ALASKA LEGISLATURE EASES DEFINITION OF A QUALIFIED POLITICAL PARTY

On May 17, the Alaska House passed SB 161, which substantially eases the definition of a qualified party. The bill had already passed the State Senate. Governor Mike Dunleavy is expected to sign it, after he receives it. As of May 27, the legislative clerk still hasn’t sent the bill to him.

The bill says a party is a group with 5,000 registered members. The existing law requires it to have membership equal to 3% of the last vote cast, currently 10,821.

The immediate effect is to restore the Libertarian Party, which has not been a qualified party in Alaska since November 2018. It currently has 6,842 members. The Green Party has 1,490; the Constitution Party has 710.

Other than Alaska, the only other state in the thirteen western states in which the Libertarians had not been qualified is Washington.

The advantages of being a qualified party are: (1) the party can place its presidential nominee on the ballot with no petition; (2) the party is listed on the voter registration form; (3) the party can have election observers at counting centers and at the polls; (4) the party can purchase one or two pages in the Official Election Pamphlet, which is mailed to all voters; (5) various campaign finance advantages. Unfortunately, because the voters passed a top-four initiative in 2020, there are no more party nominees for congress or state office, so just being a qualified party doesn’t mean the party appears on the November ballot for those offices.

There are thirteen states that use registration data to determine party status.

The chart shows the current law as a percentage of the number of registered voters (for Alaska, this assumes the bill will be signed). Maine requires 5,000 members for the party’s first two elections, but afterwards says it needs 10,000; the chart for Maine shows the easier of the two numbers.

Colorado	.02%
Louisiana	.03%
Delaware	.10%
Oregon	.25%
California	.33%
Maine	.45%
Arizona	.67%
Nebraska	.81%
Alaska	.85%
Maryland	1.00%
Massachusetts	1.00%
Nevada	1.00%
Pennsylvania	15.00%

The new law is not easy, but is the easiest since 1953, when the territorial legislature defined a party as a group that had polled 10% of the vote. Before 1953 any party could be on the ballot just by request. In 1983 the State Supreme Court struck down the 10% vote test, and the legislature changed it to 3% of the vote. In 1997 it added the 3% registration alternative. The vote test was abolished in 2020, leaving only the registration test.

The Libertarian Party has been working to ease the definition of a party for years. Bills to reduce the number of registered voters were introduced in 2008, 2010, and 2011, but none of them passed.

On May 3, U.S. District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan enjoined the New York law that bans out-of-state petitioners. Schmidt v Kosinski, e.d., 1:22cv-2210. The judge issued the order one day after the oral argument. This is a Libertarian Party lawsuit.

On May 24, the Arizona State Appeals Court struck down the law that bans paying initiative petitioners on a per-signature basis. Arizona Petition Partners v Thompson, 1 CA-SA 21-0170. The decision says the law might be constitutional if it didn’t have such draconian criminal penalties, and also if it clearly permitted bonuses. The law provides prison terms for petitioners who disobey, and for individuals who make the payments.

On May 25, the Arizona legislature passed SB 1460, which legalizes electronic signatures for independent candidates. The existing law only permits electronic signatures for candidates running in a primary. Assuming the Governor signs the bill, the Arizona policy will still be discriminatory, because it still won’t allow electronic signatures for petitions to recognize a new party.

Arizona: on May 9, the State Supreme Court issued a decision in Hansen v Finchem, cv-22-0099. This is the lawsuit over whether challengers were entitled to an administrative hearing to argue that Congressmen Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs should be barred from the primary ballot, based on the "insurrection" language in the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that states can adjudicate qualifications that are rooted in state law, but can’t adjudicate qualifications that are based on federal law. No other court in any of these cases had come up with that conclusion. Neither side in the case had made that argument.

Georgia: on April 19, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a notice of appeal, asking the Eleventh Circuit to rule that the U.S. District Court decision which forced her to undergo an administrative hearing on her qualifications was mistaken. Greene v Raffensperger, 22-11299. The briefs will all have been filed by June 21. The hearing is likely in August.

North Carolina: on May 24, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Cawthorn v Amalfi, 22-1251. This is the qualifications lawsuit filed by Congressman Madison Cawthorn to stop an administrative hearing on whether he meets the qualifications. All three judges wrote separately. Judge Toby Heytens, a Biden appointee, who wrote for the Court, said that the U.S. District Court was wrong to have concluded that a 19^th century act of Congress gave everyone, past and future, a blanket amnesty to the "insurrection" part of the Fourteenth Amendment. He did not decide whether states can adjudicate qualifications for congressional candidates. Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, would have ruled that states can adjudicate qualifications. Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, would have ruled that states cannot adjudicate whether congressional candidates are qualified. Because Cawthorn was defeated in the May 17 primary, that will probably mean this case is over.

On April 27, the highest state court in New York, the Court of Appeals, invalidated the state’s new U.S. House district boundaries. Harkenrider v Hochul.

The decision was a surprise. The legislature’s plan was very favorable to the Democratic Party, and all the members of the court are Democratic appointees. Most observers expected the Court to uphold the legislature’s boundaries. The vote was 4-3.

The new districts were drawn by a court-appointed expert, and were approved on the evening of May 20. Also on May 20, Judge Patrick McAllister, the trial court judge in the Steuben County Supreme Court where the redistricting case had originated, refused to extend the deadline for petitions for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. This is grossly unfair, because the statewide petitions need the signatures of 500 voters in each of half the U.S. House districts. The petitions are due May 31.

The only precedent cited by Judge McAllister is the 2021 U.S. District Court decision upholding the new, higher signature requirements. That case had nothing to do with a situation in which the districts change right in the middle of the petitiong period.

Judge McAllister was in such a rush to write his opinion, he mis-stated that precedent. He called it Libertarian Party of New York v New York State Board of Education, every time he mentioned it. Of course the Defendant was the New York State Board of Elections, not the Board of Education.

Worse, he failed to mention any of the precedents from other states that when a petitioning period is shortened by late redistricting, the number of signatures must be reduced, or the deadline extended. Those precedents are listed in the May 1, 2022 B.A.N.

The case is being appealed.

On May 12, U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee, refused to enjoin the Tennessee Republican Party Bylaw that bars candidates from its primary if the candidate has not voted in three of the last four Republican primaries in the state. Newsom v Golden, m.d., 3:22cv-318.

The plaintiff-candidate, Robby Starbuck Newsom, was running for Congress. He can’t comply with the Republican Party rule because he hasn’t lived in Tennessee long enough. Therefore, the effect of the Republican Bylaw is to set up a duration of residency requirement to run for Congress, which states are not permitted to do. The judge faulted him for filing his lawsuit too late. He filed it on May 2 and the rule had been passed on April 19. The constitutionality of the Bylaw is still not settled, but on May 19, Newsom dismissed his lawsuit, so the issue won’t be settled in this case.

The deadline for the Georgia Libertarian Party to file its cert petition is July 29. Cowen v Rafflesperger. This is the case over the petition for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House. Attempts will be made to obtain amici briefs from organizations that normally do not get involved with ballot access, such as Reason Foundation and the Institute for Free Speech.

The remaining Equal Protection part of the case won’t be dealt with until after the Supreme Court acts on the cert petition.

Montana: on May 17, the State Supreme Court decided Meyer v Jacobsen, 2022 Mt 93. It says that electronic signatures are not permitted for ballot access petitions. The case had been brought by John Meyer, who tried to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Attorney General in 2020.

Pennsylvania: on May 20, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Migliari v Lehigh County Board of Elections, 22-1499. It says postal ballots in which the voter forgot to include a date next to the voter’s signature on the outer envelope should be counted. The judges relied on a little-used part of the federal Voting Rights Act, the "materiality" provision. It says states may not deny "the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote in such election." This is a powerful law, formerly known as 42 U.S.C. 1971, but now as 52 U.S.C. 10101(c)(2)(B). The three judges are Theodore McKee and Joseph Greenaway (Clinton appointees), and Paul Matey (a Trump appointee).

On May 13, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed SF 108, which bans fusion, the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same person. South Carolina had been one of only three states with disaggregated fusion, where the voter can choose which party label to support. The others are Connecticut and New York. The other fusion states use the type in which a candidate has several party labels, but the ballot has only one place for a voter to vote for that candidate.

Maine: on May 9, LD 231 became law. It lets independent voters choose a partisan primary ballot, even if they don’t join that party at the polls on primary day. Governor Janet Mills refused to sign the bill, but she let it become law without her signature.

Missouri: none of the bills to make it more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot passed, and the legislature has now adjourned. On May 12, the legislature passed HB 1878, which eliminates presidential primaries. It also provides that the voter registration form should include a question asking the applicant to choose a party.

Vermont: on May 19, HB 744 took effect. Governor Phil Scott wouldn’t sign it, but he let it become law without his signature. It lets Burlington use Ranked Choice Voting for its city council races.

Libertarianism: John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s 50^th Anniversary, and Beyond, by thirty authors, edited by C. Ronald Kimberling and Stan Oliver, 400 pages.

John Hospers was a philosophy professor who wrote eight books, edited others, and wrote approximately 150 scholarly articles. He was an early leader of the Libertarian Party, and he wrote the Party’s first Statement of Principles. He also wrote Libertarianism, a Political Philosophy for Tomorrow. That was a scholarly book but it was also a campaign book, because Hospers was the first Libertarian Party presidential nominee. He died in 2011.

The editors of this book about libertarianism, the Libertarian Party, and John Hospers, started working on the project in 2017.

The goal was to complete it in time for the party’s 50^th anniversary in 2021. Many of the pieces are by academics; others are by friends of Hospers, journalists in libertarian publications, and leaders of the Libertarian Party from its earliest days to the current day.

The chapters are divided into five sections: (1) Appreciations of John Hospers; (2) Libertarianism in History; (3) Histories of the Libertarian Party; (4) Libertarian perspectives; (5) The Future of Libertarianism.

Disclosure: one of the chapters is by me, and makes the point that the Libertarian Party for the last 35 years has been the nation’s most active organization working for more lenient ballot access laws.

The charts below give an instance at which a state legislature eased a ballot access restriction concerning independent candidates or minor parties. Page four covers 1972-2022; page five covers 1922-1971.

The surprise in these charts is that in every calendar year 1969 through 2022, at least one such bill passed, excluding only 2008. There are many years in which several such bills passed. In those cases, the chart tries to list the most significant such bill.

The record of such improvements is much sparser for the years before 1969. The reason such bills pass is because active minor parties agitate for them. But during the period 1954-1967, the only minor parties that existed and regularly ran candidates were the Prohibition, Socialist Labor, and Socialist Workers Parties. They were so small, they were not effective in persuading legislatures to improve the laws, although the Prohibition Party had some success in California. Minor party activists work hard for these bills, and more effort would pay off to an even greater extent.

Year	Number	Description	Description of What Bill Did
2022	Alaska	SB 161	Eases number of members for a party from 10,821 to 5,000
2021	Maine	LD 1061	Eases number of members for a party and adds an alternative vote test
2020	Dist. Col.	B23-0751	Lowers petition for president from 5,500 to 500 signatures, for 2020 only
2019	Texas	HB 2504	Lowers vote test for party retention from 5% to 2%
2018	So. Dakota	HB 1286	Lowers petition for party from 6,936 to 2,775; deadline eased from March to July
2017	No. Car.	SB 656	Lowers petition for party from 94,221 to 11,778; eases how party stays on ballot
2016	Oklahoma	SB 896	Lowers vote test for party retention from 10% to 2.5%
2015	Oklahoma	HB 2181	Lowers petition for party from 66,744 to 24,745 signatures
2014	California	AB 2351	Eases number of members for a party from 103,004 to 58,195
2013	Virginia	SB 690	Lowers petition for president from 10,000 to 5,000 signatures
2012	Nebraska	LB 1035	Vote test for party retention only needs to be met every other election
2011	Arizona	HB 2304	Vote test for party retention only needs to be met every other election
2010	Colorado	HB 1271	Lets candidates run as independents even if they were party members in past year
2009	W Virginia	HB 2981	Lowers statewide petition from 14,268 to 7,134; deadline eased from May to August
2008	– – – –	– – – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
2007	Illinois	SB 662	Lowers independent petitions for legislature from 10% to 5%; eases deadline
2006	Arizona	SB 1041	Lowers petition for party from 30,580 to 20,449
2005	Kentucky	HB 141	No need for minor party & indp. candidates for fed. office to file declaration in April
2004	Louisiana	HB 1605	Eases number of registered voters for a party from 142,778 to 1,000
2003	N. Dakota	SB 2288	Expands petitioning period for new party petitions from three months to one year
2002	Michigan	HB 5237	Eases vote test for party retention from top-most office to any statewide office
2001	Minnesota	SF 9, spec.	Vote test for party retention only needs to be met every other election
2000	Arizona	SB 1372	Lets any registered voter sign for an independent, instead of only independent voters
1999	Montana	HB 585	Eases signatures for new party from 16,039 to 5,000
1998	Maryland	SB 123	Eases signatures for statewide candidates from 75,752 to 25,251
1997	Alaska	HB 112	Adds a registration method for a party to gain or keep qualified status
1996	N. Hamp.	HB 1161	Adds a party petition procedure for new parties in addition to candidate petitions
1995	Colorado	HB 1022	Independent & minor party presidential candidates need no petition, just a filing fee
1994	Conn.	RB 5528	Eases statewide independent & minor party candidate petition from 11,412 to 7,500
1993	Missouri	SB 31	Eases minor party and statewide independent petition from 20,860 to 10,000
1992	New York	SB 7922	Eases statewide independent & minor party candidate petition from 20,000 to 15,000
1991	New Mex.	HB 570	Eases statewide independent petition from 20,682 to 12,409
1990	Florida	SB 526	Allows new party to petition in a single district or county instead of statewide only
1989	Oregon	HB 2880	Eases vote test for party retention from 5% to 1%
1988	Mass.	SB 281	Eases minor party and independent petition deadline from May to late July
1987	Nevada	AB 184	Eases minor party petition and statewide independent from 12,862 to 7,717
1986	Georgia	SB 375	Eases vote test for parties from 20% to approximately 2%, for statewide status only
1985	Idaho	Chap. 42	Eases minor party petition from 12,355 to 8,223
1984	Kansas	Ch 137, 649	Eases minor party petition from 22,898 to 15,266
1983	New Mex.	Ch 258,1330	Eases minor party nominee petition from 12,224 to 2,038
1982	Maryland	Ch 446, 3000	Eases minor party and independent petition deadline from March to August
1981	Montana	Ch 368, 644	Adds a party petition procedure in addition to candidate petitions
1980	California	Ch 958, 3050	Expands petitioning period for independent candidates from 60 to 105 days
1979	Georgia	Ch 436, 616	Eases statewide minor party and independent petitions from 115,080 to 57,540
1978	Delaware	Ch 418, 1244	Changes minor party reqauirement from 2,431 signatures to 131 party members
1977	Maine	Ch 425, 616	Eases statewide minor party and independent petition from 10,920 to 2,000
1976	California	Ch 115, 184	Eases statewide independent petition from 312,404 to 99,284
1975	So. Dakota	Ch 119, 190	Eases statewide independent petition from 5,196 to 2,598
1974	S. Carolina	Ch 58, 2867	Eases minor party and independent petition deadline from June to September
1973	Dist. Col.	City council	Eases minor party and independent petition from 11,650 to 2,330
1972	Kentucky	Ch 188, 804	Eases deadline for presidential candidate petition from April to September

The chart above lists at least one bill improving ballot access for each year 1972 through 2022

Year	State	Number	Description of What Bill Did
1971	Idaho	Ch 130, 512	Eases number of signatures for new party from 24,512 to 1,500
1970	Alaska	Ch 160	Creates procedure for minor party presidential candidates to get on ballot
1969	Nebraska	Ch 263, 1008	Procedure for a new party changed from a meeting of 750 voters, to 4,864 sigs
1968	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1967	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1966	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1965	Utah	Ch 39, 109	Eases independent candidate deadline from March to May
1964	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1963	Colorado	Ch 188, 396	Eases independent and minor party presidential petition from 500 to 300
1962	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1961	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1960	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1959	California	Ch 267, 2188	Eased vote test for party retention from 3% in last gub. election to 2%
1958	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1957	California	c 2325,4053	Eases registration requirement for party retention from 4,799 to 3,199
1956	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1955	Kansas	Ch 204, 417	Eliminates need for minor party candidates to get signatures to get on primary ballot
1954	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1953	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1952	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1951	Vermont	Ch 2, 11	Eases minor party and independent candidate petition deadline from July to Sept.
1950	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1949	Florida	C 25143, 259	Eases minor party presidential access from 35,000 registrations to 7,500 signatures
1948	Georgia	Ch 1, spec, 4	Eliminates petition for minor party and independent presidential candidates
1947	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1946	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1945	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1944	– – – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1943	Oklahoma	Ch 10a, 100	Eliminates minimum vote test needed in party primary for party to be in general elec.
1942	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1941	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1940	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1939	Mass.	Ch 371, 429	Eases party retention vote from 52,977 to 1,766
1938	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1937	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1936	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1935	Oregon	Ch 170, 244	Eases minor party and independent petition deadline from early to late September
1934	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1933	No. Caro.	Ch 165, 145	Eases party retention from having been on ballot in 1914, to got 3% in last election
1932	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1931	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1930	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1929	California	Ch 53, 121	Eases party petition from 34,298 to 11,433
1928	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1927	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1926	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1925	Nevada	Ch 13, 19	Eases party and statewide independent petition from 2,599 to 1,300
1924	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1923	– – –	– – –	NO GOOD BILL PASSED
1922	Georgia	Ch 530, 100	Lets any party and any independent candidate on ballot with no petition and no fee

The chart above lists at least one bill improving ballot access for each year, 1922-1971. When more than one such bill passed in any particular year, the most significant bill is listed.

On May 26, the Michigan State Board of Canvassers removed five Republican gubernatorial candidates from the August 2 primary ballot. Five other Republicans remain. The candidates were removed because their ballot access petitions, which required 15,000 signatures, appeared to have obvious and numerous forgeries. One of the candidates, James Craig, who had been considered a front-runner, said he would sue to get back on the ballot. Michigan doesn’t require any signatures for legislative candidates to get on primary ballots. Yet it has the nation’s most severe mandatory ballot access law for primaries, for certain statewide offices.

On May 22, Australia held a federal election. Although the results are still not final, the Green Party had its best showing ever, and will hold significant power in each chamber. In the Senate, which is elected by proportional representation, there will be 6 Green Senators out of 76 seats. The Liberal/National Coalition won 31 seats and Labor won 26, so Greens hold the balance of power. There are also five other Senators.

In the House, where there is no proportional representation but ranked choice voting is used in single-member districts, Greens won 3 seats out of 151, their highest total ever.

On May 24, New York held a special election to fill the vacancy in the 58^th Assembly district, in Brooklyn. The results: Democratic 74.85%; independent 18.09%; Working Families 4.74%; Republican 1.64%; Conservative .67%. When this district last voted, in November 2020, there was only one candidate on the ballot, who received 95.19% of the vote on the Democratic line, and 4.81% on the Working Families line.

On April 26, Peter Ackerman died at the age of 75. He founded Americans Elect in 2010. It was to be a new, centrist party that would run someone for President, but no other office, in 2012. The nominee was to be chosen by registered voters who had signed up with Americans Elect to use the party’s on-line presidential primary. Ackerman used his wealth to pay for petitions to qualify the party, in almost all of the states in which it was possible to qualify a party before it had any nominees. By early 2012 it was on the ballot in 29 states, and had completed petitions in three other states, but because no one of sufficient statute wanted the party’s presidential nomination, it decided not to run anyone.

Ackerman also helped fund the lawsuit to require the Commission on Presidential Debates to open up to more candidates. He also helped fund the initiative in Maine to use ranked choice voting, which passed, although it is only in effect for primaries, and for general elections for congress. The State Supreme Court had ruled that it couldn’t be used for general elections for state office.

John Thompson Parker, a Peace & Freedom Party candidate for U.S. Senate in California, spent a week in the first half of May in the Russian-controlled part of eastern Ukraine. Although several leading U.S. politicians have visted Ukraine recently, he is probably the only U.S. candidate who visited the Russian zone.

Alaska uses its top-four system for the first time on June 11, in a special election for U.S. House. Polls show that the four top candidates will be two Republicans and two independents. If that happens, no Democrat will be on the August ballot for this office.