LOUISIANA MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO CREATE A BALLOT-QUALIFIED PARTY

On June 4, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed HB 420.  It increases the requirement for a group to become a qualified party, for purposes of presidential, state and local elections.  The old law required 1,000 registered members.  The new law requires 5,000 registered members.  The bill’s author, Representative Beth Billings, is a former state chair of the Republican Party.

Fortunately, the bill does not change the requirements for an already-qualified party to remain on the ballot.  For purposes of presidential, state and local offices, the law continues to let them remain on the ballot if they run at least one candidate every four years.

There are no news stories mentioning the increase in the difficulty of qualifying a new party.  There appears to be no election-administration reason for increasing the requirement.  Currently, the only ballot-qualified parties in Louisiana are the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Green Parties.  The old law, requiring 1,000 members, was passed in 2004, and in the twenty years it existed, there have never been more than five qualified parties.

There had been an Independent Party for the last several years, but HB 420 says that no party can have “Independent” as its name, or as part of its name, so that party is now defunct.  The bill also has a new provision letting any qualified party dissolve itself, and the Independent Party leaders have no desire to keep the party in existence.

The bill also raises the fee to form a new party from $1,000 to $5,000.  Generally, states don’t have fees for parties to qualify, although, of course, candidate filing fees are common.

The new law takes effect August 1, 2025.  Leaders of several unqualified parties that exist in Louisiana would like to have qualified under the old law but weren’t able to quickly ramp up their registration to the old law’s requirement of 1,000 members.

This year, other states that have increased the numerical requirements for minor party or independent candidates to get on the ballot are Iowa and New Jersey.  So far this year, the only state that has eased a numerical requirement for minor party or independent candidate ballot access is Montana.

This is the second time in two years that Louisiana has made ballot access worse for minor parties.  Last year, the legislature passed a bill that makes it difficult for them to run in congressional elections. It did that by saying a party is not entitled to nominate congressional candidates unless it had polled 5% of the vote for president or any statewide state office at the last election.  Other parties, even those that are qualified, must use the independent petition procedure, which takes 5,000 for U.S. Senate, and 1,000 for U.S. House.  Furthermore, no one can sign these petitions except someone who is not a registered member of the Democratic or Republican Parties.

HB 420 does not change those 2024 rules for congressional elections.

---

MAJOR PARTY REGISTRATION DROPS TO LESS THAN 66%

Page five shows the number of registered voters in each party, for the states that have registration by party.  The major parties are lower than ever before.

The percentage of voters who are members of the two major parties is 65.08%, the lowest in history.  All the data is from official sources, and is as of June or July 2025, except that the California, Maine and Massachusetts data is from February 2025, along with the New York figures for the qualified parties; and New Hampshire is May 2025.

Here are the percentages for the major parties from 1992-2024:

Year	Dem	Rep	Total
1992	47.76	32.97	80.73
1994	47.13	33.55	80.68
1996	45.69	33.79	79.48
1998	44.94	33.26	78.20
2000	43.84	32.78	76.62
2002	42.68	32.55	75.23
2004	42.19	32.79	74.98
2006	41.64	32.39	74.03
2008	43.62	30.72	74.34
2010	42.98	30.58	73.56
2012	41.85	30.10	71.95
2014	41.17	29.79	70.96
2016	40.60	29.37	69.97
2018	39.82	29.22	69.04
2020	39.67	29.51	69.18
2022	38.73	29.60	68.33
2024	37.07	30.40	67.47

For years before 1992, there is no comprehensive data, but there is enough data to know that the two major parties had a much greater share of the registration in the period since partisan registration has existed.  There was no partisan registration in any state earlier than the 1900’s decade.

One might wonder why there have been substantially more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, when the nation is so evenly divided.  That is explained by the fact that most of the southern states don’t have registration by party.  The south is the only region of the country in which most states don’t have partisan registration.

The number of states with partisan registration has been growing.  States that didn’t have it in 1992, but which do now, are Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Utah.

Every time another state starts using partisan registration, that gives a somewhat artificial boost to the nationwide percentage of independent voters.  That is because in the beginning of any state’s switch to partisan registration, the overwhelming majority of voters haven’t used a new registration form, so until they do, they are classed as independents.  For example, in Missouri, which only added a question about party membership in 2023, 96% of the voters are independents, mostly by default.

---

NINTH CIRCUIT SAYS NO LABELS CAN’T BAR CANDIDATES

On July 11, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in No Labels Party of Arizona v Fontes, 24-563.  It reversed the U.S. District Court and said that No Labels has no right to tell the Arizona Secretary of State to block anyone from filing to run in the No Labels primary.

No Labels was founded in 2010 to influence members of Congress to work together across party lines.  In 2022, it decided to start qualifying as a new party in as many states as it could, for the purpose of running a centrist presidential candidate in 2024.  No Labels didn’t intend to start an actual new party, and it didn’t want any candidates for Congress or state offices.

In most states in which No Labels attained party status in 2023 and early 2024, it was able to stick to its mission, because the law said new parties should nominate by convention.  It was easy for No Labels to block candidates for non-presidential offices in those states, because a convention can be controlled by party officers.

But in states like Arizona, in which all new parties are given a government-administered primary, there was no method by which leaders of the group could block candidates for Congress and state and local offices.  Any registered member of the party was free to file to run for any office in the No Labels primary.

Other states in which No Labels became a qualified party with a mandatory primary were Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, and Montana.  But in those states, no individual filed for the No Labels primary.  In Hawaii, two individuals took out papers to file for the No Labels primary for state legislature, but they never completed the process.  Only in Arizona did No Labels know that certain individuals were petitioning to get on the No Labels primary ballot.

No Labels submitted party bylaws to the Secretary of State, saying No Labels would not have any candidates for office other than president.  But the Secretary of State refused to accept the bylaws, so No Labels sued.

No Labels won injunctive relief in 2024, so no candidates appeared on the party’s primary ballot.  All of the No Labels registrants were given blank ballots.  In the meantime, the Secretary of State appealed, and the Ninth Circuit has now reversed and ruled in favor of the Secretary of State.  All three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel are Biden appointees.  They are Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (who wrote the opinion), Holly A. Thomas, and Anthony Johnstone.

The Ninth Circuit said that the Constitution’s Freedom of Association provision, which is in the First Amendment, does not override the ability of candidates to run for office, or for voters to vote for them.  It said, “Candidate exclusion burdens voters”, and also, in footnote nine, “Such candidate selection necessarily includes the right to vote for minor parties, a right that is ‘heavily burdened if that vote may be cast only for ‘two old, established parties’.”

The decision seems to conflict with the June 2025 decision of the Eleventh Circuit from Georgia, Catoosa County Republican Party v Catoosa County Board of Elections, which suggested that parties have a Freedom of Association right to exclude candidates from their primaries if the party organization believes the candidate is not a bona fide member of the party.  However, the Eleventh Circuit decision is just a remand to the lower court, and the issue is not settled.

The Arizona Ninth Circuit decision will be helpful to the California minor parties who are currently suing to overturn the California top-two system.  That case is pending in U.S. District Court and has oral argument on August 22 in San Francisco.

---

HIGH COURT TAKES AN ELECTION LAW CASE ON STANDING

On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568.  The decision, which won’t come until late 2025 or early 2026, will help to clarify the law on who has standing to challenge various election laws.

The case was brought by some Republican congressional candidates in Illinois.  They were challenging the state law that said absentee postal ballots need not arrive until several days after election day.  The lower courts said they don’t have standing.  The Supreme Court will decide the standing issue.

---

HIGH COURT TAKES PARTY SPENDING CASE

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-621.  This case is about the federal campaign finance law that limits how much a party can spend on the campaign of its own nominees, if the party and the candidate are coordinating with each other.

The Supreme Court upheld those limits in McConnell v Federal Election Commission in 2003.  However, the vote was 5-4.  It is likely the Court will reverse that decision, because both sides in the case agree that the limits violate the First Amendment.  It is very unusual when the federal government won’t defend one of its own laws, but this is such an instance.  The Democratic National Committee is being allowed to intervene in the case to defend the law.

---

HIGH COURT ORDERS ANOTHER ORAL ARGUMENT IN DISTRICTING CASE

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it cannot now decide Louisiana v Callais, 24-109, even though the Court heard oral argument on the case on March 24.  This is a congressional redistricting case.  After the 2020 census, the Louisiana legislature passed a plan with only one Black-majority district.  A 3-judge U.S. District Court  invalidated the plan, pointing out that approximately two-sevenths of the state population is Black, and therefore under the Voting Rights Act, the state should have created two Black-majority districts (the state has seven districts).  The legislature complied.

Then another 3-judge U.S. District Court struck down the new plan, concluding that it was a “racial gerrymander” that violates the 14^th amendment.  That was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral argument.

It is difficult for courts to deal with redistricting plans involving race.  The Court says it will soon explain what issues it wants both sides to address.  There is some fear that the Court, when it re-hears the case, will strike a blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically the part that controls redistricting.

---

MORE U.S. SUPREME COURT NEWS

Mississippi:  the Secretary of State has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Watson v Republican National Committee, 24-1260.  This is the case in which the Fifth Circuit  ruled that the 1872 federal law that tells states to hold congressional elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November means that states cannot allow postal ballots to be received after election day.  Mississippi law lets ballots arrive three days after election day.  Nineteen states have filed amici asking the Court to hear the case.  All of them have Democratic Attorneys General.

The Mississippi Libertarian Party is a co-plaintiff in the case, on the side of the Republican Party.

North Dakota:  on July 16, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order in the state’s legislative redistricting case, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe, 25A62.  The Supreme Court ordered that the state’s redistricting plan not go into effect for the time being.  The U.S. District Court said the plan violates the Voting Rights Act.  Then the Eighth Circuit reversed, saying that only the federal government can file a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act.  That was a startling decision that contradicted seventy years of precedent, during which private individuals and groups had brought suits under the Act.

The fact that the Supreme Court blocked the Eighth Circuit’s decision for the time being seems to show that the Supreme Court will take this case and will reverse the Eighth Circuit.

---

BOOK REVIEW: 2024: HOW TRUMP RETOOK THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEMOCRATS LOST AMERICA

2024:  How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf,  2025.  400 pages.

Every U.S. presidential election is always followed quickly by books that describe the campaign.  2024 is one of four books so far that relates the history of the 2024 campaign, and the only one that mentions the Democratic Party’s plan to challenge the ballot access of various minor party and independent candidates.

Pages 65-66 reveal that Kamala Harris encouraged the Democratic plan, even as early as the summer of 2023.  The book says that Harris was meeting with two of President Biden’s top campaign strategists, and she asked them, “Why are we not shutting these third parties down?”

None of the other three books on the 2024 campaign included this information.  Those other books are Fight, Original Sin, and Uncharted.

2024 also describes how President Trump wooed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., starting in July, a few days after Trump was almost assassinated.  Kennedy did not drop out of the race until late August, and obviously his decision to drop out and endorse Trump was influenced by Democratic Party hostility to his campaign.  Thus, for anyone who seeks to persuade the Democratic Party that is bad politics to try to remove candidates from the ballot, the book is a useful reference.

2024 is also the only one of the four books to include details about the second attempted assassination of Trump, the September 15 incident at a gold course.  Unlike two of the other three books, 2024 has an index.

---

TENNESSEE SPONSORS FOR A BALLOT ACCESS BILL IN 2026

The Tennessee Libertarian Party has found legislators who will introduce a bill in 2026 to ease the petition to create a new party.  The law is so strict that it hasn’t been used successfully since 1968.

The party has also decided not to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its ballot access case, which lost on May 1 in the Sixth Circuit.  If the party had decided to file a cert petition, the Coalition for Free & Open Elections would have paid the costs.  COFOE gets all its revenue from readers of this newsletter, and appreciates that support very much.

---

DEMOCRATS ARE PREPARING AN ANALYSIS OF WHY THEY LOST IN 2024

The Democratic National Committee has commission a report on why the party lost the 2024 election for president.  The analyst in charge of the report is Paul Rivera of New York.  I e-mailed him and asked him to consider including the point that it was a mistake for Democrats to work to keep minor party and independent candidates off various state ballots.

He replied that he is aware of the Democratic Party activism to deny ballot access to many competing presidential candidates.  He did not say if the post-mortem will mention that idea.  He thanked me for my suggestion.

---

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER COMMISSION REJECTS TOP-TWO

On July 16, the New York City Charter Revision Commission decided not to put a top-two system on the ballot as a possible charter amendment.  Currently, the city has closed primaries.  It uses ranked choice voting in partisan primaries, but not in the general election.

---

LAWSUIT NEWS

Florida:  on July 8, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee, enjoined a new Florida law that bars out-of-state circulators for initiative petitions.  He also enjoined another new law that says initiative circulators must be U.S. citizens.  Florida Decides Healthcare v Byrd, n.d., 4:25cv-211.

Georgia:  on July 18, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Cohen, an Obama appointee, issued an opinion in Libertarian Party of Georgia v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:24cv-5763.  This is a case challenging the law that says an individual can give higher campaign contributions to a Republican or a Democrat for Governor than can be given to any other type of gubernatorial candidate.  He said the party doesn’t have standing because it doesn’t yet have a gubernatorial nominee for 2026.

---

RANKED CHOICE VOTING NEWS

District of Columbia:  on July 14, the City Council voted 8-4 to fund a switch to ranked choice voting.  The voters had approved the idea last year but the initiative said RCV wouldn’t go into effect until the city government funded it.

Michigan:  on July 17, supporters of ranked choice voting started circulating a statewide initiative petition to use ranked choice voting for most statewide offices, including president.  The initiative applies to both primaries and general elections.  The initiative also moves the non-presidential primary from August to June.  It does apply to U.S. House, but not legislature.  It authorizes cities and counties to use ranked choice voting for their own offices.

Michigan is the most populous state to still have a straight-ticket device.  The initiative would make the straight-ticket device portion of the ballot also use ranked choice voting, something that has never been tried before in the United States.

---

ALABAMA INITIATIVE

Alabama State Representative Marilyn Lands (D-Huntsville) has pre-introduced a bill to establish the statewide initiative process in Alabama.

---

VOTER REGISTRATION TOTALS

	Dem.	Rep.	Indp, misc	Lib’t.	Green	Consti.	Wk Fam	NoLabe	other
Alaska	72,827	146,112	355,411	6,328	1,499	760	?	?	20,947
Arizona	1,270,307	1,597,705	1,525,855	31,905	5,045	?	?	39,804	– –
Arkansas	87,723	143,762	1,550,903	742	120	?	?	?	– –
Calif.	10,367,321	5,776,356	5,356,584	233,052	110,649	218	?	?	1,056,716
Colorado	1,038,159	939,186	2,021,341	37,174	8,650	11,741	?	27,337	12,305
Conn.	788,485	485,876	930,978	2,778	1,318	?	301	?	29,539
Delaware	336,612	234,970	234,970	1,878	790	223	314	1,488	16,539
Dt. Col.	359,351	24,272	85,329	1,326	4,301	?	?	?	– –
Florida	4,192,786	5,509,500	3,438,211	35,964	9.089	19,708	?	?	328,446
Idaho	120,061	626,878	253,972	10,270	?	4,131	?	?	– –
Iowa	503,212	695,352	555,146	12,007	2,546	?	?	?	– –
Kansas	498,451	899,565	568,664	23,803	0	0	0	5,262	822
Kentucky	1,390,282	1,583,527	342,319	15,570	2,501	1,484	?	?	873
Louis’na	1,094,992	1,049,466	662,472	15,074	2,785	205	0	2,039	152,409
Maine	356,999	311,166	312,444	6,106	37,700	?	?	17,215	– –
Md.	2,231,029	1,030,625	1,019,202	18,943	5,519	?	?	?	3,040
Mass.	1,298,603	423,387	3,288,129	15,672	3,545	289	753	?	15,707
Missouri	110,844	120,449	4,063,782	4,772	?	?	?	?	– –
Nebraska	330,728	623,503	276,992	17,694	?	?	?	?	9,671
Nevada	612,959	610,735	798,842	15,969	2,213	93,831	?	?	– –
N. Hamp.	275,280	324,101	380,695	?	?	?	?	?	– –
N. Jersey	2,534,153	1,665,276	2,306,930	24,141	11,650	11,355	?	?	27,111
N. M.	570,211	435,374	314,897	18,822	6,945	?	?	?	– –
N. York	5,896,984	2,845,295	3,108,039	14,177	15,522	?	55,804	?	437,021
No. Car.	2,311,022	2,292,695	2,895,537	46,049	4,012	?	?	?	– –
Okla.	610,157	1,266,591	469,702	22,991	?	?	?	?	– –
Oregon	991,275	730,673	1,117,985	19,376	8,001	3,784	8,214	6,783	157,509
Penn.	3,808,713	3,633,421	1,360,946	45,470	13,561	?	?	?	– –
Rhode Is.	267,947	108,531	369,484	?	?	?	?	?	– –
So. Dak.	145,278	322,297	162,614	2,989	?	195	?	97	– –
Utah	241,869	930,721	477,136	18,839	724	6,584	?	10,807	76,866
W. Va.	334,428	499,237	337,081	10,663	2,574	118	?	?	– –
Wyo.	31,904	212,201	25,981	1,804	0	552	?	?	– –
TOTAL	45,080,952	38,098,805	40,968,573	732,348	261,259	155,178	65,386	110,832	2,345,521
Percent	35.27%	29.81%	32.05%	.57%	.20%	.12%	.05%	.09%	1.84%

The parties in the “other” column are:  Alaska: Alaskan Independence 19,175, Veterans 1,521, Clowns 251; California: American Independent 896,260, Peace & Freedom 141,785, Common Sense 17,039, American Solidarity 632, Forward 621, Neutral 377, Ring of Truth 2; Colorado:  Approval Voting 5,094, Center 3,698, Unity 3,135, Forward 378; Connecticut:  Independent Party 29,536, Reform 3; Delaware:  Independent Party 12,046, Nonpartisan Party 1,215, Conservative 879, Liberal 799, American 580, American Delta 359, We the People 208, Socialist Workers 135, Mandalorian 121, Blue Enigma 76, Natural Law 74, Reform 47; Florida:  Independent Party 276,467, Conservative 30,033, Boricua 9,297, Coalition with a Purpose 4,247, Ecology 3,264, Socialism & Liberation 2,172, American Solidarity 1,966, Forward 735, Reform 188, Jeffersonian 50, America First 23, Men Going Their Own Way 15; Kansas:  United Kansas 805; Kentucky:  Socialist Workers 642, Reform 231; Louisiana:  Independent Party 150,672, Conservative 759, Reform 737, American Solidarity 100, Socialist 98, Forward 33, Socialism & Liberation 10; Maryland:  Working Class 3,040; Massachusetts:  United Independent 12,788, Socialist 1,770, Pirate 721, Workers 219, Reform 100, Natural Law 52, Forward 35, Prohibition 22;   Nebraska:  Legal Marijuana Now 9,671; New Jersey:  Conservative 13,424; Socialist 7,193, Natural Law 5,121, Reform 1,373; New York:  Independence 276,566, Conservative 160,125, SAM 330; Oregon:  Independent Party 153,178, Progressive 3,974; Utah:  Independent American 74,397, United Utah 2,217, Forward 252.

Totals Oct. 2024:  Dem. 45,512,696 (37.07%), Rep. 37,314,494 (30.40%), indp. & misc. 36,245,381 (29.52%), Lib’t. 737,972 (.60%), Green 248,516 (.20%), Constitution 150,949 (.12%), Working Families 59,109 (.05%), No Labels 150,104 (.12%), other 2,344,364 (1.91%).

Totals Oct. 2020:  Dem. 47,106,084 (39.67%), Rep. 35,041,482 (29.51%), indp. & misc. 33,696,700 (28.38%), Lib’t. 652,261 (.55%), Green 240,222 (.20%), Constitution 129,556 (.11%), Working Families 49,758 (.04%), Reform 9,004 (.01%), other 1,814,973 (1.53%).

Totals Oct. 2016:  Dem. 45,690,825 (40.60%), Rep. 33,052,332 (29.37%), indp. & misc. 31,200,104 (27.72%), Lib’t. 497,535 (.44%), Green 256,560 (.23%), Constitution 92,483 (.08%), Reform 5,294 (.00+%), Working Families 61,517 (.05%), other 1,662,329 (1.50%).

Totals Oct. 2012:  Dem. 43,512,746 (41.85%), Rep. 31,298,863 (30.10%), indp. & misc. 26,808,810 (25.79%), Lib’t.  330,811 (.32%), Green 250,682 (.24%), Constitution 77,918 (.07%), Reform 22,880 (.02%), other 1,665,945 (1.61%).

Totals Oct. 2008:  Dem. 43,933,901 (43.62%), Rep. 30,944,590 (30.72%), indp. & misc. 24,157,259 (23.98%), AIP/Const. 438,222 (.44%), Green 255,019 (.25%), Lib’t. 240,328 (.24%), other 708,941 (.70%).

Totals Oct.  2004:  Dem. 37,301,951 (42.19%), Rep. 28,988,593 (32.79%), indp. & misc. 20,471,250 (23.15%), Constitution 320,019 (.36%), Green 298,701 (.34%), Lib’t. 235,521 (.27%), Reform 63,729 (.07%), other 695,639 (.83%).

---

ELON MUSK DOES NOT SEEM SERIOUS ABOUT AMERICA PARTY

On June 30, Elon Musk said that if the congressional budget bill passed, “the America Party will be formed the next day.” The bill did pass on July 3.  On July 5, Musk said “the party has been formed”, and a website for the party was created, theamericaparty.org.

However, the America Party has not filed to protect its name in California, Connecticut, or Maine.  That means any other person or group could file instead, listing persons who would be recognized as state officers.  This is not a far-fetched fear.  On July 6, someone filed with the FEC claiming to represent the America Party, listing the party address at the headquarters for SpaceX in Hawthorne, California, and saying that the treasurer is Vaibhav Taneja, who is Chief Financial Officer of Tesla.  However, Musk said that filing is fake.

---

ED CLARK DIES

On June 18, Ed Clark died at the age of 95.  He had been the Libertarian nominee for Governor of California in 1978, and polled 5.5%, using the independent candidate procedure.  He gained so much attention for the party that it was energized enough to become ballot-qualified in 1979, a very difficult feat that required 71,000 registered members.  In 1980, he was the Libertarian presidential nominee and polled 1.06%.

---

TWO PARTIES ON BALLOT IN ALASKA FOR PRESIDENT IN 2028

Recently, the Prohibition Party, and also the American Solidarity Party, qualified as “Limited Political Parties” in Alaska.  This means they are on the ballot for president in 2028 (but they are not on the ballot for any other office).  They obtained this status by each collecting 3,382 signatures.

---

DAN OSBORN WILL AGAIN BE AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE IN NEBRASKA

On July 8, Dan Osborn said he will be an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Nebraska in 2026.  In 2024, he ran for the other Nebraska Senate seat as an independent and polled 46.5% in a two-person race.

---

MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATE NOMINEE BECOMES AN INDEPENDENT

On July 1, Ty Pinkins, who had been the Democratic Party nominee for U.S. Senate in Mississippi in 2024, said he has become an independent and that he would be an independent candidate for the other U.S. Senate seat in 2026.

---

IDAHO DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATOR BECOMES AN INDEPENDENT

On July 1, Idaho State Representative Todd Achilles, a Democrat, said he had become an independent and will be an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in 2026.

ERRATA

ERRATA(1):  the July 2025 issue said that the top write-in presidential candidate in Michigan had been Ralph Nader in 2004.  Actually, the top write-in presidential vote was for Gary Johnson in 2012.  He got 7,774.

ERRATA(2):  the November 2024 issue said the number of registered voters in “other” parties was 3,344,364.  The correct figure was 2,344,364.  That error caused the national percentages for each party to be incorrect.  The actual percentages nationally are those underneath the chart on page five (for 2024).