New York Times Publishes More Letters on New and Minor Political Parties in the U.S.

The December 16 New York Times has this set of letters, commenting on minor and new political parties, and ideas for such parties. One letter discusses ballot access injustice, and one letter explains proportional representation. The other letters merely talk about the ideas that a desired new political party might promote.


New York Times Publishes More Letters on New and Minor Political Parties in the U.S. — 7 Comments

  1. #2, no, the blanket primary doesn’t exist in Wa or Ca. It only exists in Alaska. It doesn’t restrict voter choice in November.

  2. Perot wanted UWSA (United We Stand America) to be the universal candidate (non-party) picking place starting with the 1994 congress.

    Sotomayor and panel (USCA2C) refused to grant an injunction keeping the parties (enrolled members) out of the dual role in NYS independent nominating petitioning and ergo ballot fusion.

    Even in NYC — the Dems, especially in the election of delagates to NYS Supreme court judicial nominating conventions — Blank Primary Party would satisfactorily solve both the Rosario v Rockefeller
    lock box enrollment issue and the corruption of party executive committees and NYS Judicial Nominating Convention delagate SCOTUS NYS BOE v Lopez-Torres

    In New York, political party judicial candidates for the Supreme Courts (the state’s general jurisdiction trial court) are elected through a three-part scheme that involves a primary election, a nominating convention, and a general election. Independent candidates need only meet general signature requirements to obtain a place on the general ballot.

    During the primary election, judicial delegates (not candidates) are elected by the parties’ rank and file members for each assembly district. The chosen delegates are then sent to the judicial convention for the judicial district in which the assembly district is located. (The state is split into twelve judicial districts, each having up to several dozen assembly districts.) The judicial delegates vote for their parties’ judicial nominees, whose names then appear on the general ballot.

    A person seeking a political party judicial nomination, accordingly, must assemble a delegate (or group of delegates, who run together) for each assembly district in her judicial district. She must collect separate signatures in each assembly district to get her delegate(s) onto the primary ballot, and because delegate nominees cannot disclose which candidate they are affiliated with, she must also mount separate voter education campaigns in each assembly district to explain to the voters which delegates are representing her. After being elected, the delegates can theoretically choose any judicial candidate they wish, but the short timeframe between the primary election and the convention (about two weeks) and the overriding influence of the party establishment mean that delegates typically do not exercise independent judgment in choosing which candidates to support. Realistically, the process is simply too onerous for candidates without significant financial resources or the support of their political party’s apparatus.[1][2]

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973)

    Rosario v. Rockefeller

    No. 71-1371

    Argued December 13, 1972

    Decided March 21, 1973

    410 U.S. 752

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *