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.
Presumably, any court will take into account the reason that the primary was moved – in order to comply with federal law with regard to distribution of overseas ballots.
It doesn’t follow logically that the Minnesota procedure for a new ballot-qualified party necessarily means Minnesota must provide a primary for that party. 22 states provide that newly-qualifying ballot-qualified parties nominate by convention…Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming. Some of these states give the newly-qualifying party a choice. If they turn in signature early they get a primary; otherwise they nominate by convention. The National Civic Leaague, in 1951, recommended that newly-qualifying parties nominate by convention in order to save the government money.
It is certainly a rational and reasonable decision by Minnesota to treat all qualified parties (including newly qualified parties) in the same manner and require them to nominate by primary.
It is to be expected that pushing back the mailing deadline for overseas ballots will have an effect on all earlier deadlines. This is why it would have been a more desirable solution for the federal government to operate overseas polling stations at military bases, embassies, and consulates. But simply pushing back deadlines was a no-brainer. That is why it would be expected that Congress would choose that solution.
In Texas, qualification and nomination are integrated. A new party qualifies based on the number of voters who participate in the initial stage of their conventions (supplemented by signatures of voters who did not attend). And existing small parties also nominate by convention, and the precinct conventions and primaries are contemporaneous.
Texas is no model. By keeping the person who placed third in the presidential elections of 1972, 1984, 2004, and 2008 off its presidential ballot, Texas injured voting rights and also increased the cost of election administration (because it costs more to count write-in votes than votes for people on the ballot). Victims of Texas’ law were voters who wanted to vote for John Schmitz in 1972, David Bergland in 1984, Ralph Nader in 2004 and 2008.
Texas is the only state that won’t let primary voters sing a new party petition.
You apparently are unwilling to understand the model of party qualification used in Texas.
In California, voters must change their party registration well in advance of the nominating activity, declaring that they intend to affiliate with the new party at the next primary. If the party fails to qualify, they are not permitted to vote in any primary.
In Texas, a new party simply organizes its nominating activities, and if enough voters show up, then both the nominations and the party are recognized by the State. Parties, primaries, and conventions are organized on a county-by-county basis in Texas. So some voters who support the new party are unable to attend a convention. The state lets the new party augment the lists of precinct convention attendees with a petition. Any voter who did not attend a convention may sign the petition and effectively affiliate with the new party and its initial nominating activities.
Imagine you had two voters. One said that in his voting lifetime there had been 9 independent candidates for Congress in his entire state. The other said that the same was true for him.
One is 30 years old, and the other 60. Which is from California, and which is from Texas?