U.S. SUPREME COURT BOOSTS RIGHT TO AN ACCURATE VOTE TALLY

On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bost v Illinois State Board, 24-568.  It ruled that candidates have automatic standing to challenge election laws that, in the opinion of the candidate, result in slightly inaccurate vote totals.  It doesn’t matter if the perceived problem affects the determination of who had won the election or not.  Accuracy is intrinsically valuable and essential, for its own sake, even if it is obvious who won the election.

The vote was 7-2, with dissents from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

The case had been filed in 2024 by an Illinois Republican Congressmember Michael J. Bost.  He is noted for always winning overwhelmingly, sometimes with over 75%.  He complained about an Illinois law that says postal ballots are valid as long as they arrive within 14 days of the election.

Bost lost in both lower courts because the judges said he lacks standing, because he wasn’t harmed by the law he was complaining about.  The lower court judges felt that as long as a candidate wins overwhelmingly, it doesn’t matter to him or her if the final vote tally is accurate or not.  Bost felt that letting postal ballots arrive so late made it inevitable that mistakes would be made in the official vote tally.

The Supreme Court decision implicitly rejects the idea that the only purpose of elections is to decide who wins.  Unfortunately, the philosophy that elections are solely about who takes the office has become a dominant attitude in the U.S.  The nation has forgotten that another purpose of elections is for spreading new ideas, even if they aren’t popular.

Candidate debates are often limited to the two major party nominees, because debate sponsors don’t understand the importance of the free circulation of new and minority ideas.

The Supreme Court decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.  He said, “A candidate has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.  Candidates have an interest in a fair process…the long-shot and the shoo-in alike…whether these decisions help, hurt, or have no effect on a candidate’s electoral prospects, they deprive the candidate of a fair process and an accurate result.”

Page four of the decision says that candidates would have a valid complaint if a state decided “to discard a random 10% of cast votes.”  Page five of the decision says, “The counting of unlawful votes – or discarding of lawful ones – erodes public confidence that the election results reflect the people’s will.”

The decision is a defeat for the government of the District of Columbia, which filed an amicus in opposition to Congressman Bost that was also signed by the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.  The decision is also a defeat for the Illinois Democratic Party, which also filed an amicus opposed to Bost.

The District refuses to tally write-in votes for declared write-in candidates, unless the vote-counting equipment shows the write-in candidate might have won.  The D.C. Circuit upheld this policy in 2010 in Barr v D.C. Board of Elections.

As a result, the national presidential total for the plaintiff, Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, became artificially lower.  Since then, more and more states have also begun refusing to tally write-in votes for declared presidential write-in candidates.  In 2024, those states included Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.  All of those states, except Nebraska, had tallied write-ins for president in the past, but they didn’t in 2024.

VIRGINIA LOSES LAWSUIT OVER FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT

On January 22, U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney, an Obama appointee, issued an opinion in King v O’Bannon, e.d., 3:23cv-408.  He ruled that Virginia cannot continue to block felons from voting unless their crime was one of eleven particular types of crime that were felonies back in 1870:  arson, burglary, escape from jail, larceny, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, rape, robbery, sodomy, and attempted suicide.

The basis for the decision is the 1870 act of Congress that readmitted Virginia to the union.  The act said that in the future, Virginia could not change its constitution so as to deprive anyone of suffrage, except for crimes that were common law felonies (i.e, the crimes listed above).  Yet in 1971, Virginia changed its constitution to block anyone who had committed any felony from registering to vote.

This is the first time any court has struck down a ban on felon franchise using the language of one of the readmission acts of Congress from the 1866-1870 time period.  There will be no appeal because the state officers like the decision.

NORTH CAROLINA WIN

On January 23, U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle, a Reagan appointee, issued an opinion in Ortiz v North Carolina Board of Elections, e.d., 5:24cv-420.  He ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Board to have tried to keep Cornel West off the 2024 ballot even though West had enough valid signatures.  The Board’s Democratic majority had said they wanted to explore whether the petitioners had misled signers about the purpose of the petition, which was to put West’s party, Justice for All, on the ballot.

West’s party did get on the ballot in 2024, because Judge Boyle had granted injunctive relief.  But now the Board’s behavior has been declared unconstitutional.

The Board argued that the case was moot.  But the judge noted that the Board had acted this way not only in 2024, but in 2022, when it tried to keep the Green Party off the ballot even though it also had enough valid signatures.  Therefore, he said the problem is capable of repetition.

This is the first constitutional ballot access win since August 2025, when a court struck down South Dakota’s February petition deadline for initiative petitions.

BALLOT ACCESS BILLS

Arizona:  Representative Lupe Diaz (R-Benson) has introduced HB 2789.  It would let candidates for state and local office pay a filing fee instead of submitting a petition.  The bill applies to candidates running in primaries and independents.  The amount of the filing fees is not specified; the Secretary of State would set the amounts.  If this bill were to pass, it would make it easier for independent candidates for statewide state office to get on the ballot.  Current law requires 44,539 signatures.  The bill would also help minor parties who have been on the ballot for at least four years; their candidates need thousands of signatures to get on a primary ballot.

South Carolina:  forty-nine Representatives have introduced HB 3643, which requires candidates nominated in a convention to pay filing fees.  Minor parties in South Carolina always nominate by convention.  Current law says only primary candidates pay filing fees.  The bill also switches South Carolina from an open primary state to a closed primary state.  Fortunately, Governor Henry McMaster said on January 20 that he would probably veto the bill if it reaches him.

South Dakota:  the Senate State Affairs Committee has introduced SB 33.  It changes the formula for calculating how many signatures an independent presidential candidate needs, from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote to one-half of 1% of the number of registered voters.  If that had been in effect in 2024, the number of signatures would have been 3,130 instead of 3,502.  Also the bill sets out procedures for the presidential candidate to use a stand-in vice-presidential nominee.

Virginia:  on January 20, the Senate Elections & Privileges Committee defeated SB 76 by 6-9.  It would have moved non-presidential primaries from June to March, and therefore moved the petition deadline for non-presidential minor party and independent candidates from June to March.

Wisconsin:  twenty-two legislators have introduced AB 223.  It would ban out-of-state circulators for candidate petitions, except it would not apply to presidential candidates.  The sponsors may not know that a U.S. District Court in Wisconsin in 2003 said residency requirements for petition circulators are unconstitutional.  Frami v Ponto, 255 F.Supp.2d 962.

Wyoming:  Secretary of State Chuck Gray said in November last year that he would try to raise the number of signatures for independent candidates.  But, on December 23, he announced his legislative goals, and he did not include any ballot access ideas.

BILLS TO ALTER PRIMARIES

Hawaii:  State Senator Mike Gabbard (D-Kapolei) has introduced SB 2480, which would establish a top-two primary.  He is the father of Tulsi Gabbard.

Indiana:  Representatives J. D. Prescott, Michelle Davis, and Elizabeth Rowray, all Republicans, have introduced HB 1096, to change the state from an open primary state to a closed primary state.

Missouri:  bills have been introduced in each house to make Missouri a closed primary state.  They are SB 1329 by Senator Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville) and HB 2380 by Representative John Simmons (R-Washington).

New Hampshire:  Representative Mike Coker (R-Meredith) has introduced HB 1330.  It would establish an open primary, by letting any registered voter decide which primary ballot to choose.  Currently, registered members of parties must choose their own party’s primary ballot, but independents can choose any primary ballot.

South Carolina:  see the entry under “Ballot Access Bills.”

Virginia:  Delegate Eric Phillips (R-Martinsville) has introduced HB 1056.  It would let parties decide whether to let all voters choose its primary ballot, or let independents choose its primary ballot, or close its primary to only members.  Currently, all voters are free to choose any primary ballot.

West Virginia:  State Senator Eric J. Tarr (R-Putnam) has introduced SB 90.  It would delete the law that says parties are free to decide for themselves whether to let independents vote in their primary.  Tarr may not know that in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, that parties have a right to invite independents to vote in their primaries, regardless of state law on that subject.

BOOK REVIEW:  CHARLES SUMNER

Charles Sumner, Conscience of a Nation, by Zaakir Tameez, 2025, 629 pages.

Charles Sumner was a United States Senator from Massachusetts from 1851 until he died in 1874.  He became one of three Free Soil Party U.S. Senators when he was elected.  When the Republican Party was formed in 1854, he became a Republican.  He is best remembered as a passionate opponent of slavery and as a dedicated supporter of civil rights for Blacks in the years after the Civil War.  But he was also an advocate for free elections generally.

In 1867, he was the first member of Congress to introduce a constitutional amendment for a national popular vote to choose the president under rules written by Congress.  His amendment provided for a runoff if no one got at least 50%.

He believed so strongly that freed slaves should have the right to vote, he fought to include suffrage in the 13^th Amendment, which ended slavery.  His friend President Abraham Lincoln was strongly opposed to any amendment guaranteeing suffrage for Blacks.

Sumner was a scholar of constitutional law and believed that the original Constitution guaranteed free elections.  Article IV, sec. 4, says the United States shall guarantee to every state “a Republican form of government.”  Sumner believed that this meant that all states must extend suffrage to all adult males.  In order to persuade others to this point of view, he conducted extensive research into the historic definition of “republic”, even into antiquity.  He was able to read Latin and ancient Greek.

Sumner also believed that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

He was a foe of segregation and tried very hard to persuade Congress to pass a Civil Rights bill that would have outlawed segregation in public schools.   He also would have outlawed segregation in services provided by private companies if those companies received benefits from any government.

The book, of course, tells the details of the 1856 incident in which Sumner was attacked from behind while seated at his desk in the U.S. Senate.  The attacker, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina, crept into the chamber while the Senate was not in session and used a Gutta Percha cane to strike between twenty and thirty blows to Sumner’s skull, neck and shoulders.  Some blows penetrated the skull as much as an inch deep, and caused Sumner to lose consciousness.  Shockingly, some southern members of Congress who were present did nothing to help Sumner and even tried to prevent northern members from rushing to Sumner’s aid.  Brooks had been planning his attack for days.

Brooks was prosecuted but the penalty was only a fine of $300.  Sumner never completely recovered from the damage to his spine, and he suffered from PTSD for years after, especially when he entered the Senate chamber.

The book also tells the story of the proposed annexation of the Caribbean nation of Santo Domingo (now called the Dominican Republic).  President Ulysses Grant, in both his terms, was passionately in favor of the annexation.  The book seems to indicate that this was Grant’s primary goal during his presidency.  Sumner was a foe of the idea, and he at one point only stopped the annexation bill by filibustering it.

The book is very well written.  This review barely scratches the surface of the drama in Sumner’s life story.  He was absolutely committed to human rights principles to his dying day.

His determination to improve the lives of his fellow human beings was the guiding motivation for his life.  He was not personally ambitious and entered the U.S. Senate only because his peers in the Massachusetts legislature drafted him.

When Sumner was elected to the U.S. Senate by the Massachusetts legislature, the Free Soil Party was nowhere close to having a majority in the legislature, but it was able to put Sumner into the U.S. Senate because no party had a majority.  The Free Soil Party made a deal with the Democrats, and Free Soil legislators supported the Democratic nominee for Governor.  In exchange, Democrats supported Sumner for Senate.

LOBBYING FOR BETTER BALLOT ACCESS DECLINES

If minor parties don’t constantly work for easier ballot access laws, the laws inevitably become more severe.  They became far worse 1920-1968, because minor parties did very little ballot access lobbying.

The laws have become worse for the last six years in Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont.

STATES IN WHICH GOOD ACCESS BILLS INTRODUCED 1995-2010

STATES IN WHICH GOOD ACCESS BILLS INTRODUCED 2011-2025

ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY DISSOLVES ITSELF

On December 7, 2025, state officers of the Alaskan Independence Party voted to dissolve the party.  They said the party’s original purpose, when it was formed in 1970, was to work for Alaska’s secession from the United States, but that there is little support for that idea and the public doesn’t even understand the party’s original purpose.  Oddly, it became one of the most successful minor parties of the twentieth century.  It elected Walter Hickel Governor in 1990 and elected a state legislator in 1992.  It also almost elected a state legislator in 2022; its candidate Tyler Ivanoff polled 48.73%.

Last month, the state accepted the party’s decision and sent a letter to each registered member of the party, explaining that their party no longer exists and asking if they want to re-register.  Now, the only third party on the Alaska ballot is the Libertarian Party.

SOONER STATE PARTY FORMED IN OKLAHOMA

A new centrist party, the Sooner State Party, is petitioning to get on the Oklahoma ballot.  If it succeeds, it will be the first qualified party in Oklahoma history that is not part of a nationally-organized party.  The only other states that have never had a party on the statewide ballot that was a one-state party are Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

2026 PETITIONING

Last month, the Arkansas Secretary of State ruled that the Libertarian Party petition is valid.  The Constitution Party finished its Hawaii petition and has launched a New Hampshire petition.  In North Carolina, it will use the signatures it has for 2028 rather than 2026.  The Forward Party finished its New Mexico petition.  The Center Party is about to file paperwork to qualify in Florida.  The Libertarian Party is about to start in New Hampshire and New Jersey.

GALLUP POLL SHOWS INDEPENDENT IDENTIFICATION AT ALL-TIME HIGH

On January 12, Gallup Polls released its poll on how voters self-identify.  Gallup has been asking this question since 1937.  The results:  45% independent, 27% Republican, 27% Democratic.  This was the largest share of independents in the history of the poll.  The previous high for independents had been 43%, in 2015.

NORTH CAROLINA NOW HAS MORE REGISTERED REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS, FOR FIRST TIME

On January 10, the North Carolina State Board of Elections released a new registration tally.  For the first time in history, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats in the state.  Now, the only southern state in which Democrats are the biggest party is Louisiana.  However, most southern states don’t have registration by party.

ROBERTO MONDRAGON DIES

On January 7, Roberto Mondragon died at the age of 85.  He had been the Green Party nominee for New Mexico Governor in 1994.  He was well-known, because he had served as the Lieutenant Governor for two terms previously.  As the Green nominee in 1994, he polled 10.26%.  That was the second best showing the Green Party ever had for a gubernatorial election.  The only higher showing was in Illinois in 2006, when Richard Whitney polled 10.36%.

FORMER SENATOR JON TESTER ENDORSES AN INDEPENDENT FOR MONTANA U.S. SENATE SEAT

On January 15, former Montana Democratic U.S. Senator Jon Tester endorsed Seth Bodnar, an independent candidate, for U.S. Senate in Montana this year.  Bodnar has not formally announced yet, but he recently resigned from his position as leader of the University of Montana.