The Constitution Party is ballot-qualified in Wyoming, but its presidential nominee, Don Blankenship, is not on the ballot because the state party didn’t certify his name immediately after its state convention. It did certify the names of its presidential elector candidates, and its nominees for congress and state office.
The Wyoming law says parties that nominate by convention must certify their nominees “immediately after the state convention.” The major parties have more time to do that. President Trump was not even nominated by the Republican Party until August 24, but the Secretary of State says the Constitution Party’s deadline was August 17.
Both major parties are like criminal gangs in a turf war, but they will join forces to stop anyone else from muscling in.
OUCH! Wyoming was a state where the Constitution Party already had ballot access, so they did not even have to dona petition drive there this time. Ya gotta watch out for that paperwork, folks.
one more VOID for Vagueness case.
Too many useless lawyers to count.
WZ -you nailed it.
Clearly another lawsuit brewing.
-and with the anti-minor party climate in the courts this year; it may not be successful.
So, looks like it’s back to 17 states with ballot qualification or with ballot access for the national CP.
WY accounted for 2,042 votes to the national CP in 2016…if it’s out, call it ~1% hit in the total return.
18 states…a correction, given: https://www.sos.ms.gov/content/documents/elections/2020%20Candidate%20Qualifying%20List.pdf
Presumably, listing Blankenship under American Constitution Party (the name of the state outfit in Colorado) was a route around CP-Mississippi’s supposed disaffiliation.
In any case, it looks like 18 states with access for national CP.
Paperwork?? the downfall of a republic…I don’t know what worse, that the D’s and R’s find every way possible to keep competition off the ballot, or that the American people don’t care.
After his strange and rather disrespectful comments to the West Virginia CP a few months ago, I am quite surprised that DB has actually filed as a write in in ANY states, let alone four so far: http://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/
@ Becker
Pennsylvania may prove to be a prime example of the importance of gaining access to a ballot line. In 2016, PA returned 21,572 votes for the national CP, which was ballot listed there. In 2020, PA will only have write-in status.
So without regard to candidate character and qualifications, this cycle PA can provide a comparable metric on the difference in vote yields via these two routes–on ballot vs. write-in. Not that anyone need more evidence.
Minnesota should do so as well, as it was ballot listed in 2016. But this assumes the national CP will attempt write-in status in MN this cycle.
The important heavily populated State of Illinois will once again be a write-in for the national CP in 2020. IL only provided 1,159 write-in ballots in 2016, so its net effect will likely again be moot. Isolated, however, IL may provide some insight on the relative strengths and distinctions between the 2016 and 2020 campaigns.
@Floyd West Virginia 2004: 82(write-in), 2008: 2,465(on ballot), 2012: 119(write-in), 2016: 3,807(on ballot), 2020: 0(neither).
also, West Virginia 2000: 23 write-ins (Howard Phillips).
“2020: 0(neither)”
Funny. Yeah, zero. Admittedly, I’ve used that term in respects to the 2020 national CP campaign perhaps in a pejorative sense.
Wyoming “making an error” in its paperwork handily avoids prickly matters regarding whether to list the gentleman candidate. CP-South Carolina simply said we’re leaving the top line empty. New Mexico decided even more strangely in its avoidance. And, one of the biggest hits will be out here with Washington apparently empty. Lots of zeroes.
To answer your specific question: 82/2465 = 3.3%. 119/3807 = 3.1%. So about a 97x advantage for ballot access over write-in. At least that’s the trend for the Mountain State.
Jeff, your math is a bit off. First 2465/82 = 31x and 3807/119 = 32x advantage (i.e. 3.1% x 32 = 100%).
Also their is a clear growth trend (23, 82, 119 or 2465, 3807), so one could match 119 to the prior 2465 getting 21x advantage, instead of matching it to the later 3807. The actual advantage factor is likely between 21x and 31x, though that may change when higher vote totals are involved.