CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO SYSTEM DRAWS CRITICISM FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS ALIKE
California has used a top-two system starting in 2011, but never before has it faced such critical commentary. This is because of the persistent possibility that it might create a November ballot that lists only two Republicans, with no write-in space.
Paul Mitchell, a Democratic statistician, has a website that estimates the probability that two Republicans will place first and second on June 2. On February 26, it estimated the probability of that happening at 20.0%. See twins-production-9381.up.railway.app. It followed a PPIC Poll released earlier that day showing Republican Steve Hilton 14%; Democrat Katie Porter 13%; Republican Chad Bianco 12%; Democrat Eric Swalwell 11%; Democrat Tom Steyer 10%. No one else had more than 5%. Undecided was 10%.
Every commentator believes that a November ballot with only two Republicans would be an unjust ballot. Democrats consistently poll 60% in statewide partisan general elections in California, if there is one Democrat and one Republican running. Even some of the leaders who supported the top-two system have said so recently.
Former State Senator Steve Peace wrote recently, “It’s time for more choice in California. Nonpartisan top-four (or five) primaries that allow voters more candidates in the general election are the next great nonpartisan reform.” Peace was one of the top-two system’s boosters when it was on the ballot in 2010.
On January 27, former Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero was quoted in CityWatch as saying, “The current system often shuts out competition and reinforces one-party dominance.”
Also, “California needs elections that reflect voter choice.” Romero voted for top-two when she was in the Senate. She is currently running for Lieutenant Governor as a Republican (she had been a Democrat until 2024).
Willie L. Brown, Jr., former long-time Speaker of the Assembly, said on February 3, “The top-two system is a screwed-up system.” He supported top-two when it was on the ballot in 2010.
Harold Meyerson, editor-at-large of The American Prospect, said on February 10 that Democrats in the California legislature ought to be working to replace the system with something else.
Bill Whalen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and a veteran analyst of California politics, said on February 15 that the top-two system leaders to massive insincere campaign messages. Several times in recent years leading Democrats have paid for advertising to boost one particular Republican whom they hoped would place second in the primary. The Democrat would prefer to run against a Republican than a fellow Democrat, because it would be easier to beat a Republican.
Jon Fleischman made a similar point in the February 17 Orange County Register, although he said public employee unions were the sponsors of the insincere advertising.
Much commentary that is in favor of having a Democrat in the governor’s office have urged some of the nine leading Democratic candidates to drop out. The deadline for candidates to file is March 6, and withdrawal is not permitted.
At the Democratic Party’s state convention in San Francisco on February 22, a vote on whom the party should endorse was held. No one polled as much as 25% of the delegates, so no endorsement was made.
LAWSUIT AGAINST CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO
On February 25, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney cancelled the status conference in Peace and Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308, the lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the top-two system. It had been set for February 27. She reset it for April 10.
The lawsuit had been filed in December 2024. It argues that the U.S. Supreme Court decision Williams v Rhodes (1968) forbids states from making it virtually impossible for minor party candidates to be on the November ballot. The state filed a motion to dismiss the case early in 2025. Previous hearings in this case were cancelled in June, August, and October 2025.
It is difficult to know but it is plausible that the judge is leaning in favor of invalidating the law, but is reluctant to act against it in the middle of an election year.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATOR HINTS AT RESTORING WRITE-INS
On February 20, Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara) introduced AB 2681, a bill to alter the law regarding write-ins. The text will not be available until late March, but presumably it would restore write-in space to the November ballot for top-two offices.
NEVADA CREATES SECOND WAY TO QUALIFY A NEW PARTY
Recently, the Nevada Secretary of State decided that the law permits a group to become a ballot-qualified party by registration as well as by petition. The Forward Party is responsible for this.
Since 1993, the only way to qualify a new party has been to circulate a party petition. Old parties could remain on the ballot either by polling 1% of the statewide vote for U.S. House, or by having registration of 1%. But a new party couldn’t get on the ballot by having any certain number of registered members, because the state wouldn’t tally the number of registrants for a group that had never been qualified.
But the Forward Party persuaded the Secretary of State to change that policy. Now, if an unqualified party has submitted the names of its officers and a copy of its bylaws, the state will provide a registration tally. The Forward Party now knows that it has 80 registrants.
Qualifying a new party by persuading 1% of the voters to join that party is extremely difficult. Massachusetts has an identical method for qualifying a new party, but no group has ever used the Massachusetts 1% registration method. Probably no party in Nevada will do so either; it is far easier to do the Nevada 1% petition. But there are advantages to the new policy. With a tally, an aspiring party can obtain the list of its registrations, which can help the party to be in touch with supporters that might have been unknown to the party.
As a result of the Nevada decision, the only states that use registration data to keep an old party on the ballot, but not to put a new party on the ballot, are Arizona, Maryland and Oregon.
This is the first time Forward Party activism has expanded ballot access in any state.
ALABAMA LIST OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Alabama HB 67 is likely to pass. It has already passed the House, and the Senate County & Municipal Committee. No Republicans voted against it when it passed the House, although some Democrats did. It lowers the cost of the list of registered voters from approximately $38,000, to exactly $1,000.
Assuming the bill becomes law, petitioning will indirectly become easier. Minor parties need 42,459 signatures, which is very difficult. But if the group can readily afford the list of registered voters, it can at least check its own petition for validity before submitting it.
VIRGINIA EASES DEADLINE FOR U.S. HOUSE INDEPENDENTS
On February 20, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed HB 29, which moves the petition deadline for U.S. House minor party and independent candidates from June 16 to August 4, for 2026 only. No one knows for sure what the boundaries of the U.S. House districts will be in 2026, so the bill was passed to avoid a situation in which it would be impossible for petitioning candidates to petition. House candidates need 1,000 signatures from within their own district.
U.S. Senate petitions have a U.S. House distribution requirement, but the bill does not give Senate candidate any relief except to say that Senate candidates can satisfy the distribution requirement assuming that the old districts had continued to exist. The bill ought to have postponed the Senate deadline as well. Prior court decisions from Virginia have said the petition deadline can’t be earlier than the date of the primary. The new primary date will be August 4, for 2026 only. Relevant precedents from the Fourth Circuit are Wood v Meadows, 207 F.3d 708 (2000) and Buscemi v Bell, 964 F.3d 252 (2022).
NEW BALLOT ACCESS BILLS
Minnesota: Representative Drew Roach (R-Farmington) has introduced HF 3534. It would ease the definition of a ballot-qualified party. Current law says a party is ballot-qualified if it polled 8% for a statewide office in either of the last two elections, or if it submits a petition signed by 5% of the last total vote cast. The bill would change the vote test to a group that polled 1% for a statewide office at either of the last two elections. Parties meeting that new, easier test would nominate by convention, not primary.
Rhode Island: on February 13, three Democratic State Senators introduced SB 2593. Current law says a qualified party is one that polled 5% for President or Governor, or which submits a petition of 5% of the last total vote cast. The bill would change that to a group that has a state legislator, or which has 5,000 registered voters, or which polled 2% for any statewide or U.S. House race.
Both of the bills above were initiated by Libertarians.
RESTRICTIVE BILLS DEFEATED
South Dakota: on January 27, the House defeated HB 1087. It would have made it illegal to pay initiateve petitioners. If the bill had passed, it would have been held unconstitutional. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court had unanimously struck down a Colorado law that made it illegal to pay petitioners.
Washington: SB 5973, which would have banned paying petitionners on a per-signature basis, failed to move through the Senate by the deadline and is dead.
Wyoming: on February 9, the House defeated HB 54. It would have increased independent candidate petitions from 2% of the last vote, to 5%. Secretary of State Chuck Gray had backed this bill.
RESTRICTIVE BILLS PASS OR ADVANCE
Arizona(1): on February 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed SB 1609, which makes it illegal for a qualified party to change its name. This bill is aimed at the Arizona Independent Party; the legislature doesn’t like the party’s name. Before it changed its name, it had been No Labels. No other state has a law saying qualified parties can’t change their name. The bill is retroactive.
Jurisdictions that have permitted a qualified party to change its name, even though there was no law on the subject, are Alabama, Alaska, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Even the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have changed their names. The Democratic Party was originally the Democratic-Republican Party, then the Jacksonian Democratic Party, before it became the Democratic Party. The Republican Party changed its name to the Union Party in 1864, but changed it back in 1865.
Arizona(2): on February 6, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed SB 1425, which moves the deadline for a new party petition from November 28, 2025, to November 14, 2025. No state has ever had such an extraordinarily early deadline for a new party to get on the ballot. The purpose of the bill is to move the non-presidential primary from early August to mid-July. Arizona foolishly ties the date of the new party petition deadline to the date of the primary.
Wisconsin: on February 11, the legislature passed AB 223, which bans out-of-state circulators for candidate and recall petitions. Wisconsin is in the Seventh Circuit, and in 2000 the Seventh Circuit ruled that states cannot ban out-of-state circulators. The case was Krislov v Rednour, 226 F.3d 851.
MORE BALLOT ACCESS BILL NEWS
Hawaii: on February 19, the House Judiciary Committee defeated HB 1716, which would have said that a party that has been on the ballot in every election for the past 20 years may stay on the ballot indefinitely, as long as it continues to nominate candidates. The Committee analysis said the bill might be held to discriminate against new parties relative to old parties.
Hawaii(2): on February 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 2480, which would convert the state from an open primary to a top-two primary. The vote was 3-0, with two members not voting. However, the approval is conditional on some amendments to the bill, and the text of those amendments has not yet been revealed.
New Mexico: on January 22, the House Rules Committee voted that HB 135 cannot be considered this year. The bill would have cut the number of signatures for non-presidential independent candidates, and the non-presidential nominees of minor parties, from 2% of the last gubernatorial vote to 1%. The legislature in even years has tight restrictions on what types of bills can be considered.
South Dakota: on February 2, the Senate State Affairs Committee defeated SB 33. It would have reduced the number of signatures for an independent presidential petition from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to one-half of 1% of the number of registered voters.
West Virginia: two identical bills have been introduced to require declared write-in candidates to pay filing fees. The bills are SB 851 by Senator Robbie Morris (R-Randolph) and HB 5217 by Delegate Joe Funkhouser (R-Charles Town). However, in 2000, a U.S. District Court had ruled that West Virginia cannot force write-in candidates to pay filing fees. Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp.2d 587.
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE PASSES NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE BILL
On February 25, the Virginia legislature passed SB 322, the National Popular Vote Plan bill. Assuming the Governor signs it, this will be the first state that has passed the plan since 2024.
If the Virginia bill is signed, the Plan will have been enacted in jurisdictions that have 222 electoral votes. It would go into effect once jurisdictions with 270 electoral votes have approved it.
Advocates of the plan have hopes that Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin might join during 2027. Then, the plan would be in effect for the 2028 election. The issue has become highly partisan, with Democratic legislators in favor and Republican legislators opposed, so the results of state elections in 2026 will make a key difference. Polls show that Democrats will do relatively well this year.
The Plan started getting legislative approval in 2007, when Maryland and New Jersey approved it. Other states that joined, in time order, are: 2008, Hawaii and Illinois; 2009, Washington; 2010, D.C. and Massachusetts; 2011, California and Vermont; 2013, Rhode Island; 2014, New York; 2018, Connecticut; 2019, Colorado, Delaware, New Mexico and Oregon; 2023, Minnesota; and 2024, Maine.
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES FOR A NEW PARTY TO RUN A FULL SLATE OF CANDIDATES FOR U.S. HOUSE IN 2026 (With the Party Label)
The chart below shows how many signatures or registrations are needed for a new party to run a full slate of U.S. House candidates in the 2026 election, with the party label on the ballot. The national total would be 1,530,079, and even if that were achieved, the new party’s candidates would only be on the primary ballot, not the November ballot, in Alaska, California, and Washington. In the 2018 election, the total would have been 1,362,573 signatures.
| State | Signatures | % | Citation | Formula |
| Alabama | 42,459 | 1.87 | 17-6-22 | 3% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Alaska | Fee + place in top four | 0 | ? | no petition needed |
| Arizona | 34,127 | 1.01 | 16-801(A) | 2% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Arkansas | 10,000 | .85 | 7-7-205 | number stated in law |
| California | 76,204 reg + place in top two | .48 | Elec. Code 5100(b) | .33% of total registration |
| Colorado | 10,000 | .31 | ? | number stated in law |
| Connecticut | 17,022 | .97 | 9-453(d) | 1% of 2024 vote for that office |
| Delaware | 780 registrants | .15 | Title 15, sec. 3002 | regis. of one-tenth of 1% |
| Florida | be organized | 0 | Title 9, sec. 99.0955 | no petition needed |
| Georgia | 350,415 | 1.67 | 21-2-170 | 5% of registered voters |
| Hawaii | 861 | .16 | Title 2, sec. 12-6 | One-tenth of 1% of reg. voters |
| Idaho | 18,349 | 2.00 | 34-501 | 2% of 2024 pres. vote |
| Illinois | 268,011 | 4.76 | 10 ILCS 5/10-2 | 5% of 2024 vote for that office |
| Indiana | 36,949 | 1.26 | 3-8-6-3 | 2% of 2022 Sec. of State vote |
| Iowa | 6,904 | .42 | Title 4, sec. 45.1 | 1,726 signatures per candidate |
| Kansas | 20,180 | 1.52 | 25-302a | 2% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Kentucky | 2,400 | .12 | Title 10, sec. 118.315 | 400 signatures for each candidate |
| Louisiana | 5,000 registrants + 4,500 | .47 | Title 18, sec. 441,465 | 750 signatures for each candidate |
| Maine | 4,000 | .47 | Title 21, sec. 494.5 | 2,000 signatures for each candidate |
| Maryland | 10,000 | .33 | 4-102(b)(2), 5-302(g) | number stated in law |
| Massachusetts | 18,000 | .51 | Ch. 53, sec. 6 | 2,000 signatures per candidate |
| Michigan | 44,618 | .79 | 158.685(1) | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Minnesota | 8,000 | .25 | 204B.08 | 1,000 signatures per candidate |
| Mississippi | be organized | 0 | 23-15-1051 | no petition needed |
| Missouri | 10,000 | .33 | Title 9, sec. 115.315 | number stated in law |
| Montana | 5,000 | .83 | 13-10-601 | number stated in law |
| Nebraska | 6,726 | .71 | 32-716 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Nevada | 14,271 | .96 | Title 24, sec. 293.1715 | 1% of 2024 U.S. House vote |
| New Hamp. | 3,000 | .36 | Title 4, sec. 655:42 | 1,500 signatures for each candidate |
| New Jersey | 3,000 | .07 | 19:13-5 | 250 signatures for each candidate |
| New Mexico | 3,560 + 14,246 | 1.93 | 1-7-2.A | party pet. of .5% + 2% each cand. |
| New York | 91,000 | 1.09 | Chap. 17, sec. 6-142 | 3,500 signatures per candidate |
| No. Carolina | 14,310 | 25 | 163-96 | one-fourth of 1% of 2024 turnout |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 1.90 | 16.1-11-30 | number stated in law |
| Ohio | 57,678 | 1.00 | 3517.01 | 1% of 2024 pres. vote |
| Oklahoma | 34,599 | 2.21 | Title 26, sec. 1-109 | 3% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Oregon | 29,294 | 1.31 | 249.735 | 1.5% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Pennsylvania | 85,729 | 1.22 | Title 25, sec. 2911 | 2% winner’s vote same office 2024 |
| Rhode Island | 1,000 | .19 | 17-14-7 | 500 signatures for each candidate |
| So. Carolina | 10,000 | .39 | 7-11-70 | number stated in law |
| South Dakota | 3,502 | .82 | 12-5-1 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Tennessee | 43,498 | 1.42 | 2-104(27)b | 2.5% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Texas | 71,030 | .62 | Elec. Code 181.006 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Utah | 2,000 | .13 | 20A-8-103 | number stated in law |
| Vermont | Be organized | 0 | Title 17, sec. 2313,2318 | Town committees in ten towns |
| Virginia | 11,000 | .24 | 24.2-506 | 1,000 signatures for each candidate |
| Washington | Fee + place in top two | 0 | 29A.24.091 | pay filing fee |
| West Virginia | 7,234 | .95 | 3-5-23 | 1% of 2024 vote for that office |
| Wisconsin | 8,000 | .23 | Title 2, sec. 8.20(4) | 1,000 signatures per candidate |
| Wyoming | 5,201 | 1.92 | 22-4-402(d) | 2% of 2024 vote for U.S. House |
2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES
| Party sigs | Indp sigs | LIB’T | GREEN | CONSTIT | FORWRD | Pty due | Indp due | |
| State | Party sigs | Indp sigs | Lib’t | Green | Constitution | Forward | Pty due | Indp due |
| Alabama | 42,459 | 42,459 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 19 | May 19 |
| Alaska | (reg) 5,000 | #Pay fee | already on | *1,506 | *768 | 0 | May 4 | June 1 |
| Arizona | 34,127 | #44,539 | already on | already on | *too late | *too late | *Nv 14, 25 | May 6 |
| Arkansas | 10,000 | 10,000 | *already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 28 | *May 1 |
| Calif. | (reg) *76,204 | 65 | already on | already on | *too late | *too late | Dec 31 25 | March 6 |
| Colorado | 10,000 | #8,000 | already on | already on | already on | *already on | Jan 9 | July 9 |
| Conn. | no procedure | #7,500 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | – – | Aug 10 |
| Del. | (reg) 780 | 7,800 | already on | already on | *224 | *2 | Aug 25 | July 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | #3,000 | can’t start | already on | can’t start | can’t start | – – | Aug 5 |
| Florida | be organized | 0 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Apr 24 | Apr 24 |
| Georgia | 72,680 | #70,083 | 500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | July 14 | July 14 |
| Hawaii | 861 | 25 | already on | *already on | *too late | *too late | Feb 20 | June 2 |
| Idaho | 18,349 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Aug 30 | March 21 |
| Illinois | no procedure | #25,000 | *0 | *200 | *0 | *0 | – – | May 25 |
| Indiana | no procedure | #36,944 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 30 |
| Iowa | no procedure | #3,500 | *1,800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 2 |
| Kansas | 20,180 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | June 1 | Aug 3 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | #5,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | – – | Aug 11 |
| Louisiana | 1,000 + 5,000 | 5,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *Feb 13 | *Feb 13 |
| Maine | (reg) 5,000 | #4,000 | already on | already on | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | June 1 |
| Maryld. | 10,000 | 10,000 | *6,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | July 1 | Aug 3 |
| Mass. | (reg) 45, 500 | #10,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | Feb. 1 | July 28 |
| Michigan | 44,618 | 12,000 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | July 16 | July 16 |
| Minn. | 163,621 | #2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 2 | June 2 |
| Miss. | be organized | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | *Feb 2 | Feb. 2 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 200 | 0 | Muly 27 | July 27 |
| Montana | 5,000 | #12,788 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | March 2 | May 26 |
| Nebraska | 6,726 | 4,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | Sept 1 |
| Nevada | 14,271 | 250 | already on | 0 | already on | *30 | May 12 | May 12 |
| N.Hamp | 24,375 | #3,000 | *0 | *0 | *300 | *0 | Aug 4 | Aug 4 |
| N Jersey | no procedure | #2,000 | *100 | *200 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 2 |
| N Mex | 3,560 +14,246 | 14,246 | already on | already on | 0 | *finished | June 25 | June 25 |
| N York | no procedure | #45,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | May 26 |
| No Caro | *14,310 | 83,874 | already on | already on | *0 | *6,000 | May 17 | March 3 |
| No Dak | 7,000 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 6 | Aug 31 |
| Ohio | 57,678 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 3,000 | July 1 | May 4 |
| Okla | 34,599 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | March 2 | April 10 |
| Oregon | 29,294 | 22,445 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | Aug 11 | Aug 11 |
| Penn. | no procedure | #5,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | Aug 3 |
| R.I. | 17,884 | #1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | July 10 |
| So.Car. | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | May 3 | July 15 |
| So.Dak. | 3,502 | 3,502 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | July 1 | April 28 |
| Tenn | 43,498 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5 | *March 10 |
| Texas | 81,030 | 81,030 | already on | already on | can’t start | can’t start | May 26 | *May 11 |
| Utah | 2,000 | #1,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Nv 30 ‘25 | June 15 |
| Vermont | be organized | #500 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Dec 31 ‘25 | Aug 6 |
| Virginia | no procedure | #10,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | — | June 16 |
| Wash. | no procedure | #0 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | May 8 |
| W.Va. | no procedure | #7,478 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | – – | Aug 3 |
| Wisc. | 10,000 | #2,000 | already on | already on | already on | *0 | April 1 | June 1 |
| Wyoming | 5,201 | 5,201 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | June 1 | Aug 24 |
| #ON | *31 | *19 | 12 | *4 |
JESSE JACKSON DIES
On February 17, Jesse Jackson died. He was an early supporter of lenient ballot access. In 1985, he was one of the first prominent figures to endorse a congressional bill that would have outlawed restrictive ballot access laws in federal elections. He endorsed HR 2320, the John Conyers ballot access bill, in August, only a few weeks after it had been introduced.
BRITISH GREEN PARTY WINS A PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION
The United Kingdom held a special election for House of Commons on February 26. The Green Party nominee, Hannah Spencer, won with 41% of the vote. Eleven candidates had been on the ballot. The election was in the Gorton & Denton constituency in Manchester. This was only the second constituency that had ever elected a Green Party nominee who was not also the nominee of any other party.
The result was considered surprising. Gorton & Denton had always elected a Labour Party nominee in all elections starting in 1931. Yet in this election, it placed third, behind not only the Green Party, but the Reform Party. The result may lead Parliament to seriously consider passing some type of Proportional Representation.
2026 PETITIONING
Besides the petitioning activity shown on page five, the Independence Party is petitioning in Illinois, and the Socialist Workers Party is petitioning in New Jersey. The Sooner State Party collected 35,000 signatures in Oklahoma, but that was not enough, and the deadline has passed. The party may sue over the deadline.
INDIANA LEGISLATOR BECOMES AN INDEPENDENT
On February 2, Indiana State Representative Ed Clere, who had been a Republican legislator for 18 years, said he is now an independent. He will not run for re-election. He is the first Indiana legislator outside of the two major parties since 1914.
LIBERTARIAN PARTY CHOOSES LOCATION FOR 2028 CONVENTION
On February 10, the Libertarian Party said it will hold its presidential convention for 2028 in El Paso, Texas. The dates are tentatively February 18-21, 2028. This will be the earliest presidential convention the party has held since 1992, when it held its convention over Labor Day weekend in 1991. No other party has yet chosen its convention location for 2028.
NO REPUBLICAN WILL BE ON BALLOT FOR U.S. SENATOR THIS YEAR IN NEW MEXICO
The only Republican running for U.S. Senate in New Mexico, Christopher Vanden Heuvel, failed to get enough signatures on his primary petition last month. New Mexico does not permit write-ins for U.S. Senate in primaries, and there is no other mechanism for the Republican Party to find a new candidate. The November ballot will probably only list one candidate, the Democratic incumbent. Although New Mexico has three ballot-qualified minor parties, Libertarian, Green, and Forward, a unique New Mexico law says they can’t run for any partisan office, except President without an additional petition of 14,246 signatures. None of the three parties is likely to be able to complete such a petition.
NO MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES QUALIFY IN LOUISIANA
Under Louisiana’s new election system for Congress (passed in 2024 but not effective until 2026), no party is on the ballot for congressional elections unless it polled 5% of the vote for president or has 5% of the registrations. Other candidates needed a petition filed by February 13. No minor party or independent candidates succeeded in submitting such a petition. U.S. Senate candidates need 2,500 signatures and U.S. House candidates need 750. No one could sign unless he or she was registered outside the two major parties.
It is possible that at least one candidate will sue to overturn the early deadline. Rufus Craig, a Libertarian, had been working on a petition.
When Richard Winger debated Steve Peace in 2010, Peace noted all candidates would be able to qualify with 60 signatures.
If the DemoReps succeed in reverting to segregated partisan primaries the threshold for independent statewide candidates will be 10s or 100s of thousands of signature.
Qualify for what is an important question there.