Peter Aldhous, a freelance journalist who covers science, social science, and journalism, writes here at Medium that polarization and partisanship in the United States has been the rule, not the exception, for most of U.S. history. His analysis determines that the U.S. Constitution is the reason, especially the separation of powers. Thanks to The Mischiefs of Faction for the link.
On December 17, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a brief order, reversing the State Court of Appeals and approving the new higher contribution limits for individuals who give to candidates for state office. The Court said it would explain its reasoning later. The case is Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission v Bennett, cv13-0233-SA.
The 2013 legislature had increased the contribution limits. The Clean Elections Commission then sued, arguing that because the bill did not pass with 3/4ths majorities in each house of the legislature, it is invalid. The public funding law says that the legislature can’t amend the public funding program without a 3/4ths majority in each house. Therefore, the issue was whether the contribution limits are intrinsically part of the public funding program or not.
The Commission that administers the public funding program does not like higher contribution limits because the Commission believes that will discourage candidates for state office from using the public funding program. See this story.
On December 11, the U.S. House passed HR 2019, which repeals public funding for presidential conventions. The vote was 295-103. The bill is now in the Senate.
The only party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, that ever received public funding for its presidential conventions was the Reform Party in 2000. The funding is limited to parties that polled at least 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election.
The Oklahoma House of Representatives has established a web page, SpeakUp Oklahoma, which invites readers to suggest improvements for Oklahoma laws. Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform is publicizing this, and is asking Oklahomans to use the site, to suggest ballot access reform.
Oklahoma voters have not been permitted to vote for anyone for President, other than the two major party nominees, in each of the last three presidential elections. There are only two other instances of any other state that ever gave voters such restricted choice for President, for three or more elections in a row. One was Ohio in the years 1952 through 1964. The other was Nebraska, 1940 through 1964.
Although certain other states also had several years in a row in which only the two major party presidential nominees were on the ballot, those other states always permitted and counted write-in votes. Thanks to E. Zachary Knight for the link.
On December 16, the New Mexico Attorney General filed a 10-page brief in the New Mexico Supreme Court, in response to the Constitution Party’s filing. The case is The Constitution Party of New Mexico v Duran, 34431. The issue in the case is whether the Constitution Party should have been disqualified after the November 2012 election for failing to poll one-half of 1% of the presidential vote.
The law says when a party is disqualified, the state must notify the party’s state chair by March 15 of the disqualification, and the state must mail notice to all the party’s registered members by May 30. Actually, in 2013, the Secretary of State did not notify the state chair until July, and did not send the letter to the party members until November.
The state says this error does not affect the validity of the action disqualifying the party, and implies that the notices were late because the Secretary of State wasn’t certain whether the law required her to disqualify the party and it took a while for the Attorney General to advise her that they should be disqualified. Then the state says that in the past, when parties weren’t disqualified, they didn’t receive notices at all. The brief does not mention that the law requiring the notices was not passed until 2011. It was SB 403, signed April 7, 2011.
The state’s brief also asserts that parties have always been disqualified after failing to poll as much as one-half of 1% for president, in a presidential year. It asserts that the Constitution Party (which has never polled as much as one-half of 1% in New Mexico) was similarly removed from the ballot after the 2004 election, and after the 2008 election. This assertion is not true. Evidence that the Constitution Party was not decertified after the 2004 election is a letter from the former Secretary of State, dated in 2006, which says the party is still on the ballot. Evidence that it was not decertified after the 2008 election is that it was listed on the state income tax form printed in late 2009. New Mexico state income tax forms list qualified parties and give taxpayers a chance to send them a $2 voluntary contribution. The Constitution Party got $94 during 2010. UPDATE: here is the 2009 tax return form PIT-D, listing the Constitution Party as a qualified party.
Most deceptively, the state quotes 1-7-2(C), on how a party loses its qualified status, but does not quote the full sentence. The state’s brief leaves out the first half of the sentence, which contains the words “If two successive general elections are held”. Past practice in New Mexico has been to give a party two elections after it completes a party petition.
The 2014 New Hampshire legislative session now has two bills to improve ballot access. Recently three State House members introduced HB 1497, which changes the definition of “political party” from a group that polled 4% for either Governor or U.S. Senator in the last election, to one which polled 1% for either of those offices. The sponsors are Steven Smith (R-Charlestown), Tim O’Flaherty (D-Manchester), and Michael Sylvia (R-Belmont).
Other states with a vote test that is 1% (or a lesser percentage) are Colorado, Connecticut (although each office must qualify separately), Georgia (although the vote test is 1% of the number of registered voters and only applies to statewide office), Kansas, Maryland, Michigan (the vote test is 1% of the winning candidate’s vote), Nevada, New Mexico (one-half of 1%), New York (50,000 votes for Governor is approximately 1%), Oregon, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The other bill pending is HB 1322, which changes the vote test from 4% to 3%.
HB 1497 also lowers the number of signatures for candidates petitioning to gain a place on the general election ballot. The statewide petition would drop from 3,000 to 200, and the petition would not be mandatory, but only be needed for candidates who did not pay a $100 filing fee. In New Hampshire, candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot need not petition if they pay a filing fee. Darryl Perry is the activist who is responsible for HB 1497 being introduced.