Generally speaking, “sore loser laws” (election laws that say someone who failed to be nominated in a party primary, cannot then be independent candidates in the general election) don’t apply to presidential candidates.
We know this, because of precedent. John B. Anderson ran in two-thirds of the Republican presidential primaries in 1980. On April 23, he withdrew from the race for the Republican nomination (since it was obvious Ronald Reagan was going to be the nominee) and declared as an independent candidate. He got on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C.
Other individuals who ran in presidential primaries, and then got on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate, over the years, have been Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Robert La Follette in 1924, David Duke in 1988, and Lyndon LaRouche 1984 through 1992. Thanks to Steve Rankin for reminding me about Roosevelt.
When one combines the precedents set by Anderson and these others, one finds a precedent that sore losers do not apply to presidential candidates, in almost all states. The exceptions are Texas, Ohio, Mississippi and South Dakota (where elections officials have said the sore loser laws do apply), and Pennsylvania (where the law has never been tested).
Even in the four states that say their “sore loser” laws apply to presidential candidates, there are sound reasons why a court might disagree. The true candidates in November are candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names appear on the ballot in November, but they are not listed on the ballot in their capacity as candidates, because Article II doesn’t permit the people to vote directly for president. Instead, the voters vote for candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names are on the November ballot as labels for competing slates of presidential electors, and not as candidates per se.
Therefore, if a slate of independent or new party electors themselves qualify for the November ballot, and they say they will vote for a “sore loser” in the electoral college (should they win in November), a state would not have authority to refuse to print the name of the person they say they intend to vote for. Presidential electors are free to vote for anyone for president in December, in the electoral college, who meets the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. We know this is true, because Congress has always counted the votes in the electoral college for every elector. The only exception was in 1872, when 3 electors voted in the electoral college for Horace Greeley, who had died in late November 1872. Congress decided that electoral college votes for a deceased person are invalid. But all other electoral votes have always been counted by Congress, no matter whom the elector voted for. Thus Congress counted the one electoral vote for president received by John Edwards in 2004, from Minnesota, even though it was believed that the anonymous presidential elector who voted for John Edwards for president in 2004 had merely made a clerical error. In Minnesota, the electors vote secretly, and the Democratic elector who voted for John Edwards never stepped forward to identify himself or herself and explain why he or she had voted for John Edwards.
Since electors can vote for anyone who meets the constitutional qualifications to be president (age 35, natural-born citizen), it would seem logical that a state has no authority to forbid ballot-listed slates of electors from identifying on the November ballot the name of the person the electors intend to vote for, for president, whether that individual is a “sore loser” or not.
You’re obviously making “independent” synonymous with “minor party,” since LaFollette in 1924 and David Duke in 1988 ran, respectively, under the Progressive and Populist labels.
Also, if memory serves, George Wallace ran under the American Independent label in 1968 after first running in some Democratic primaries.
Weren’t there a few presidential primaries in 1912? Theodore Roosevelt contested the GOP nomination all the way to the Chicago convention. After he lost there, he became the nominee of the Progressive Party.
I don’t know if “sore loser” laws were in place in 1912, but the most flagrant instance of a “sore loser” was when Roosevelt failed to get the Republican presidential nomination in 1912, then ran as a third-party candidate, and got more electoral votes than the Republican nominee (Taft).
Many of the “Sore Loser” laws were passed because of Governor Wallace and his efforts as Democrat and then as a possible third party candidate following the primaries. (Paragraph) It has been suggested that the Minnesota elector who voted for Edwards for President and Kerry for Vice President in 2004 just marked the ballot wrong because usually the elector who voted differently steps forward to tell why he voted that way and he never did because he was embarrassed.
George Wallace indeed did not run in any primaries in 1968.
If he had not been shot while campaigning in the 1972 Maryland primary, it would have been interesting to see whether Wallace ran again as a third-party candidate.
I’m assuming, to be sure, that he would have failed to win the Democratic nomination.
Pennsylvania used the “sore-loser” law in addition to invalidating many signatures to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004.
The way the law is written, anyone affiliated with a party at any time during the year cannot run as an “independent” in the general election. So, due to the fact that in OTHER STATES, Nader was a “Reform Party” candidate, he was not allowed to be an “Independent”, if he would have called himself “Nader for President” or anything else, he would have been exempt from the “sore-loser” law. At least according to the State Election Commission.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on September 29, 2004, that the law barring independents from being on the ballot if they are minor party nominees in other states, does not apply to presidential and vice-presidential candidates. See In Re Nader, 858 A 2d 1167 (2004, Pa. Supreme Court).
Hey
I was surfing the web and i saw this site, pretty cool.
Currently im running and adult site:Reachton
k, just want to say hi 🙂
Can i link you from my site? im looking for quality content like yours. If no let me know if i can add u in exchange for a montly fee or something.
Hey
I was surfing the web and i saw this site, pretty cool.
Currently im running and adult site:Reachton
k, just want to say hi 🙂
Can i link you from my site? im looking for quality content like yours. If no let me know if i can add u in exchange for a montly fee or something.
hi nice post, i enjoyed it
This site could use a feature like YouTube has that lets people mark comments as spam. I see a couple posts here from Aug. 3 and Aug. 5 that are clearly spam.
Regarding the content of the article, I’m glad you put “sore loser” in quotes, but I would suggest using a less prejudicial term for these laws. Just because someone decides to run as an independent after failing to be nominated by a particular party does not mean he or she is necessarily a “sore loser.”
“Minor party” is also troubling, as it may reinforce prejudices that only the Republican and Democrat parties are “major” or worth considering. In a system where those two parties clearly operate what in many ways amounts to a cartel for their own benefit, I like calling them the “establishment parties” or the “two-party cartel” and the other parties “alternative parties.”
While the phrase “alternative parties” can be criticized on some of the same grounds as “minor parties,” I think it’s a little more positive, since people like having “alternatives” or choices, and being an alternative does not necessarily mean insignificant — it just means you aren’t part of the establishment.