Oregon Independent Party Releases Results of its Private Primary

July 31st, 2010

The Independent Party, which is ballot-qualified in Oregon, released the results of its party-sponsored primary on July 30.  The party mailed a passcode to all its registered members, via postal mail, at great expense to the party.  The passcode enabled the registered members of the party to vote on the internet.

This news story says only 4% of the members of the party voted in the primary.  It is interesting that when the Reform Party held a privately-sponsored mail/internet presidential primary in 1996, 4% of the Reform Party supporters who had received a ballot chose to participate.  In that presidential primary, Reform Party voters voted for either Ross Perot or Richard Lamm, for Governor of Colorado.

The Oregon results are available at the party’s web page here.  However, the party web page doesn’t show the party affiliation of the various candidates, many of whom are nominees of parties other than the Independent Party.  Oregon permits fusion this year for the first time in more than 100 years.  In the U.S. House race, 3rd district, the Independent Party’s primary was between the Libertarian nominee, and the Green Party nominee.  The Libertarian, Jeff Lawrence, won, so will be listed on the November ballot as “Libertarian, Independent”.  In the U.S. House races in the 4th and 5th districts, the primary was between the Democratic and the Republican nominees.  In each case, the Republican won the Independent Party primary so will be listed in November as “Republican, Independent.”



California Poll Includes All Ballot-Listed Candidates, But Finds Little Support for Minor Party Nominees

July 31st, 2010

On July 30, the Public Policy Institute of California released a poll for the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races.  The poll included many other questions as well, and can be seen here.  The election results start on page 32.

For U.S. Senate, the results are:  Barbara Boxer, Democrat, 39%; Carly Fiorina, Republican, 34%; Gail Lightfoot, Libertarian, 2%; Edward Noonan, American Independent, 2%; Duane Roberts, Green, 1%; Marsha Feinland, Peace & Freedom, below 1%; don’t know 22%.

For Governor, the results are:  Jerry Brown, Democrat, 37%; Meg Whitman, Republican, 34%; Carlos Alvarez, Peace & Freedom, 2%; Chelene Nightingale, American Independent, 1%; Dale Ogden, Libertarian, 1%; Laura Wells, Green, 1%; someone else 1%; don’t know 23%.  The poll had 2,502 respondents.

Arkansas Green Party Loses Lawsuit Against Vote Test to Remain on Ballot

July 31st, 2010

On July 29, a U.S. District Court in Arkansas upheld the vote test that determines whether a party may remain on the ballot automatically or not.  Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 4:09-cv-695.  Fortunately, the Green Party had done another petition for the 2010 election, so it is on the ballot this year anyway.  UPDATE:  here is the 23-page opinion.

Arkansas removes parties from the ballot if they fail to poll 3% of the vote for the office at the top of the ballot.  In presidential years, parties must poll 3% for President; in gubernatorial years, they must poll 3% for Governor.  The Arkansas Green Party had polled over 20% for U.S. Senate in 2008, and had elected a state legislator, but that didn’t help to keep the party on the ballot.  The party’s presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, polled less than 3%, so it lost its spot on the ballot and had to re-petition.  The petition to get back on takes 10,000 signatures.

No federal court has ever struck down a vote test for a party to remain ballot-qualified, so this was a tough case to win.

Eleventh Circuit Grants Injunction to Stop Extra Public Funding for One Florida Gubernatorial Candidate

July 30th, 2010

On July 30, the 11th circuit reversed the U.S. District Court and enjoined Florida from paying extra public funding to William McCollum, a candidate for Governor in the Republican primary.  McCollum’s opponent, Richard Scott, had filed the lawsuit, which is Scott v Roberts, 10-13211.  The decision is 44 pages.

The 2nd circuit had made a similar ruling earlier this month, in a Connecticut case.  The 9th circuit had come to the opposite conclusion a few months ago.  The issue is whether states violate the constitution when they give extra public funding to publicly-funded candidates who have very well-funded opponents who are not using public funding.

The 11th circuit says that Florida could achieve its goal of encouraging participation in public funding if it would just eliminate the expenditure ceiling for publicly-funded candidates who have opponents who are not using public funding and who have substantial resources.  The decision is written by Judge William H. Pryor (a Bush Jr. appointee), and co-signed by Judge Joel F. Dubina (a Bush Sr. appointee) and Judge Beverly Martin (an Obama appointee).  Thanks to Nicholas Ruiz for the news.

U.S. Department of Justice Decides Not to Take a Position on Counting Write-in Votes

July 30th, 2010

On June 30, the U.S. Justice Department said that the Department has decided not to take a position in the pending lawsuit Libertarian Party v District of Columbia Board of Elections, now pending in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  The case challenges the practice of the Board of Elections to not count votes for presidential candidates who are not on the ballot in November, but who do file a declaration of write-in candidacy.

Bob Barr had filed a declaration of write-in candidacy in 2008, along with the names of proposed candidates for Presidential Elector.  The Board says it takes too much cost and bother to count such votes.  The U.S. District Court Judge handling the case had invited the Department of Justice to express its opinion, but the Department’s letter of July 30 says, “After due consideration of the issues, the Department and the United States Attorney’s Office have decided not to take a position with respect to the pending litigation.”

The largest number of write-in votes ever cast in November for a presidential candidate was in California in 1976, when independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy polled 58,412 write-ins.

The District of Columbia was ordered to print write-in space on the ballot for President in 1975, in a case called Kamins v D.C. Board of Elections, in the District’s highest court (not a federal court).  That case had been filed in 1972 by supporters of Dr. Benjamin Spock.  Spock was the presidential nominee of the People’s Party in 1972, but he wasn’t on the ballot and his supporters sued so they could cast a write-in vote for him.  They won the case, three years after they had filed it.  Ever since 1975, the Board of Elections has printed write-in space on the ballot for President, but it has never counted the write-ins, not even for presidential candidates who filed a write-in declaration of candidacy.

James Traficant Finds Error in State’s Determination of How Many Signatures He Needs

July 30th, 2010

James Traficant, a former Democratic member of Congress from Ohio, attempted to run this year as an independent candidate for U.S. House in Ohio’s 17th district.  However, he was told that he needed 2,199 valid signatures, and after his petition was checked, he was told that he only had 2092 valid signatures.

Now elections officials have acknowledged that their earlier determination of how many signatures were required was incorrect.  See this story.  Ohio requires independent candidates for district office to submit a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote within that district.  Ohio would make less work for itself if the law said such a candidate needs a petition of 1% of the vote cast for the particular office the candidate is running for.  That would be easier, because anyone could easily know the vote cast for that particular office, just by looking at the official election returns from that past election.  By making the formula 1% of the vote for governor in the last election, that forces elections officials to do a calculation of how many votes for Governor were cast in a particular district, something that is not apparent from the election returns.  Thanks to Carter Momberger for the link.  It appears that even though elections officials acknowledge error, the new calculation is only 29 signatures fewer than than the original calculation, so Traficante probably still doesn’t have enough valid signatures.

The newspaper story in incorrect when it says an independent candidate for district office needs signatures from each county in the district.

Carl Paladino Seems to Say He Will Run as Taxpayers Party Gubernatorial Candidate Even if he Doesn’t Get Republican Nomination, but He Wouldn’t Campaign

July 30th, 2010

The July 30 Buffalo News has this confusing story, which seems to say that if Carl Paladino loses the New York Republican gubernatorial primary on September 14, he will still be listed on the November ballot as the nominee of his new Taxpayers Party.  But, if he loses the Republican primary, he would not campaign in the general election.

Two Michigan Tea Party Candidates Removed from Ballot Because They are Under Age 21

July 29th, 2010

The Michigan Tea Party (the ballot-qualified party), which most observers feel is an insincere party artificially created by Democrats, recently nominated 23 candidates.  But two of them will not appear on the ballot because they are under age 21.  The Michigan Constitution requires legislators to be age 21 or older.  See this story.

One of the candidates who is being removed from the ballot was running in the 13th State Senate district.  This is one of the most closely-balanced State Senate districts in Michigan.  Last time voters chose a State Senator in this district, in 2006, the vote for the two major parties had been:  Republican 57,204; Democratic 56,484.  Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

U.S. District Court in Illinois Relieves Parties of Having to Decide Whom to Run in Special Election

July 29th, 2010

On July 29, a U.S. District Court handling the case Judge v Quinn ruled that any candidate for U.S. Senate in the November 2010 election for the full Illinios term should also automatically be on the ballot for the special 2-month term that is also on the November ballot.  See this story.

This seems peculiar, but it spares any of the parties from the task of choosing their own nominee for the 2-month term, so the decision will probably will go unchallenged.

Ohio Lawsuit to Require Party Labels on General Election Ballots for Judicial Races

July 29th, 2010

Ohio elects its judges in partisan elections, but there are no party labels on the general election ballot for candidates for judge.  On July 28, some Ohio judges, and others, filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the state must print party labels on general election ballots.  Here is the complaint.  The case is Ohio Council of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v Brunner, 1:10-cv-504, southern district.

Ohio uses partisan primaries to determine who each party nominates for judge, so the partisan affiliation of candidates for judge is obvious at the primary elections.  It is only the general election at which party labels are not present.  Ohio is the only state with a system with that characteristic.  Michigan is somewhat similar.  In Michigan, party conventions nominate candidates for State Supreme Court Justice, and then the voters elect them on a November ballot which also lacks party labels.

The lawsuit also attacks rules that make it impossible for candidates for judge to identify their party identification “after the day of the primary.”

« 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.

 

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.