On December 31, U.S. District Court Lance E. Walker issued an order in Baines v Bellows, 1:19cv-509. The order puts the Libertarian Party on the ballot for the 2022 election. It allows Libertarians who want to get on the June Libertarian primary ballot to collect nomination signatures from independent voters as well as Libertarian registrants.
Primary petitions require 2,000 signatures for Governor, so it still won’t be easy for Libertarians to get on the Libertarian primary ballot for Governor, because the only voters who can sign will be about one-third of the electorate. U.S. House candidates need 1,000 signatures. But it will be easy for Libertarians running for the legislature to get on the Libertarian primary ballot, because State Senate candidates need 100 signatures and State House candidates need 25.
Maine doesn’t have a U.S. Senate election in 2022, and doesn’t elect any statewide officers other than Governor.
The order does not apply to the Green Party, because the Green Party was not a plaintiff nor an intervenor in the lawsuit. It seems somewhat likely that the Secretary of State will extend this relief on primary petitions to the Green Party. If not, presumably the Green Party will sue.
The order also instructs election officials to contact all voters who were registered Libertarians in 2018, and who were converted to independents when the party went off the ballot. The postal letter will explain that the voter had been unlawfully converted from a Libertarian to an independent, and will ask that voter to return a postage-paid form if the voter wants to regain membership in the Libertarian Party.
The Secretary of State is not required to reprint any voter registration forms to list the party as a choice. But whenever the Secretary prints new cards, they must include the Libertarian Party. The Secretary of State’s on-line registration form will be immediately changed to list the Libertarians as a choice.
Great news!
It’s good to see a ballot access victory for both minor parties and free and fair elections in general.
INDIVIDUAL candidates are nominated / elected — NOT *parties*.
What hoops does the LP of Maine have to jump through in order to remain a ballot qualified party for the 2024 election?
How many of these postcards will get lost in the mail? How many will not be returned out of forgetfulness or nihilism? This is an affront to the diversity of voices in American politics. Why can’t the state just… restore the database to the point before, and then send a letter telling people what happened and they if they want to be independent, they’ll need to change their party affirmatively?
In user experience design, we call this a dark pattern. It’s corruption, a misalignment of incentives between the system owner and the system user.
The LP of Maine will now have to spend _more_ money to reclaim its membership because individual voters generally don’t understand the ramifications of registration numbers. (I can’t pretend to understand what they mean across all 50 states because they’re not uniformly treated. I know PA pretty well and I’ve picked up on a few states, notably Maine, over time.)
This is the kind of economic violence that minority parties have to endure. Callous half-measures when they’ve been wronged because the cost of true restoration is deemed too great by the authorities, and those authorities are closely affiliated with those who wronged them.
Andy, the judge said the question of 2024 is not decided yet, and the case will remain open for possible future orders.
Independents can not sign party petitions, but Maine permits voters to change their enrollment. So long as the registration update is signed before the petition AND the registration card is delivered to election officials, before the petition, the petition signature is valid.
The problem in Maine is that in most districts there are not enough registered Libertarians to qualify a candidate. It may be easier to get independents to sign, than to locate Libertarian registrants. An inordinate share of Libertarian voters only signed up as “Libertarian” is because the form did not have Cool Moose or UCES Clown options.
It would be better to eliminate party nominations, and let candidates qualify as individuals.
Congratulations to the Libertarian Party and the voters of Maine as this is an excellent court order.
What if anything did Maine’s use of ranked-choice, instant runoff voting have to do with this?
Maine has ranked choice voting for federal primaries, state office primaries, and federal office general elections. But it doesn’t have ranked choice voting for state office general elections. This is because of a ruling by the State Supreme Court a few years ago that says for state office in general elections, the state constitution doesn’t permit ranked choice voting.
Nothing was said about Maine’s ranked choice voting in the Libertarian Party lawsuit.
The Democrats in the legislature would like to pass a constitutional amendment to allow ranked choice voting for general elections for state office, but they can’t get the needed two-thirds because Maine Republican legislators are mostly hostile to ranked choice voting, even though the people of Maine have voted for it twice.
If a Libertarian did qualify for the ballot, the primary would be by RCV.
I think it was Joseph Stalin who said, “it is as easy as One.”
If Maine would eliminate segregated partisan primaries, then RCV could be used in an open primary with the Top 2 advancing to the general election. This would comply with the state constitution, eliminate the need for the state to maintain records of the political beliefs of its citizens (I would think libertarians would favor that, though perhaps not LP officers), as well as any need to qualify for state funding.
Why would libertarians favor not having their candidates advance to the general election?
@P,
Why would they favor not having any candidate?
They wouldn’t. They would favor being able to participate in the general election, which doesn’t happen with top two. They would also favor the ability to communicate to their would be voters which names on the ballot are libertarians, since the Democrats and Republicans have a lot more money and media coverage to do that with. And, they would want to have the freedom of association and dissociation that would allow them to preclude, for example, communists or Nazis from running as libertarians. If no such freedom of association or disassociation exists, the ballot label doesn’t actually communicate anything.
@P,
Maine makes it almost impossible for Libertarian candidates to qualify for the primary, thus they almost never appear on the general election ballot.
Maine House districts are quite small and it is actually possible to campaign door-to-door. Independents are actually elected.
They should make it easier to qualify for the primary, or just let them nominate by convention like most states.
@P,
The state presumably wants to make sure enrolled members choose the nominees.
If you eliminate partisan nominations, political clubs can still organize to promote candidates just like they did before the Australian ballot.
If you eliminate parties on the ballot, they’re still going to exist behind the scenes, like in most municipalities’ elections. Given that door to door doesn’t work at the state or national level, establishment parties will have more of an advantage than now if no party labels are on the ballot. That’s even more the case when top two keeps everyone other than top Republicans and Democrats out of the general election.
@P,
Party labels may exist without nominations. Maine permits independents to include a party designation. If all candidates were running as independents, then the signature requirements could be the same as for primary candidates but without the restriction of party enrollment.
If all candidates were running as independents, party labels would become meaningless, especially those without a lot of money and other resources behind them.
Is “P” for Paul?
Penelope. Jim Riley shortened it to P for me.
Lol. Another reiteration of the cyberpig drag show.
Huh? You’re rude. Go away.
(((Penelope)))
???
I don’t understand what you are babbling about. Pretty please, go away?
@P,
Jo Jorgenson ran as an independent candidate for president in Maine. She used the description of “Libertarian”. Other independent candidates used Alliance Party”, “Common Sense Independent”, “For the People”, “Independent For Maine”, “Piscataquis Independent”, “Preferred Candidate – Independent”, “Independent Unenrolled”, “Unenrolled Independent”, and “Unenrolled”. Two ran as (blank). Many did run as “Independent”. If all candidates ran as an independent, some might choose “Democratic”, “Republican”, or something else.
I’m not sure how that answers anything I said. What’s to prevent Nazis and communists from running as libertarians?
@P,
Now that unenrolled voters can sign candidate petitions it is more likely that Nazis and communists could run as Libertarians. Any Nazis or communists in Maine are likely unenrolled so as to hide their true beliefs. Now they might gain access to the primary ballot and be nominated.
There was a Larouchite who was nominated in a Democratic primary in Texas who campaigned advocating impeachment of President Obama.
Where all candidates qualify as individuals it is unlikely that any Nazis or communists would choose “Libertarian”.
Again, that’s why they should allow nomination by convention like most states do.
@P,
If there are no state-recognizec nominations, cubs such as the Bangor Garden Club or Maine Libertarian Party could hold meetings and decide which candidates they wish to support. If they like they could call these meetings a convention. They could help fund raise, sign/circulate petitions, and campaign.
Or groups could organize on an ad hoc basis to support an independent candidate.
Why should the government be involved in these meeting? Why should the government keep records of the political beliefs and activities of its citizens?
The only records it should keep are what clubs which petitioned their way on to be recognized parties nominate. Those should appear as their candidates on the general election ballot, with their party label. Anything else gives a bigger advantage to incumbents and establishment parties and wealthy, well connected, mainstream candidates. They have too big of an advantage as it is already.
@P,
If individual candidates petition, there is no need to maintain records of political clubs from previous elections (other than perhsps for campaign finance reporting).
How does the state of Maine determine whether the Bangor Garden Club or Maine Libertarian Party is the same organization? You are interfering with free speech. “This political club in the past has demonstrated a modficum of support, and is therefore entitled to continue.”
Sorry, I don’t see how meeting objective standards for past support, party petition, etc, violates free speech. I do see how forcing individual third party candidates to qualify for each election and leaving off their party label, or allowing it to become meaningless through lack of freedom of dissociation, disadvantages third parties and their candidates as well as lesser known, less well financed major party candidates who may have outlier ideas.
On the surface it may sound fair, but behind the scenes it’s anything but. Those incumbents and well financed, well known and well connected candidates have inherent advantages which party qualification and ballot labels with freedom of dissociation help to some degree to balance for. Otherwise, incumbents and establishment candidates get an even bigger advantage than now, and new and different ideas are shut out even more – the opposite of what we need.
@P,
All candidates would have to qualify each election. There will not be high barriers because the incumbents will have to qualify. They are not interested in making it harder to qualify, they are interested in making it harder for others to qualify.
Partisan nominations corral voters into associating with the dominant parties.
“I’d like to vote.”
“Are you a Democrat or a Republican?”
‘Neither”
“You can’t vote”
Voter either sulks away or declares that they are a Demo/Rep. If they protest too vociferously they may be snarkily informed that their party has a convention or perhaps that they are “unqualified.”
By requiring and recognizing political parties, the state is establishing a state orthodoxy, where some parties are elevated above others.
It is naive to believe that party qualification balances inherent advantages of incumbency and finsncial advantages.
Under your system, how does the government know that the Libertarian Party has not been taken over by communists or Nazis? Should it even care?
By