independents who lean Democratic) 53%, Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) 37%, independents 4%, “Other” 5%, undecided, less than 1%. Here is a link to the Washington Post/ABC Poll. The partisan affiliation question is at the very end. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.

Arizona Green Party is Petitioning for 2010 Ballot

April 29th, 2009

The Arizona Green Party is petitioning to be on the 2010 ballot. It needs 20,449 signatures by March 2010, and already has 4,000 signatures.

An earlier post today, which has been removed, erroneously said the Arizona Green Party was doing a registration drive.

As far as is known, the Arizona and New Mexico Green Parties are the only state Green Parties that are petitioning now for the 2010 election. States in which the Green Party is not now on the ballot, and in which it could theoretically be petitioning for 2010 (even before it has chosen any candidates for 2010), are Alabama, Alaska (a registration drive), Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The party is in court against the ballot access laws of North Carolina and Tennessee. Theoretically the party could be petitioning in Oklahoma, but since the Oklahoma law is fairly likely to change soon, it would be foolish to be petitioning in Oklahoma now.

U.S. Supreme Court Sets Conference Date for Illinois Ballot Access Case

April 29th, 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Stevo v Keith, 08-1187, at its May 14 conference. Stevo v Keith challenges Illinois law, which says that in some election years independent candidates for U.S. House need 5,000 signatures, but in other years they need 5% of the last vote cast, which is usually 10,000 or more. Since no independent candidates for U.S. House ever qualified in any of the years in which only 5,000 were required, Stevo asks why the state should ever require more than 5,000.

Richard Carroll Switches from Greens to Democrats

April 29th, 2009

On April 29, Arkansas Green Party legislator Richard Carroll said he will change parties from “Green” to “Democratic” as soon as the legislature adjourns in a few days. See this AP story. Thanks to Sean Haugh for this news.

« Previous 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.
New Feature:
Search Ballot Access News

Search ballot-access.org
Search WWW

 
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:

2010:

2009:

2008:

2007:

2006:

2005:

2004:

2003:

2002:

2001:

2000:

1999:

1998:

1997:

1996:

1995:

1994:

1993:

1992:

1991:

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.