On May 11, the Minnesota Senate passed SF 455, an omnibus election law bill. Last week the bill had been amended to set a one-year limit on the petition to become a ballot-qualified party. Current law lets petitioners take as long as they wish to finish the petition, but the bill says that once the petition begins to circulate, it must be completed within a year. The vote in the Senate was 39.28. Now it goes to the House.
The Minnesota party petition is already so difficult, it has existed since 1913 and never been used for a statewide party. It requires the signatuers of 5% of the last vote cast. It is never used because the independent candidate petitions are far easier, and they permit a partisan label instead of just the word “independent.” All new and minor parties that have appeared on the Minnesota ballot, for the entire history of government-printed ballots, have used the independent candidate petition method.
It is odd that the authors of the bill are going to the trouble to amend the petitioning period for such an obscure provision of election law. As long as the authors are thinking about this part of the law, it is unfortunate that they didn’t think to lower the number of signatures. Based on the 8th circuit precedent from 1980 McLain v Meier, a strong case could be made that the party petition is unconstitutional. McLain v Meier struck down North Dakota’s party petition, which then required 15,000 signatures (3.3% of the number of eligible signers at the time). The 8th circuit was not influenced by the fact that at the time, North Dakota independent candidate petitions only required 300 signatures for statewide office and permitted a partisan label other than just “independent.” Minnesota is also in the 8th circuit. Thanks to Jim Ivey for the news.
When Minnesota had a non-partisan legislature the relevance of party qualification would be less, since it was not a factor in qualification of candidates. Also during much of that period, Minnesota had 3 major parties, with the Democrats often acting as spoilers. Non-partisan elections may facilitate informal alliances between parties.
When Minneapolis had Top 2, there was no requirement for party qualification since there were no party nominees.
Rather than reforming party qualification, Minnesota should eliminate it entirely.
Minnesota has always had partisan elections for all federal office, and the statewide executive offices. Your comment makes it sound as though all Minnesota elections were non-partisan.
What purpose does party qualification serve in California under the Top 2 open primary reform?
Qualified parties in California get a presidential primary, and also the state holds elections for party office for each qualified party. Also only members of qualified parties can have their party label on the ballot, for Congress and state office. Also, qualified parties can have party endorsements printed in the voters pamphlet.
The practice in California is contrary to the California Constitution which prohibits the State from taking into account the party preference of candidates for voter-nominated offices, and also violates the 1st Amendment.