MAJOR PARTY SHARE OF REGISTRATION DROPS BELOW 65%
FOR FIRST TIME IN AT LEAST 90 YEARS
For the first time in at least ninety years (and probably for the first time ever), the percentage of voters who are registered into one or the other of the two major parties is below 65%. Democratic Party registration is at an all-time low, and Republican Party registration is near its all-time low. See the percentages below, for the period February 1993 through July 2026 (the two digit numbers in the “Date” column are the last two digits of the year):
| DATE | DEM. | REP. | TOT. |
| Feb 93 | 47.76 | 32.97 | 80.73 |
| Dec 94 | 47.80 | 34.27 | 82.07 |
| Feb 96 | 47.66 | 35.12 | 82.78 |
| Dec 96 | 45.69 | 33.79 | 79.48 |
| May 98 | 45.12 | 32.25 | 77.37 |
| Dec 98 | 44.94 | 33.26 | 78.20 |
| Apr 00 | 44.40 | 33.00 | 77.40 |
| Dec 00 | 43.74 | 32.78 | 76.62 |
| Sep 02 | 42.85 | 32.52 | 75.37 |
| Dec 02 | 42.68 | 32.55 | 75.23 |
| Feb 04 | 42.19 | 32.79 | 74.98 |
| Dec 04 | 41.87 | 32.32 | 74.19 |
| July 06 | 41.51 | 32.23 | 73.74 |
| Jan 07 | 41.64 | 32.39 | 74.03 |
| Mar 08 | 41.66 | 31.89 | 73.55 |
| Dec 08 | 43.62 | 30.72 | 74.34 |
| June 10 | 43.35 | 30.43 | 73.78 |
| Dec 10 | 42.98 | 30.58 | 73.56 |
| Feb 12 | 42.64 | 30.79 | 73.43 |
| Dec 12 | 41.88 | 30.13 | 72.01 |
| Apr 14 | 41.45 | 29.88 | 71.33 |
| Dec 14 | 41.17 | 29.79 | 70.96 |
| DATE | DEM. | REP. | TOT. |
| Mar 16 | 40.60 | 29.90 | 70.50 |
| Dec 16 | 40.60 | 29.37 | 69.97 |
| Aug 17 | 40.27 | 29.55 | 69.82 |
| Mar 18 | 40.00 | 29.33 | 69.33 |
| Nov 18 | 39.91 | 29.19 | 69.10 |
| Mar 20 | 39.66 | 28.87 | 68.53 |
| Nov 20 | 39.67 | 29.51 | 69.18 |
| Mar 21 | 39.58 | 29.48 | 69.06 |
| Dec 21 | 39.48 | 29.38 | 68.86 |
| Aug 22 | 39.06 | 29.57 | 68.63 |
| Dec 22 | 38.73 | 29.60 | 68.33 |
| Dec 23 | 38.09 | 29.65 | 67.74 |
| June 24 | 37.60 | 30.05 | 67.65 |
| Nov 24 | 37.07 | 30.40 | 67.47 |
| Dec 25 | 35.29 | 29.88 | 65.17 |
| July 26 | 34.96 | 29.80 | 64.76 |
This data was collected by B.A.N. and published in many past issues. For years before 1993, no attempt was made to collect the data from all the states that have partisan registration. But enough data is at hand for the period 1940 through 1991 to know that the two party registration in those years was even higher than in the 1990’s. Data for the years 1940-1991 exists in published state sources for California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.
The drop in major party share of the registrations is accelerating, as one can see from the December 2025 and July 2026 data.
The July 2026 entry is the low point for the Democratic Party.
It is interesting to observe that the lowest share of the Republican registration came in March 2020, the most frightening time for the Covid health crisis.
Ironically, as voter support for membership in the two major parties has dropped, the ballot access laws for new parties have been getting more severe in the 2020’s decade, especially in Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas.
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ENJOINS DISCRIMINATORY GEORGIA CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW
On June 12, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the lower court that Georgia cannot continue to enforce a campaign finance law that lets some candidates receive unlimited donations while some of their opponents for the same office do not have the same advantage. Jackson v Jones, 26-10854.
The law lets the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor receive unlimited donations when they run for any state office. The case was won by a Republican gubernatorial candidate who had sued one of his opponents, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, who was also running for Governor. The law treats the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor better than any other individuals. The vote was 2-1. The dissenting judge felt the case was procedurally flawed. Judges in the majority were Britt Grant and Adalberto Jordan; the dissenter was William Pryor.
ACCESS FIGHTS IN TEN STATES
Alaska: on June 15, the Elections Division removed Daniel J. Sullivan from the August 18 primary ballot. He had qualified to be a Republican candidate for U.S. Senator. Also running is incumbent U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan. The Elections Division removed Daniel J. Sullivan because it felt his candidacy is not “in good faith.” On June 22, he filed a lawsuit in state court to get back on the ballot. He argues that no state has the authority to examine a candidate’s motives, and that the U.S. Constitution does not permit the states to add such qualifications as motive for candidates for federal office. Sullivan v State of Alaska Division of Elections, Superior Court, 3rd district, 3AN–26-07485.
Illinois: all of the minor party and independent candidates for statewide office have been challenged, and none of the serious challenges have been resolved yet. Also, all but one of the minor party and independent petitions for U.S. House have also been challenged. The greatest suspense involves Collin Corbett’s independent petition for Governor, and the U.S. House, 4th district, petitions for Byron Sigcho Lopez and Myra Macias. Each of the latter two submitted approximately twice as many signatures as were required, but the Illinois challenge process sometimes eliminates petitions with a large excess over the requirement.
Iowa: on June 10, the Libertarian petitioning candidates for Governor-Lieutenant Governor and U.S. House in two districts were challenged. The basis for the gubernatorial challenge is that the Lieutenant Governor candidate did not submit a declaration of candidacy, but the candidate says that she submitted the form and it was refused on the grounds that it wasn’t necessary, because Governor and Lieutenant Governor run as a team.
The party had submitted 8,000 signatures for this pair of offices. The two U.S. House candidates were challenged on the basis that their names on the petition are not identical to their names on their voter registration affidavits.
The state officials ruled against the challenge to one of the U.S. House candidates, but upheld the other challenges. The candidates are about to file a state court lawsuit.
Kansas: on May 31, the Secretary of State removed the No Labels Party from the ballot at the request of the party’s former state chair, and over the objections of the current chair, who had been chosen at a party meeting earlier this year. The current chair filed a pro se lawsuit, but the judge said the case wasn’t ripe, becaue the plaintiff hadn’t exhausted his administrative appeal. He then presented the case to the administrative body, but that body upheld the decision of the Secretary of State. He will file a new lawsuit as soon as he obtains an attorney.
No Labels was still on the ballot earlier this year, even though it didn’t run any candidates in 2024. In Kansas, parties remain on the ballot automatically in presidential election years with no other statewide office up, which was the case in 2024
Montana: an independent candidate for Yellowstone County Commission has been kept off the ballot over a dispute as to whether he can obtain signatures from anywhere in the county, or in just part of the county. The county elects its three County Commissioners in partisan at-large elections, but the county has three districts for the purpose of controlling the residency of the candidate. The purpose of the districts is to make sure that the Commission is composed of people who live in different parts of the county. Candidates must file for the district in which they reside, but otherwise the districts are irrelevant to the election.
Election officials believe all the signatures must come from inside the candidate’s residency district, but he believes he can obtain signatures throughtout the county, because all the voters of the county can vote. He is suing. Abbey v Yellowstone County Clerk, District Court, cv26-811.
New Hampshire: on June 11, the Secretary of State rejected the Declaration of Candidacy of an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, Aaron Day. Day had recently moved within New Hampshire, and he was rejected because his new voter registration form, reflecting his new address, had not yet been processed by the Town Clerk. Day then filed a federal lawsuit to reverse that decision. The lawsuit points out that states don’t even have the authority to require congressional candidates to be registered voters. Day v New Hampshire Secretary of State, 1:26cv-499. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Landya B. McCafferty, an Obama appointee.
New Jersey: on June 11, an Administrative Law Judge removed the Libertarian nominee for U.S. House, 7th district, from the ballot because some of the petitions had been collected by out-of-state individuals. However, in 2021, a U.S. District Court had struck down the New Jersey ban on out-of-state circulators. That case, Arsenault v Way, related to primary petitions, but there is no difference in the constitutional analysis between primary petitions and general election petitions.
The Administrative Law Judge ruling was reversed by Secretary of State Dale Caldwell, a Democrat, so the candidate, Lana Leguia, is back on the ballot.
But now the New Jersey Republican Party is suing the Secretary of State in state court to again remove the candidate. It is a rare event in New Jersey and in most states when the state government goes to court in defense of ballot access for a minor party nominee.
New Mexico: on June 22, a state trial court upheld the 2% (of the last gubernatorial vote) petition for independent candidates. The case had been brought by Ken Miyagishima, an independent candidate for Governor). Miyagishima v Toulouse Oliver, Santa Fe District Court, d101cv2026-1571.
New Mexico(2): the Forward Party is about to file a federal lawsuit against the law that forces qualified minor parties to submit petitions for their non-presidential nominees, and against laws that do not permit minor parties to nominate candidates who hadn’t already been registered members of that party.
Texas: on June 10, Michael Collier, an independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor, filed a federal lawsuit against the law that requires him to collect 81,030 signatures in just 30 days. Collier v Nelson, w.d., 1:26cv-1574. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pittman.
LEGISLATIVE NEWS
Rhode Island: on June 18, Governor Dan McKee signed HB 6090 and SB 2491, identical bills that move the presidential primary from late April to early March. Rhode Island had March presidential primaries in the years 1996 through 2008, as well.
South Carolina: on May 15, Governor Henry McMaster signed HB 3557. It imposes filing fees on candidates nominated by convention, which means in practice, on minor parties. Previously, only candidates who ran in primaries were required to pay filing fees. The law continues to exempt independent candidates from paying filing fees. Other states that have passed similar bills in the last twenty years include North Carolina and Texas. Filing fees for conventions make little sense, because the purpose of filing fees is to prevent primary ballots from being too crowded, but that is irrelevant for parties that nominate by convention.
CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO LAWSUIT
On June 23, California filed its brief in Peace and Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-08308. It emphasizes that the top-two system treats all candidates alike and does not discuss the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Anderson v Celebrezze, the 1983 decision that said the First Amendment requires that states allow independent and minor party candidates to enter election races after the public has learned the identity of the major party candidates. In presidential election years, the California system shuts off all routes to the general election ballot by December of the year before the election. No other state except Texas has that characteristic.
The U.S. Supreme Court had also said in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson that “There are obvious differences in kind between the needs and potentials of a political party with historically established broad support, on the one hand, and a new or small political organization on the other. Georgia has not been guilty of invidious discrimination in recognizing these differences and providing different routes to the printed ballot. Sometimes the grossest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were exactly alike.”
The lawsuit also challenges the California law that won’t let candidates have their party label on the ballot unless the candidate is a member of a qualified party. The American Solidarity Party is a co-plaintiff, and it raises this issue. In defense of the law, the state says, “The State’s interests in permitting candidates to identify on the ballots only political parties that have qualified to participate in an election include ensuring that candidates appear on the ballot in an orderly manner, preventing misrepresentation, avoiding electoral confusion and deception, conserving the simplicity of the ballots, and assuring the efficiency, integrity, and fairness of the ballots.”
In the June 2026 primary, candidates for partisan office who were registered in the American Solidarity, Constitution, Forward, Socialist Workers, and Working Class Parties were all forced to have a ballot label “Party preference: none”, which is an untrue statement. All of these candidates prefer their own party.
The brief does not mention that Washington, the only other state with a top-two system, lets all candidates have any ballot label they wish, as long as it is not too long and not obscene.
WYOMING THREAT
On May 21, Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican, addressed an interim meeting of the Joint Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee. He urged the committee to pass a 2027 proposed bill to increase the number of signatures for statewide independent candidates from 2% of the last U.S. House vote to 3%, and to increase it for legislative independent candidates to 5% of the last U.S. House vote.
MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
Florida: the plaintiffs in the lawsuit over restrictions on the initiative process, Florida Decides Healthcare v Byrd, are appealing to the Eleventh Circuit after all. The previous B.A.N. was incorrect when it said there would be no appeal. The case includes a challenge to the new law that won’t permit out-of-state circulators.
New Mexico: on June 17, U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Strickland enjoined the ballot qualified Libertarian Party of New Mexico from referring to itself by that name. The Libertarian National Committee had filed this lawsuit because the New Mexico Party is not an affiliate of the national party. Libertarian National Committee v Libertarian Party of New Mexico, 1:26cv-1562. The Secretary of State is not a party to the lawsuit and is not bound by the ruling.
VOTER REGISTRATION TOTALS
| Dem. | Rep. | Indp, misc | Lib’t. | Green | Consti. | Wk Fam | Forward | other | |
| Alaska | 70,101 | 142,261 | 371,656 | 6,100 | 1,456 | 754 | ? | ? | 1,799 |
| Arizona | 1,221,223 | 1,542,604 | 1,496,589 | 30,748 | 5,192 | ? | ? | ? | 44,504 |
| Arkansas | 83,645 | 152,503 | 1,585,602 | 743 | 123 | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Calif. | 10,397,692 | 5,779,786 | 5,512,384 | 231,107 | 113,790 | ? | ? | 1,315 | 1,133,614 |
| Colorado | 1,005,460 | 910,443 | 2,058,133 | 35,029 | 8,187 | 11,406 | ? | 442 | 43,890 |
| Conn. | 784,433 | 482,807 | 923,987 | 2,665 | 1,237 | ? | 318 | ? | 28,884 |
| Delaware | 331,259 | 200,086 | 252,534 | 1,815 | 761 | 221 | 311 | ? | 18,348 |
| Dt. Col. | 363,162 | 24,566 | 87,143 | 1,723 | 4,554 | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Florida | 4,027,949 | 5,533,168 | 3,317,918 | 34,594 | 9,533 | 18,383 | ? | 1,909 | 416,865 |
| Idaho | 121,486 | 647,349 | 245,453 | 10,758 | ? | 4,154 | ? | ? | – – |
| Iowa | 500,432 | 694,349 | 588,009 | 11,292 | 2,489 | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Kansas | 495,139 | 894,116 | 587,506 | 23,781 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8,332 |
| Kentucky | 1,371,232 | 1,614,657 | 358,448 | 15,871 | 2,591 | 1,592 | ? | ? | 1,757 |
| Louis’na | 1,065,160 | 1,058,174 | 820,907 | 14,778 | 2,738 | 125 | 0 | 30 | 3,820 |
| Maine | 306,875 | 273,800 | 284,949 | 5,686 | 30,449 | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Md. | 2,217,757 | 1,019,362 | 1,075,147 | ? | 6,171 | ? | ? | ? | 4,874 |
| Mass. | 1,207,083 | 394,871 | 3,299,632 | 14,159 | 3,210 | 265 | 762 | 35 | 8,353 |
| Missouri | 119,630 | 126,145 | 3,683,147 | 4,903 | ? | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Nebraska | 327,478 | 620,580 | 280,763 | 17,630 | ? | ? | ? | ? | 10,452 |
| Nevada | 574,128 | 577,737 | 817,616 | 14,099 | 2,155 | 85,682 | ? | 97 | – – |
| N. Hamp. | 265,183 | 314,005 | 377,158 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| N. Jersey | 2,543,355 | 1,678,469 | 2,392,538 | 24,132 | 11,448 | 11,275 | ? | ? | 27,146 |
| N. M. | 573,161 | 442,802 | 388,808 | 14,399 | 4,667 | ? | ? | 4 | – – |
| N. York | 6,002,006 | 2,835,976 | 3,195,754 | 14,013 | 15,445 | ? | 59,617 | ? | 424,331 |
| No. Car. | 2,315,070 | 2,325,777 | 3,096,420 | 46,431 | 4,662 | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Okla. | 613,532 | 1,290,034 | 495,471 | 23,536 | ? | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| Oregon | 982,422 | 733,255 | 1,160,446 | 18,942 | 7,820 | 3,798 | 8,355 | ? | 167,722 |
| Penn. | 3,550,730 | 3,487,963 | 1,058,962 | 43,051 | 12,661 | 329 | ? | ? | – – |
| Rhode Is. | 239,464 | 102,126 | 363,046 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | – – |
| So. Dak. | 136,755 | 321,576 | 157,923 | 2,805 | ? | 176 | ? | ? | – – |
| Utah | 247,538 | 922,187 | 500,070 | 18,493 | 1,050 | 6,634 | ? | 2,240 | 76,010 |
| W. Va. | 326,834 | 521,418 | 337,597 | 10,755 | 2,730 | 171 | ? | ? | – – |
| Wyo. | 30,199 | 212,099 | 27,235 | 1,741 | ? | 546 | ? | ? | – – |
| TOTAL | 44,417,573 | 37,877,051 | 41,198,951 | 695,779 | 255,119 | 145,511 | 69,363 | 6,068 | 2,420,701 |
| Percent | 34.96% | 29.80% | 32.42% | .55 | .20% | .11% | .05% | .00+% | 1.90% |
Totals Oct. 2024: Dem. 45,512,696 (37.07%), Rep. 37,314,494 (30.40%), indp. & misc. 36,245,381 (29.52%), Libertarian 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%), Libertarian 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%), Libertarian 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%), Libertarian 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%), Libertarian 240,328 (.24%), other 708,941 (.70%).
2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES
| Party sigs | Indp sigs | LIB’T | GREEN | CONSTIT | FORWRD | Pty due | Indp due | |
| Alabama | 42,459 | 42,459 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | May 19 | May 19 |
| Alaska | (reg) 5,000 | #Pay fee | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | April 28 | May 1 |
| Calif. | (reg) *76,413 | 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 | *761 | *221 | 2 | Aug 25 | July 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | #3,000 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | – – | 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 | *too late | *too late | too late | too late | – – | May 25 |
| Indiana | no procedure | #36,944 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | – – | June 30 |
| Iowa | no procedure | #3,500 | *already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | – – | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | Feb 13 | Feb 13 |
| Maine | (reg) 5,000 | #4,000 | already on | already on | *too late | *too late | Jan 2 | June 1 |
| Maryld. | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | July 1 | Aug 3 |
| Mass. | (reg) 45, 500 | #10,000 | *1,200 | 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 | *finished | *finished | *too late | *too late | May 2 | June 2 |
| Miss. | be organized | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | *too late | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | March 2 | May 26 |
| Nebraska | 6,726 | 4,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | Sept 1 |
| Nevada | 14,271 | 250 | already on | too late | already on | too late | May 12 | May 12 |
| N.Hamp | 24,375 | #3,000 | *1,100 | 0 | *2,000 | 0 | Aug 4 | Aug 4 |
| N Jersey | no procedure | #2,000 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | – – | June 2 |
| N Mex | 3,560 +14,246 | 14,246 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *in court | June 25 | June 25 |
| N York | no procedure | #45,000 | too late | too late | too late | too late | – – | May 26 |
| No Caro | *14,310 | 83,874 | already on | already on | *too late | *too late | 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 | *too late | 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 | *2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | Aug 3 |
| R.I. | *25,670 | #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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | 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 | *too late | too late | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | — | June 16 |
| Wash. | no procedure | #0 | too late | too late | too late | too late | – – | 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 | too late | April 1 | June 1 |
| Wyoming | 5,201 | 5,201 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | June 1 | Aug 24 |
| #ON | *31 | *17 | 12 | *4 |
* means change since June 1, 2026 B,A,N.
KENTUCKY PARTY PETITIONS FOR U.S. SENATE AND TWO U.S. HOUSE RACES
The Kentucky Party, a party that exists only in Kentucky, has placed a U.S. Senate nominee, two U.S. House nominees, and a legislative candidate on the November 2026 ballot. It is the first one-state party that has ever qualified for either U.S. Senator or Governor in Kentucky since the start of Kentucky government-printed ballots in 1892.
The Kentucky Party was formed in 2024, when it placed Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, on the Kentucky ballot. The party platform says it opposes the pursuit of political goals by military, assaultive or coercive means. It says, “Ending Kentucky’s participation in America’s military empire is a core purpose” of the party.
Recently, it persuaded the Kentucky State Board of Elections to tally how many voters register as members. As of the May tally, it has 198 members.
2026 VOTER CHOICE LIKELY TO BE MORE RESTRICTED THAN IN ANY MIDTERM SINCE 1990
It seems likely that in November 2026, eight states will not have any statewide candidates on the ballot except members of the Democratic and Republican Parties: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia (there are no statewide races in 2026 in Utah and Washington).
This is quite a contrast from 2022, when there were only two states with a Democratic-Republican monopoly for all statewide offices: California and Kentucky.
The last midterm in which there were as many as eight states with such restricted choices was 1990.
The entries on the list might change. It is possible that the Independent Party of Connecticut, which is on the ballot, will have some statewide candidates this year who are neither Democratic nor Republican nominees; the Independent Party hasn’t chosen its candidates yet. Also, it is possible that the Forward Party will win its New Mexico lawsuit. On the other hand, the Illinois independent running for Governor may fail to get on the ballot if the challenge against him succeeds.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE BECOMES AN INDEPENDENT
On June 22, former Republican congressmember Marjorie Taylor Greene said she has left the Republican Party. In Georgia, the voter registration form doesn’t ask about party membership, so one’s membership is simply determined by an individual’s statement.
FOUR CALIFORNIA MINOR PARTY MEMBERS QUALIFY FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT FOR LEGISLATIVE RACES
Four California minor party members running for the legislature managed to place second in the June top-two primary. Green Party member Victor Hernandez, in the Assembly 58th district in Orange County, qualified because he was one of only two candidates on the primary ballot. Another Green, Mark Rendon, placed second in the Assembly, 14th district, in Alameda County, even though there were three candidates on the primary ballot. The third place finisher was a Republican. Rendon is one of only two minor party members who ever placed second in a California top-two primary even though both major parties also had someone on the primary ballot.
Libertarian William Brown, in the State Senate 12th district in the San Joaquin Valley, placed second in a three-way primary. The other two candidates were both Republicans.
Peace & Freedom member Kevin Akin, in the 63rd Assembly district in Riverside County, had filed as a write-in candidate in the primary. The primary ballot only had one candidate printed on it, so Akin came in second via write-in votes.
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR PUTNAM COUNTY OFFICE
PLACE DUMMY LIBERTARIAN PARTY ON NEW YORK BALLOT
The Libertarian Party is not ballot-qualified in New York state. Therefore, when Republican nominees for county offices in Putnam County circulated petitions for themselves as “Libertarian” nominees this year, there was nothing the Libertarian Party could do to stop it.