Minnesota law requires independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, to obtain signatures on a state form that says the signers “do not intend to vote” in the upcoming primary. On August 21, the Minnesota Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against that language. Libertarian Party of Minnesota v Choi, 0:19cv-2312. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge David S. Doty, a Reagan appointee. Here is the Complaint.
The law is especially senseless in the case of presidential petitions. Minnesota’s next presidential primary will be held on March 3, 2020. The petition for presidential candidates in the general election can only be circulated in the period May through August 18. The 2020 primary is over by then, so the language literally seems to refer to the 2024 presidential primaries, although no one thinks that is what it really means.
The lawsuit asks for relief for petitions for all office, not just president. Petitions for office other than president must be circulated in a two-week period in May, and the Minnesota primary for other office is in August. It seems unreasonable to expect any voter to know in May whether he or she will be voting in the August primary, before the list of candidates running in the August primary is known.
Minnesota statute 204B.07 provides that the signer swear that they won’t vote for that office in the upcoming primary. Minnesota has anonymous party affiliation, so 204B.07 is non-enforceable for non-presidential primaries.
The Minnesota presidential primaries do require public affiliation, an requirement insisted upon by the Demo-Rep segregationists. Before Minnesota had a presidential primary, 204B.07 really did not provide a problem.
The fundamental conflict is the use of segregated partisan nominating primaries. If all candidates qualify for a ballot with the same standards (deadlines, petition and/or filing fee requirements), the conflict disappears.
This would generally provide easier qualification for independent and 3rd party candidates. The Demo-Reps insert barriers to outsiders – easy for us hard for you.
This would also eliminate most if not at all state interference in internal matters of political parties.
Minnesota should switch to Top 2.
We know, you are obsessed with Top 2. You hate choice, we get it. You are almost as much of a spammer as Ogle.
The ANTI-Democracy gerrymander oligarchs in ALL/MOST States give no/minimal attention to minor parties and independents regarding partisan offices —
thus — the UNEQUAL chaos laws/regs regarding such minor parties and independents.
ANY brain cells in the MN LP lawyer able to detect EQUAL in 14-1 ???
—
NOOOOO primaries.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
@me,
You appear not to comprehend what is being chosen.
In a representative form of government the People choose their officers.
Under Top 2, ALL choices are presented to ALL voters, and each votes for their preferred choice. The two with the most support advance to a second round, where ALL voters make the final choice.
I do comprehend. Top 2 kills third parties.
You would love Cuban elections.
@me,
A Green Party candidate was elected to the Minneapolis city coucil when they used Top 2.
Segregated partisan nomination which you apparently favor ensures that 3rd parties are compartmentalized and effectively excluded.
Top 2 winnows the choices, virtually always eliminating alternative party and Independent options when each establishment party is represented, in a primary. For general elections that primary takes place before the real election day when the largest number of voters go to the polls. Thus, Top 2 effectively disenfranchises the vast majority of alternative party voters who show up on the real election day in November only to find that they may only choose from two establishment party candidates(often both from the same establishment party, meaning the other establishment party voters are also left out in the cold).
Anybody who doesn’t have a Top 2 fetish can see that it harms alternative parties simply by looking at how often it prevents alternative party candidates from advancing when there are candidates from both establishment parties.
Wow, one person was elected. Far more have been elected without Top 2. You just hate people having choices.
Again, you would love Cuban elections.
Top One… there’s the ticket! It worked so well in Soviet Russia. Very effective and far less confusing that the bogus Top Two crappola! Get with the program, Jimbo.
Jim always fuzzes over the point that his much-loved “first round” is not an election. No one can be elected in the “first round”, so the very term is misleading. It is just a ballot access barrier for the election itself.
Jim, just repeating that you like top-two does not persuade anyone. Why not tell us why you like it? Give us some personal background about yourself. What are your policy goals, and does top-two advance those goals? What is your attitude toward the nation’s third parties? Do you want them to disappear? Are you opposed to the very existence of political parties? Why not expand your thoughts and help us to understand you.
Top 2 in RED CA –
more NON-votes in general elections due to 2 D or 2 R in gerrymander districts.
Thus – Top 2 – DEFECTIVE — like RCV, NPV, etc. schemes/*fixes*.
Basic math MORONS totally clueless about 3 plus choices math —
akin to the morons in 1986 Chernobyl pulling out nuke safety rods.
—
PR and Appv – pending Condorcet — and TOTSOP
@RW,
I loathe segregated partisan nominating primaries, and any lover of freedom should also. ALL voters should be able to choose among ALL candidates.
You have never explained to me why you can encourage someone to run for office, provide financial or other campaign support, display yard signs and bumper stickers, block walk, etc. and yet not be able to legally vote for them. Why?
Any possible solution requires candidates qualifying as individuals. I would let any candidate who demonstrates the support of 0.1% of the previous gubernatorial election qualify by the ballot. This would best be done by having the supporters appear at courthouses to be counted.
Top 2 is the easiest transition from the current system. It keeps the primary, and provides for a second chance for voters to evaluate the leaders.
I am indifferent to whether candidates bear party labels. As you know, British ballots until recently did not have party labels. You would have to be naive to believe they were not partisan elections.
I’m not expecting any electoral system to produce better legislators.
You insistence on labelling each stage of a single election process as separate is quite silly. Reread Smith v Allwright and Terry v Adams.
@CP,
Perhaps there could be training classes for politicians that it is OK to encourage people to vote in a primary. I am not averse to permitting election in the first stage by majority.
When California had the blanket primary (1998 and 2000), and there was only one candidate from each party, the results from the primary and the general election were almost identical. The percentage of D, R, L, G, N, etc. was the same. The voters in the primary were distributed about the same, only smaller in number.
If you were running in a non-partisan election, and did not advance to the general election, or a runoff, is that because of your political views, or because of lack of popular support for your candidacy?
Jim,
The answer to your concern would be to eliminate the state-funded primary altogether and simply have the real election with all the candidates on the recognized general election day, not rejigger a bad idea to make it a bad idea that suits your prejudices.
Jim, if you don’t care about parties and you have a great attachment to a particular candidate, why not just choose the primary ballot that the candidate is running in and vote for him or her?
@RW,
What if I want to be able to vote for my county elected officials and everyone runs in one primary, but wanted to support a candidate of different party for Congress? What if my state senate district is dominated by one party, and the congressional district by another, such that no one will challenge an incumbent. The only time there is a contest is when the seat is open. What if both are open at the same election? Do I have to sacrifice the right to vote in one in order to vote in the other. Remember the franchise for congressional elections is that for legislative elections. If voting for a legislator means that I can not vote for Congress isn’t that a violation of the constitution?
What if I want to sign a petition for Kinky Friedman or Carole of the Many Names. Why must I forrfeit the right to vote in a primary?
@CP,
It sounds like you are seeking privileges for certain groups. There is nothing in Top 2 that prevents a “party” from recruiting candidates and assisting the individual candidates to qualify.
It also sounds like you don’t care about majority election.
There is no such thing as a recognized general election day, or if there is it has no more recognition than the primary election day.
JR- How many State Consts SPECIFY THE General Election Day [to NOT permit gerrymander hacks rigging such day] [even with the USA Cong election day – mere law in 2 US Code] —
with all sorts of other events related to such Day ???
esp Term starting times and effective days for voter approved Const amdts and laws.
@DR,
The Texas Constitution does not set a date for elections, and for that matter does not set the beginning of terms for the legislature or the executive.
Jim,
Federal law sets “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November” as the day to choose presidential electors. That rapidly became the election day for Congress and state level offices all across the country and it’s been that way since long before the state-printed ballot. You know this are seeking to use a lack of specific technical language to ignore the obvious. Stating Texas does not set a date does not negate the fact that they use the same day for general elections as everyone else.
As far as seeking privileges, I have always opposed state-funded primaries and fully favor the use of ranked choice voting or approval voting in order to ensure that election winners are required to obtain a majority. What things sound like to you in your world where a minority of voters get to decide the choices for the majority in a Top 2 primary doesn’t jibe with the reality that the largest number of people will vote in November.
JR – Why does Texas even have a so-called Const – since 1836-1845 ???
— quite akin to the 1066 Brit regime having NO written const.
@ Jim Riley
Speaking of districts heavily dominated by one party, what do you make of the situations in California where the Democrats may dominate a district and maybe 10 Democrats run for it, but only 2 Republican candidates run and the Democratic vote is so evenly split in the primary that both Republicans end up advancing to the general?
And speaking of violations of the Constitution, why isn’t denying a party the right to nominate by convention a violation of freedom of association and freedom of speech? Because if strippers are protected by the first amendment, I’d think a party choosing its candidates ought to be as well.
@CP,
The uniform appointment date for presidential electors was established in the 1840s. That was not really remarkable since the Constitution permitted Congress to set the meeting date for electors, and Congress has to actually count the electoral votes, and in some cases chose the President (as happened in 1801 and 1829). Initially, it was intended that Congress should choose from among the Top 5 – that is with 13 or more uncoordinated states that votes would be we widely scattered. After the first presidential election in 1789, it was realized it was a bad idea for Congress to formally choose the president after his term began.
So Congress established that they would count the electoral votes in January, which meant that the electors would meet in December in their respective states, giving time for the votes to be sent by horseback or stage to the capital. The electors were appointed in November. By the 1840’s most electors were popularly elected. This meant that the votes had to canvassed, the electors notified of their election, and travel to the meeting place. States practically had to hold elections early in November. The uniform date was set to prevent voters moving from state to state to vote in multiple elections. There was not registration, so a person could show up and say he lived there. The odd construction of the first Tuesday after the first Monday provides a uniform period from elector meeting date.
November was a horrible date for congressional elections. The second session would meet in December. So representatives defeated in November would go to Washington and pass laws. The newly elected representatives would usually not have to show up until the following December. House elections were spread out over two years, senate elections would happen when the legislature would be in session.
After the Civil War, the northern hegemons set the uniform house election date to the FTATFMIN. They wanted to keep the southern states under control. November was still a horrible date, and they had to fix that by the 20th Amendment, 60 years later. States were slow to come in line. The November date was not actually uniform until 1960.
Newer states were under federal territorial control, and Congress mandated the federal schedule.
Personally, I think it should be illegal to conduct federal and state elections on the same day.
But states can resist by holding primaries on different days. When the Democratic party was dominant in the South, turnout was higher in the Democratic primary than in the November election, because it was decisive. November might be the de jure “real” election, while the de facto “real” election was earlier. See Smith v Allwright.
In 1962 when the great Henry Bellmon was elected governor, turnout in the Democratic primary was 9 times that of the Republican primary.
Voters don’t understand RCV, and are unwilling or unable to rank contenders. A second round gives voters an opportunity to evaluate the leading candidates. Eliminated candidates can endorse other candidates.
Have you actually looked at the results from the California blanket primary in 1998 and 2000? Though the turnout was less in the primary than the November election the results were essentially the same. The primary voters were in effect a subsample of the November voters, only slightly more Republican. Labor unions deliberately target voters in a Democratic primary. If you have an organized group voting 80% or 90% for one candidate they can easily determine the result of the vote, if the remainder of the electorate is more equivocal.
So GOTV is targetted in a Democratic primary, and then in the general election all Dem voters are encouraged to vote.
@DR,
I don’t understand what your point is with regard to the constitution.
@Jim,
I could see letting N candidates advance where they are the smallest number of candidates such that their share of the popular vote is N/(N+1)
1 would advance (be elected) if he received over 1/2 the vote,
2 would advance if they received 2/3 or more of the vote,
3 would advance if they received 3/4 or more of the vote, etc.
This could continue for multiple rounds, though candidates would have the option of withdrawing. Perhaps there should be ballot access barriers when too many candidates qualify (say 10 or more).
Voters are free to associate in political parties (or ad hoc groups) to recruit and support candidates. They could hold meetings or conventions. No need to regulate those, unless for campaign finance reasons.
My favored method of ballot qualification is 0.1% of the gubernatorial vote appearing in person at courthouses. This would typically be 1000s for statewide election. It would take some organization to do this. Political parties might perform that function.
How many State Consts specify —
1. Who is an Elector-Voter
2. Elected Officer qualifications
3. General Election dates
4. Term starting dates
BASIC Democracy stuff – to NOT have gerrymander oligarchs rig elections even worse.
—
The USA Nov election day was due in part to the USA regime was set to meet 4 Mar 1789 —
one of the last acts of the zombie 1781-1789 olde Congress under the 1777 Art. Confed. —
after the first 9 States ratified the USA Const via Art VII in 1787-1788.
Holding ANY election was a major effort in the early then mostly rural States.
Why should some voters be able to censor the choices available to all other voters in any election? All ballot access laws censor voters. An open all write-in ballot enables each voter to have maximum choice.
“I don’t understand what your point is with regard to the constitution.” – Jim Riley to Demo Rep
That’s okay, Jim. Neither does he!