Because Washington state is using the “top-two” system this year, no one may appear on the November ballot (for all state office, and for Congress) unless that person placed first or second in the August primary. This year’s August primary election returns reveal that the median 2nd-place finisher polled 32.41% of the vote.
Therefore, one may conclude that the ballot access barrier for the November ballot in Washington state this year is 32.41%, on the average. In other words, one may not appear on the November ballot without a prior showing of public support of almost one-third of the electorate. This fact lends strength for the pending lawsuit, Washington State Republican Party v Washington state, which will have a trial in U.S. District Court next year. The Libertarian Party, a co-plaintiff in that lawsuit, will probably take the lead, since the Libertarian Party is in a position to complain about the ballot access aspects of the “top-two” system. Prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on ballot access make it clear that access to the general election ballot is protected for candidates who hold the constitutional qualifications, and who are not “sore losers”, and who have a modicum of support. “Modicum of support” has been interpreted to be 5%, a far lower level than 32%.
As usual — the party hack parties did NOT nominate candidates in the Aug 2008 primary in WA State.
ALL of the public ELECTORS did the PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices in WA State.
ALL of the candidates (party hacks and independents) had the same EQUAL burden to get on the primary ballot — the *modicum of support* for primary ballot access — and the same EQUAL burden to get on the general election ballots — namely, to be first or second in the primary.
See the U.S. Supremes opinion earlier this year.
What part of the Constitution says that party hack parties (of ANY size) have any power to nominate party hack candidates to be put on PUBLIC OFFICIAL general election ballots ???
The 5 percent number is one more arbitrary number picked out of the sky by the party hack Supremes.
100/5 = 20 possible general election candidates for each single office ??? — with a winner with a possible 5 percent plus 1 votes (with the other 19 losers exactly splitting the votes) ???
———
NO primaries are needed.
P.R. legislative body elections
A.V. executive / judicial elections
— pending major education about head to head voting.
Richard, since 2 candidates from the Constitution
Party recieved over 5% in the September primary
wouldn’t it be helpful to this case, if it was to
join in as a joint complainent? It looks to me that
IT would have the best case for “standing” in this
law-suit. The arguement could include something on
the lines of stifiling lawful dissent & petitioning
of grievances with the Government.
The issue of how Washington state will know which parties are qualified is a very important issue, but it is not part of the old lawsuit, which was filed in 2005. The Constitution Party ought to do its own lawsuit on that very interesting point.
Ballot access should be determined by having all candidates, major party, third party, new party or independents, getting the square root of signatures equal to the last statewide election. So, in Wyoming, you’d need 670 signatures but in California you need 5,477 signatures. And, no, voters shouldn’t state whether they’re registered in a party or not.
Don’t the U. S. Supreme Court precedents mentioned above just apply to congressional candidates?
The case is, essentially, starting over from the beginning, except that the USSC has decided the system does not facially violate political party associational rights. The Constitution Party could seek leave to intervene if it wanted to, methinks. And the fact that some of its candidates would otherwise have made it to the general election may be useful in the ballot access argument. On the other hand, there is no particular reason why the Constitution Party needs to intervene per se. It could also file an amicus brief on the point.
I am unable to figure out you came up with your 32.41% number. Do you have a spreadsheet showing the calculation?
Why would the Libertarian Party have standing for an “as applied” challenge? There were only 2 candidates (for federal, statewide, or legislative office) who stated a preference for the Libertarian party. One of them qualified for the November ballot, and the other finished in 6th place with 2.14% of the vote.
Mathematically, wouldn’t you want use to the percentage for the 3rd-place candidate plus 1 vote, but at least 1%? That is the support level needed in order to qualify for the general election. Any votes beyond that are surplus and unneeded as far as one being listed on the general election ballot.
For example, Dino Rossi did not need 46.35% of the vote in order to qualify for the general election ballot, but rather a mere 1.50% in order to outpace the 3rd place finisher John W. Aiken, Jr. The extra 45% may have had utility in shaping voter perceptions for the November elections. It is absolutely false to state that those extra votes were necessary to qualify.
Any complete record would also include the Superintendent of Public Instruction and Supreme Court races from previous elections. I suppose in those cases where there was no runoff, you could use 50.0+% as the threshold.
Can someone please tell me who (if there is one) is the constitutional party candidate for the office of “Superintendent of Public Instruction” and for that matter, the offices of “Insurance Commissioner” and “State Representative,” and “County Commissioner District 2?”
Thanks!
Ben