MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE REPEALS STRAIGHT-TICKET DEVICE

On December 16, the Michigan legislature passed SB 13, which repeals the straight-ticket device. On December 22 the bill was sent to Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican. Because the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the legislature voted for the bill, it is likely the Governor will sign it. Michigan Republicans have been trying to eliminate the device for decades.

A straight-ticket device lets voters vote for all the nominees of one party with a single mark at the top of the ballot. Voters who use it don’t need to look at the rest of the ballot.

Straight-ticket devices are harmful to independent candidates because there is no device for independent candidates. The devices also injure minor party candidates. A candidate may have a great deal of appeal, if only he or she can get the voter to notice the name on the ballot, but the device causes up to 50% of the voters to avoid looking at the ballot.

In 2010, when Wisconsin still had the straight-ticket device, Green Party nominee Ben Manski polled 31.1% of the vote for Assembly, 77^th district, in a race against both major parties. An analysis of the election returns showed that Manski actually won the election among the voters who did not use the straight-ticket device. But when straight-ticket voters weighed in, he lost. Wisconsin repealed the device in 2011. Other states that have repealed it in the last 50 years are Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

States that still have it are Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

The Michigan bill was introduced last year on January 20, but nothing happened to it until November 10, when it passed out of Committee and also passed the Senate. On December 9, an amended version passed the House. It then went back to the Senate, and back to the House again, finally passing on December 16. The final vote in the House was 54-52. Six Republicans voted against it because they wanted other election law provisions included in the bill.

The last time the Michigan legislature repealed the device was in 2001. However, supporters of the device then stopped the bill by putting it on the November 2002 ballot as a referendum. The voters rejected the repeal. That can’t happen in 2016 because SB 13 has an appropriation, and bills with appropriations cannot be subject to a referendum.

On December 11, U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte issued a procedural order in Soltysik v Padilla, the case filed by the ACLU in October 2015 over ballot labels in California. The lawsuit is on behalf of two Socialist Party registrants, who wish to run for California legislature and want to be identified on the ballot as Socialists.

California law says only members of qualified parties may have their party on the ballot. These plaintiffs must have "Party preference: none" on the ballot. In California, parties do not have nominees (except for President), and the only purpose of the label for candidates for Congress and state office is to give the voters a clue as to the candidates’ politics.

In Washington, the only other state with a system like California’s, all candidates may have any partisan label they wish on the ballot, if it is not obscene, nor longer than 15 letters. The California law is discriminatory, and the Washington example shows the California law is not really needed for any state purpose.

The order in the California case permits the group Californians for an Open Primary to intervene in the case. Californians for an Open Primary is a group created to support California’s top-two system. It is backed by the State Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. The order says, "Because the Socialist Party USA is a nonqualified political party, Plaintiffs are not permitted to reflect their party preference on the ballot but must instead indicate – falsely – that they have no party preference." (emphasis added).

The other group that intervened in court in the past to defend California’s top-two system, the California Independent Voters Project, did not intervene in this case.

The next action in the case will be a status conference on January 25.

Initiative to Change Label Law

Meanwhile, a proposed California Constitutional amendment has been filed with the Attorney General. It would remove party labels from all ballots, for candidates for state office. The proponent of this proposed initiative is represented by a law firm that specializes in election law, the James R. Sutton firm.

Proponents aim to qualify it in time for the November 2016 ballot. There is reason to believe that the initiative has enough support to qualify for the ballot, and that the backers are Republicans.

On December 9, the Maine Secretary of State said that the Libertarian Party is not a qualified party. The law says a new party can qualify by having 5,000 registered members by December 1 of the odd year before an election year. The Libertarian Party submitted 6,700 voter registration cards, but election officials only processed and validated 4,489 by the deadline. Some cards were rejected because a blank wasn’t filled in. When that happens, the procedure is to send them back to the voter and ask for the form to be completed. But, by the time the voter fixes the error, the deadline is passed. Other Libertarian registration cards were submitted by the deadline, but the town clerks didn’t process them by the deadline.

The party is about to file a federal lawsuit, arguing that the December 1 deadline is unconstitutionally early. The case will also attack the law that says the Secretary of State must determine if enough registration cards have been submitted by five days after the deadline. There seems to be no state interest in requiring the checking to be done so fast.

The Reform Party had the same problem in Maine in December 1995. At the time the party needed 21,051 registered members, all of whom had to sign a petition. The Reform Party was told it didn’t have enough, but after it sued, the town clerks said they did have enough after all, and the judge didn’t need to issue an opinion. That case was Citizens to Establish a Maine Reform Party v Diamond. The deadline back then was December 14, 1995.

The Maine Secretary of State has already promised in writing to preserve the existing Libertarian registrations while the lawsuit is underway. Normally in Maine, when a party goes off the ballot, all its members are converted to independents, whether they desire that or not.

Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul (D-Roanoke) has introduced HB 82 into the 2016 session of the Virginia legislature. In Virginia, unlike most states, the legislative session is much longer in even years than in odd years, and bills have a greater chance of passing in even years. The bill changes the definition of "party" from a group that got 10% of the vote for any statewide race at either of the last two elections, to 5%.

Rasoul introduced a similar bill in 2015, but it didn’t pass. If the 2016 bill were to pass, the Libertarian Party would be qualified, because it polled 6.55% for Governor in 2013.

On December 8, the U.S. Supreme Court put out its first election law decision of the current term. Shapiro v McManus, 14-990. This concerns redistricting, but it also concerns court procedure.

Federal law says redistricting cases in federal court are to be heard by a 3-judge U.S. District Court, unless the case is wholly insubstantial. U.S. District Courts don’t like to convene 3-judge cases, because the courts have too much work as it is, and requiring 3 judges takes more resources.

In this case, which challenged Maryland’s U.S. House districts as an unconstitutional gerrymander by Democrats, the U.S. District Court did not convene a 3-judge court because the judge felt it is a weak case. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the case didn’t need a 3-judge court. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disagreed and sent the case back to be heard in a 3-judge court. This decision will generally help plaintiffs in election law cases. Sometimes judges won’t permit evidence in such cases; the Fourth Circuit has been especially bad in recent years about not permitting trials in ballot access cases.

One of the two federal lawsuits concerning who may be invited into the general election presidential debates has begun to move ahead. Level the Playing Field v FEC, D.C., 1:15cv-1397, now has a briefing schedule. The first brief is due March 6 and the final brief is due June 15. The plaintiffs argues that the FEC is obliged to enforce campaign finance law against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Federal campaign law does not permit corporations to donate to federal campaigns, and the lawsuit argues that the for-profit corporations that fund the Commission are making a campaign contribution to the two major party presidential nominees.

The ballot status of the Libertarian and Green Parties in Texas is at risk after November 2016, because this year the Democratic Party is running a full slate of candidates for all the statewide offices. Parties in Texas remain on the ballot by polling 5% for one statewide race, or 2% for Governor. For 2004-2014, no Democrat ran for certain offices, and those were the only offices for which the Libertarians and Greens polled as much as 5%. In 2014, the highest Libertarian percentage for a statewide office with both major parties in the race was 3.39%, and for the Greens, 2.03%.

The chart below lists 43 instances in the last fifty years when a legislature passed a bill to make it easier for a party to remain on the ballot. In all cases except Alaska in 1986 and Tennessee in 2015, the legislatures did this voluntarily, without court involvement. The median vote test for a party to remain on the ballot is 2%, whereas in 1976 it was 5%. This progress can be continued if activists will ask legislators for improvements. Now is the time to talk to legislators about bills.

Year	State	Old Law	New Law
1969	Ohio	10% for President or Governor	7% for President or Governor
1969	Idaho	10% for any statewide race	just run 3 candidates for federal or state office
1971	Ohio	7% for President or Governor	5% for President or Governor
1972	Tenn.	10% for any statewide race	5% for any statewide race
1977	Arkansas	7% for President or Governor	3% for President or Governor
1977	Vermont	1% for any statewide race	have town committees in any ten towns
1978	Delaware	2% for any statewide race	registration of one-twentieth of 1% of state total
1986	Alaska	10% for Governor	3% for Governor
1986	Georgia	20% for President or Governor	approximately 2% for any statewide office
1986	Hawaii	10% for any statewide race	If on for 3 elections in a row, then on for 10 more years
1987	Nevada	5% (of US House vote) for any race	3% (of US House vote) for any race
1987	Texas	2% for Governor	2% for Governor or 5% for any statewide race
1989	Oregon	5% for any statewide race	1% for any statewide race
1990	Mass.	3% for Governor	3% for any statewide race
1991	Montana	5% of winner’s vote, any statewide race	same, at either of last two elections
1991	Virginia	10% for any statewide race	same, at either of last two elections
1991	Wyoming	10% for U.S. House	3% for U.S. House
1992	Arizona	5% for President or Governor	same, or also has registration of 2/3rds of 1%
1993	So. Dak.	10% for Governor	2.5% for Governor
1993	Nevada	3% (of US House vote) for any race	1% (of US House vote) for any race
1994	Rhode Is.	5% for Governor	5% for President or Governor
1997	No. Dak.	5% for Governor	5% for President or Governor
1997	Alaska	3% for Governor	same, or also has registration of 3% of last gub. vote
1998	Colorado	10% for Governor	1% for any statewide race, or 1,000 registrants
1998	Maryland	registration of 10% of state total	1% for President or Governor
1998	Wyoming	3% for U.S. House	2% for U.S. House, Governor, or Secretary of State
1999	Florida	registration of 5% of state total	just be organized
1999	Hawaii	10% vote or was on for last 3 elections	same, or 2% for all state legislative races
1999	Maine	5% for top office at last election	5% for top office at either of the last two elections
1999	D.C.	elected a president since 1950	7,500 votes for any district race
2001	Minnesota	5% for any statewide race	same, at either of last two elections
2001	Oregon	1% for any statewide race	same, or registration of ½ of 1%
2002	Michigan	½ of 1% for top office	½ of 1% for any statewide race
2004	Louisiana	registration of 5% of state total	registration of 1,000 members
2005	No. Dak.	5% for President or Governor	same, or 5% for Secretary of State or Attorney General
2006	No. Caro.	10% for President or Governor	2% for President or Governor
2009	Maine	5% for top office either of last 2 election	have 10,000 registered members who go to polls
2012	Nebraska	5% for any statewide race	same, at either of the last two elections
2012	Utah	2% (of US House vote) for any race	same, at either of the last two elections
2013	Ohio	5% for President or Governor	3% for President or Governor at either of last 2 elections
2014	Oregon	1% for any statewide race	same, at either of the last two elections
2014	California	registration of 1% of last gub. vote	registration of one-third of 1% of state total
2015	Tennessee	5% for any statewide race	same, at either of the last two elections

This chart lists instances in the last 50 years in which a legislature eased the law on how a party remains on the ballot. These changes were brought about by activists asking their legislators to improve the law. Often election officials helped, because it is burdensome on election officials to constantly check the validity of ballot access petitions.

States in which the laws for retention of party status have been made more severe in the last 50 years are: Alabama 1982, from zero to 20%; Indiana 1980, from ½ of 1% to 2% ; New Mexico 2014, from ½ of 1% at either of the last two elections, to ½ of 1%, by ruling of the Secretary of State; New Hampshire 1997, from 3% for Governor, to 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator; Pennsylvania 1986, from 2% of the winning candidate’s vote, to registration of 15%; and Washington 2009, 5% for any statewide race to 5% for President.

The last B.A.N. listed all the candidates who got on 2016 presidential primary ballots in Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The chart below shows the same information for candidates who have been put on ballots since that issue came out. Corrections to the previous chart: Rocky De La Fuente is on in the Michigan Democratic primary, and Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham have withdrawn from the South Carolina Republican primary.

DEMOCRATS	AL.	AZ.	ID.	LA.	MASS	N.C.	OH.	OK.	TN.	TX.	VA.
Kennedy King Brown, Alabama	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Steve Burke, New York	~	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Hillary Clinton, New York	X	X	~	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Rocky De La Fuente, California	X	X	~	X	X	X	X	X	~	X	~
Calvis L. Hawes, Texas	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	X	~
Henry Hewes, New York	~	X	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Keith Judd, Texas	~	~	~	X	~	~	~	X	~	X	~
Star Locke, Texas	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	X	~	X	~
Martin J. O’Malley, Maryland	X	X	~	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Bernie Sanders, Vermont	X	X	~	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Michael Steinberg, Florida	~	X	~	X	~	~	~	X	~	~	~
Willie Wilson, Illinois	~	~	~	X	~	~	X	~	~	X	~
John Wolfe, Tennessee	~	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
~
REPUBLICANS	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Jeb Bush, Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Ben Carson, Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Chris Christie, New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Tim Cook, North Carolina	~	X	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ted Cruz, Texas	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Carly Fiorina, Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Jim Gilmore, Virginia	~	~	~	~	~	X	~	~	X	~	X
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Elizabeth Gray, Texas	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	X	~
Mike Huckabee, Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
John R. Kasich, Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Peter Messina, Florida	~	~	X	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
George Pataki, New York	~	X	~	~	~	X	~	~	X	~	~
Rand Paul, Kentucky	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Marco Rubio, Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Rick Santorum, Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Donald Trump, New York	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
GREENS	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Darryl Cherney, California	~	~	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~
S. K. C. M. Curry, California	~	~	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~
William Kreml, South Carolina	~	~	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~
Kent Mesplay, California	~	X	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~
Jill Stein, Massachusetts	~	X	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~
~
CONSTITUTION PARTY	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Scott Copeland, Texas	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
J. R. Myers, Alaska	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Patrick Ockander, Texas	~	~	X	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED			THREE TYPES OF DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB’T	GREEN	CONSTI	Full Party	Pres Party	Pres. Indp.
Ala.	35,413	5,000	0	0	0	Mar. 1	Mar. 1	Aug. 18
Alaska	(est) (reg) 8,400	#3,005	already on	*1,000	already on	May 2	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Ariz.	20,119	(est) #36,000	already on	already on	0	March 3	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
Ark.	10,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	Sep 2 ‘15	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Calif.	(es) (reg) 61,000	178,039	already on	already on	355	Jan. 4	July 11	Aug. 12
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $1,000	already on	already on	already on	Jan. 8	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	*0	*0	*0	– –	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Del.	(est.) (reg) 650	(est.) 6,500	already on	already on	*331	Aug. 20	Aug. 20	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	(est.) #4,600	can’t start	already on	can’t start	– –	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Florida	be organized	119,316	already on	already on	already on	April 15	Sep. 1	July 15
Georgia	51,912	#49,336	already on	*in court	*in court	July 12	July 12	July 12
Hawaii	707	#4,347	already on	already on	250	Feb. 24	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Idaho	13,047	1,000	already on	*0	already on	Aug. 30	Aug. 30	Aug. 24
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	June 27	June 27
Indiana	no procedure	#26,700	already on	0	0	– –	June 30	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	1,200	0	– –	Aug. 19	Aug. 19
Kansas	16,960	5,000	already on	0	0	June 1	June 1	Aug. 1
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	*0	*0	*0	– –	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $500	already on	already on	185	May 21	Aug. 19	Aug. 19
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	*in court	already on	0	Dec 1 2015	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Md.	10,000	(est.) 38,000	already on	already on	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Mass.	(est) (reg) 45,000	#10,000	10,920	already on	96	Feb. 2	Aug. 2	Aug. 2
Mich.	31,519	30,000	already on	already on	already on	July 21	July 21	July 21
Minn.	98,770	#2,000	0	0	0	May 2	Aug. 23	Aug. 23
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	Feb. 1	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	*800	already on	July 25	July 25	July 25
Mont.	5,000	#5,000	already on	0	0	Mar. 17	Aug. 17	Aug. 17
Nebr.	5,395	2,500	already on	*400	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Nev.	5,431	5,431	already on	500	already on	June 3	June 3	July 8
N. Hamp.	14,556	#3,000	*0	*0	*0	Aug. 10	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
N.J.	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	– –	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
N. M.	2,565	15,388	already on	already on	already on	June 30	June 30	June 30
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	– –	Aug. 23	Aug. 23
No. Car.	89,366	89,366	already on	*12,000	0	May 17	May 17	June 9
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	already on	0	4,000	Apr. 16	Sep. 5	Sep. 5
Ohio	30,560	5,000	in court	already on	0	July 6	July 6	Aug. 10
Okla.	24,745	40,047	*30,000	*3,000	0	March 1	July 15	July 15
Oregon	22,046	17,893	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 30	Aug. 30	Aug. 30
Penn.	no procedure	*21,590	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
R.I.	16,203	#1,000	0	0	0	Aug. 1	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	May 8	May 8	July 15
So. Dak.	6,936	2,775	*5,000	0	*7,000	Mar. 29	Mar. 29	*Aug. 4
Tenn.	33,816	275	0	in court	in court	Aug. 10	Aug. 10	Aug. 18
Texas	47,086	79,939	already on	already on	can’t start	May 16	May 16	May 9
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	200	already on	Feb. 15	Aug. 15	Aug. 15
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	0	0	Dec 31 ‘15	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Virginia	no procedure	#5,000	*0	*0	*0	– –	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	July 23	July 23
West Va.	no procedure	#6,705	already on	already on	9,650	– –	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	April 1	Aug. 2	Aug. 2
Wyo.	3,302	3,302	already on	can’t start	already on	June 1	June 1	Aug. 30
TOTAL STATES ON			31	22	15	“	“	“

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
"CONSTI" = Constitution Party.
The number of signatures for new parties is in court in Tennessee; for independents, in New Mexico.
* = change since Nov. 1, 2015 issue.

Below are the vote totals for the only minor parties that ran any nominees in the regularly-scheduled legislative elections of November 3, 2015:

2015 STATE SENATE ELECTIONS

PARTY	Mississippi	Virginia
Indp. Green	– –	13,486
Libertarian	1,746	527
Reform	1,784	– –

2015 STATE HOUSE ELECTIONS

PARTY	Mississippi	New Jersey	Virginia
Green	– –	6,836	2,367
Indp. Green	– –	– –	8,576
Libertarian	600	616	4,996

The minor party candidate with the best showing in a race with both a Republican and a Democrat was New Jersey Green Party nominee Kenneth Collins, who got 8.62%. The minor party candidate with the best showing in a race with only one major party opponent was also a Green, J. B. "Jeff" Staples of Virginia. He got 30.36%.

Only two states had gubernatorial elections on November 3, 2015. Kentucky had no minor party nominee for Governor. In Mississippi, the only minor party candidate for Governor was Shawn O’Hara, who got 9,845 votes, or 1.37%. The best showing for a minor party nominee in a statewide race was the Reform Party nominee for Mississippi Treasurer, Viola McFarland, She was in a two-person race and got 134,014 votes, 20.76%.

The Green Party has tentatively decided to hold its presidential convention August 6-7. This is later than the Democratic convention, which will be July 25-28. This is the first time the Green Party has held its presidential convention after the Democratic convention.

The December B.A.N. had a list of minor party nominees who won partisan elections on November 3, 2015. But that list erroneously omitted the Working Families Party nominees who were elected to the Hartford, Connecticut, city council. They are Cynthia Jennings, Wildaliz Bermudez, and Larry Deutsch. Hartford elects council members at-large, and won’t let any party nominate more than six nominees. But the top nine are elected. This system exists so that one party doesn’t win all the seats. In effect, the WFP nominees just had to defeat the Republican nominees, which they did.

The Prohibition Party is now a ballot-qualified party in Mississippi. Its presidential nominee, Jim Hedges, will be the first Prohibition Party nominee on in Mississippi since 1896.

The party has also qualified Hedges in Colorado and Arkansas, and has finished petitioning in New Jersey. However, the New Jersey Department of State says the party must prove that all its candidates for presidential elector are not in prison and are not on parole, and that they are at least 25 years of age. Until the party can produce the proof, the petition won’t be checked.