Ballot Access News

On February 9, the California Assembly Rules Committee voted to send the nomination of Abel Maldonado, to be the new Lieutenant Governor, to the Assembly floor. California has no Lieutenant Governor now because the former incumbent, John Garamendi, was elected to Congress in a special election last year. California’s Constitution lets the Governor appoint vacancies in the statewide elected executive positions, subject to legislative veto. Maldonado is the State Senator who forced the California legislature to put the “top-two open primary” ballot measure on this year’s primary ballot. He had said he would not vote for the budget unless that were done.

Maldonado is a Republican, and Democrats control both houses of the California legislature. The Senate Rules Committee had approved Maldonado’s nomination earlier. In 2005, when California had a vacancy in the Secretary of State position, the Democratic-majority legislature also approved Governor Schwarzenegger’s nomination of a Republican to fill that vacancy.

On February 9, the New Hampshire House Election Law Committee held another hearing on HB 1264. It seems that a majority of members of the Committee are inclined to support it. There will be yet another hearing on this bill next week. HB 1264 makes significant improvements for minor party ballot access.

Another bill, HB 1188, which makes only slight improvements to ballot access, was defeated, because the Committee seems more interested in working on HB 1264. Thanks to Rich Tomasso for this news.

Bills are pending in both houses of the Minnesota legislature to move the primary from September 14 to August 10. They are SF 2251, by Senator Terri Bonoff (DFL-Minnetonka), and HB 2552, by Representative Steve Simon (DFL-St. Louis Park). On February 8, the Senate State and Local Government Committee passed SF 2251.

The bills, if passed, would have the effect of automatically moving the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from July 20 to June 16. The bills would also automatically move the petition deadline for a group to submit a petition to become a qualified party from July to June.

The Minnesota petition to create a new ballot-qualified party is so difficult, it has never been used for a statewide party even though it has existed in the law since 1913. It is in section 200.02.7(2) of the election law. It requires the signatures of 5% of the last vote cast. Groups that have become qualified parties in the last 100 years have done it in Minnesota by first running a statewide independent candidate, and then having that candidate poll at least 5% of the vote. That is an alternate method for creating a new ballot-qualified party, but it takes longer; the group must wait until after the election to attain its “qualified” status.

In 1980, the 8th circuit ruled in McLain v Meier, 637 F 2d 1159, that a similar procedure in North Dakota to create a new ballot-qualified party was so difficult as to be unconstitutional. The North Dakota party petition required 15,000 signatures (3.3% of the number of eligible signers in North Dakota at the time), and was due in June. The 8th circuit said the relative tough petition requirement combined with a relatively early deadline was unconstitutional. If Minnesota moves the petition deadline for a new ballot-qualified party to June, and doesn’t lower the number of signatures, it is plausible that the party petition procedure would also be unconstitutional. Like Minnesota currently, North Dakota at the time also permitted independent candidates to choose a partisan label which appeared on the ballot, and if that independent candidate in North Dakota polled 5% for Governor, that was an alternate method for creating a new ballot-qualified party. So it would be tough for Minnesota to defends its law, based on the 1980 precedent. Minnesota, like North Dakota, is in the 8th circuit.