Washington state defines a qualified party as one that got 5% for President. On election night, the Libertarian Party appeared to be receiving 4.8% of the presidential vote in Washington. But, only two-thirds of the votes had been counted, because Washington state votes by mail, and none of the ballots that arrived on election day had been processed yet. It takes time to process mail ballots, because the signature on the outer envelope must be checked against the signatures on the voter registration form.
As of the morning of November 23, Gary Johnson has 75 votes in excess of 5%. But, there are many more ballots to be counted, so it is difficult to predict whether he will hit 5%. Here are the results, which change daily. As of now, 3,190,778 votes have been counted for President. 5% of that number is 159,539. Johnson has 159,614. Thanks to Carla Howell for this news.
Before 2008, the Washington vote test was 5% for any statewide race, which was much easier to attain. The Libertarian Party polled over 5% for two statewide offices in 2000, so was last a qualified party in Washington for the period 2000-2004. When the top-two law went into effect, parties no longer had nominees for any office other than president, so the vote test became limited to just president.
Having qualified status would have no effect on Washington state elections for Congress and state office, but it would eliminate the need for the Libertarian Party to petition for president in 2020. If the Libertarian Party does get 5% for president in 2016, it would then be a qualified party in every state in the western half of the country.
Richard, could you post a table of where parties are qualified in every state so it’s easier to know where they are qualified?
I have two questions:
First, related to this, Dave Leip’s website shows Johnson with 159,614 votes, as you report, but his percentage is 4.87%. The difference is that write ins are added to the denominator, which obviously reduces his percentage. I assume that Washington’s ballot access law doesn’t include write in votes in this calculation, correct?
Second, related to this, I see that the party is automatically ballot qualified in many states, but in some cases, it’s 2018 only and in others, it’s 2018 and 2020. Would you be able to compile a list of which states are 2018 only, which are both, and which still require petitioning for 2018. In Virginia and New Jersey, governors are elected in 2017, and I assume that petitioning will be required in both states for those gubernatorial elections.
One final comment: How do you define “Western half” of the country? If you mean “West of the Mississippi River”, I believe that Minnesota would be off of this list for the Liberarian party as well.
I know that there is a petition requirement to place candidates on the ballot in Washington, but it is pretty easy, as it only takes 1,000 valid signatures to place a presidential candidate on the ballot (I’ve always heard that the LP has been able to knock out these petition drives in Washington using all volunteer signature gatherers).
If the Libertarian Party gains party status in Washington via the presidential vote test of 5% in that state, does this mean that the party will be able to place all of its candidates on the ballot in Washington without having to collect petition signatures, and if so, would this just be for the 2018 election, or would this be for the 2018 and the 2020 elections?
The Libertarian party should run a multi billionaire in 2020.Someone that will rebuild the economy thru the free market .
“The Libertarian party should run a multi billionaire in 2020.Someone that will rebuild the economy thru the free market .”
If you can find one that is actually a libertarian and who wants to run that would be great. Let us know who you recruit that fits this criteria.
from the Washington statutes-
RCW 29A.04.086
Major political party.
“Major political party” means a political party whose nominees for president and vice president received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last presidential election. A political party qualifying as a major political party under this section retains such status until the next presidential election at which the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party do not achieve at least five percent of the vote.
If the inclusion of write-in votes ends up costing the party this ballot access threshold, I would note that Washington is one of the states where Perry’s protest bid filed a declaration of write-in candidacy.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/candidates/2016-Write-in-Presidental.pdf
Peter Schiff fits the criteria.He is the only one well worth running.Hes wealthy and sophisticated.Hes my hero and inspiration.
Jill Stein is raising money for a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I believe she should consider raising funds for a recount in Texas. If she can avoid a ballot access campaign in Texas, it might be worth it.
The statute above does not say whether or not major party candidates have to collect petition signatures to be placed on the ballot.
There are several states where even Democrat and Republican candidates have to gather petition signatures to get on primary ballots.
Can anyone out there answer this question about Washington?
Peter Schiff is not even close to being a billionaire. His net worth is listed at $70 million.
I think he’s good for the most part, but I have heard him make some statements that would cause me to question where he stands on foreign policy before I would support him for President. Peter Schiff has also made statements in the past that running as a Libertarian Party candidate is a waste of time and that Libertarians should run as Republicans.
When was the last report of the 2012 Prez stats done ???
One more giant reason to END so-called *provisional* ballots.
How many brain cells are needed to have a person register by some DEADLINE before an election day – at least 28 days so there is SOME check on the legal status and residence of such person ???
Of course, the top Donkey communists want everybody (citizens and non citizens, age 0 to 200) getting ballots every second and voting for Donkey communists 24/7 forever.
Washington statute does not require tallying of write-in votes for an office, unless it could affect who is elected. It does require the total amount to be counted. But the statutes specifically state that it is a “write-in votes cast” that are not tallied. IOW, a “write-in vote” is a “vote cast”.
Washington also does not require declaration of write-in candidacy. All the declaration ensure is a greater likelihood that a write-in vote cast in an irregular fashion will be counted. But since Washington uses paper ballots and there is a write-in space for each office, there in general will be little question that a vote in the correct space is a write-in vote for the office of President, particularly if the bubble is marked.
There might be some ambiguity about [X] Cthulhu or [X} Meteor or [X] None of the Above or [X} Abstain.
[X] Bernie Sanders or [X} Bernard Sanders or [X] Sen. Sanders (I-VT) are probably valid. But what about [X] Sanders or [X} Sanders (D-VT)? Who is this “Sanders”?
A reasonable inference would be that the voter intended to vote for that white-haired fellow from Vermont. But can intent be inferred?
I suspect that the SOS has rule-making authority to determine how many votes were cast for President. Such regulations may already exist, since Washington has a 2% threshold to qualify for nomination under the Top 2 primary.
Washington has counted 3,345,687 ballots. The difference between this number and the total votes cast for on-ballot candidates for president is about 152,733. This is about 4.56% of the ballots cast. Some of these may be voters who skipped the race, but many are write-ins. In Washington it is physically simple to cast a write-in vote since paper ballots are used, and voters have plenty of time to write-in a name. If all of them are write-ins, Johnson’s support drops to 4.78%.
If the Libertarian Party does qualify as a Major Political Party, then:
(1) Presidential Preference Primary. Washington does not have party registration, but for the presidential preference primary, voters must indicate which party primary they are participating in on the security envelope. The ballot is then pulled from the security sleeve. I suspect that a vote cast in the wrong primary is considered a non-vote. The parties are provided with lists of those who voted in their presidential primary.
(2) Washington statute does not say how political parties use votes cast in a presidential primary. In 2016, Democrats ignored the result from the May presidential primary, and chose their national delegates based on conventions held in March.
(3) Help set the date for the presidential preference primary. State law sets the presidential primary date in May, but permits a committee comprised of the SOS, majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate; and two leaders of each major political party to set an alternative date. This requires a 2/3 vote. In 2015, a committee comprised of 5 Republicans (including the SOS) and 4 Democrats failed on a 5-4 vote to set a March date. Addition of two Libertarian members would not change a result since 7:4 is still less than 2/3.
(4) Automatic qualification of presidential candidate. Independent and minor party candidates require 1,000 convention attendees, at conventions of at least 100 participants. But conventions can be like:
“Would you like to attend a nominating convention for Bloggs?”
“When is it, what do I have to do?”
“It is now, sign this piece of paper.”
“Is it a petition?”
“No, it is a roster of convention attendees”.
[Signs paper]
“How long do I have to stay?”
“You can leave now”
(5) Election of Precinct Committee Officers (PCO). The Washington Constitution provides a role for political parties in filling vacancies in the legislature and partisan local offices. PCO are elected at the primary in even numbered years. Since there is no party registration, and primaries are otherwise Top 2, a vote for a PCO candidate of a given political party, is considered to be affiliation with a party. Washington does not permit write-in votes for PCO.
Court rulings with regard to regulation of party matters by States might not apply in the case of PCO, since they are acting in a state capacity. A party might well be able to disregard the PCO in general governance of the party. Vacancies in PCO, include failure to elect can be filled by appointment. Since the Libertarians will have failed to elect PCO at the 2016 primary, they could appoint them (or not, since they may not have any vacancies to fill).
(6) Appointment of observers for vote counting. In some States, major parties have certain rights associated with appointment of election judges. Since Washington does not have polling places, this does not have any meaning. Major Political Parties, have a right to have observers at vote counting, and the county auditors must request lists of potential observers from the major parties.
(7) Political parties have nothing to do with other elections for partisan office since they are conducted by Top 2. An expression of political party preference by a candidate is a personal political belief, and does not have to be for any organized party. It is essentially a write-in vote when the candidate files.
One could plausibly say that all presidential write-ins in Washington state are invalid votes and shouldn’t be counted, because there is no slate of presidential elector candidates associated with them. Also Washington state official election returns in November for president usually include no write-ins. The state traditionally doesn’t tally them.
It is not by tradition. It is according to state statute. State statute says that write-in votes are valid votes, but are not tallied to individual candidates if it could not affect the result.
I’m sure you recall when Linda Smith was nominated in 1994.
Incidentally, it appears that write-in votes will have to be tallied in the State Treasurer’s race.
“Incidentally, it appears that write-in votes will have to be tallied in the State Treasurer’s race.”
Are write-in votes for a ballot-listed candidate valid? If not, then there’s no way they affect the result even if the total number of write-ins is greater than the D-R margin. Only way it would matter is if they somehow add to the 1st or 2nd place candidate’s total.
As usual — see 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 regarding write-ins.
“One could plausibly say that all presidential write-ins in Washington state are invalid votes and shouldn’t be counted, because there is no slate of presidential elector candidates associated with them.”
I think this a serious deficiency with many state’s write-in laws for presidential candidates. In particular, it’s a federal constitutional flaw.
Article II: “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
3 U.S. Code § 1: “The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”
The states *have* to choose their electors on Election Day. The time it takes to tabulate the votes might take longer than that; but that’s simply a delay in knowing what decision was actually made on the specified day in November.
If a state has a system that says “a write-in candidate can win on Election Day; and then appoint their electors some time after that” … then the electors are not being lawfully appointed on the specified uniform day nationwide.
@Andy Craig,
There is an assumption under Washington election law that undervotes, overvotes, and write-in votes might be valid votes.
For example, an apparent undervote might actually be a vote where a voter failed to fill an oval sufficiently, or didn’t fill the write-in oval and wrote-in the name of an on-ballot candidate:
[.] Trump instead of [X} Trump or [#] Trump
or Write-In: [ ] TRUMP
An overvote might be clearly a vote for one candidate:
[NOT] Clinton
[X] Trump
or a case where a voter overvoted by voting both for the candidate and as a write-in candidate.
[X] Trump
Write In: [X} TRUMP
A write-in vote might be for an on-ballot candidate.
The State Treasurers race is between two candidates who prefer the Republican Party, and the current results are
Davidson 1573K
Waite 1132K
Total Ballots: 3355K
This means that 650K are either write-in votes, undervotes, or overvotes.
We can’t be sure that enough of those 650K ballots were not actually votes for Waite, without carefully examining them.
Much of the details of the actual statute result from the extremely close 2004 gubernatorial election.
==========
In Washington, all write-in votes are valid (with the possible exception of write-in votes which are not for an individual, or not for an eligible individual). Washington permits declarations of write-in candidacy but doesn’t require them. If there is a declaration, a write-in vote is valid even if it is not in the right place on the ballot. If there is not a declaration, the voter must clearly indicate the office, and who they are voting for.
A vote for “Craig” might be for any number of persons, and possibly not even for President.
@Andy Craig,
But see also 3 U.S. Code § 2
“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”
First, the US Constitution differentiates between the time for appointment of electors and the date on which they cast their votes.
At one time, States were required to make the appointment by popular election (or other method) in November, with votes cast on a specific date in December.
In 1845, Congress set a uniform date for appointing electors as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. They also made specific provision for States that required majority election of electors (and which was used in 1848 by Massachusetts, and 1860 by Georgia). That provision is now embodied in 3 USC § 2.
The Libertarian party may not receivey support again.For various reasons.
According to this article, Washington has certified the result and declared the LP a major party:
http://www.kxro.com/general-election-results-certified/
Why have the votes in “all” of the precincts in Washington State not been counted yet? It is now December 2nd. I smell a rat. All votes should be counted. As of yet, only 91.3% are reported. One would think they should all be in by now.