On August 31, the Federal Election Commission posted the dates of 2018 primaries for congress. For New York and Massachusetts, the chart shows that the date is yet to be determined. For Louisiana, the FEC correctly says that Louisiana doesn’t have congressional primaries. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
That is a legalistic interpretation based on federal campaign finance restrictions that permit a contribution to be made before the primary, and another before the general election.
While the FEC site claims that it is based on state statute and websites, that is inaccurate.
The FEC is right. Since 1872, federal law has said states must hold congressional elections in November of even-numbered years. How can the Louisiana congressional election, first round, be otherwise than a general election? First, it elects people; second, federal law says the November events are general elections. None of this has anything to do with campaign finance law.
How can elections where only a single office is contested be considered a general election?
The FEC has no enforcement powers in this regard. They are only concerned with regulating campaign finance.
https://transition.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf
See page 21:
Unopposed Candidates; Elections Not Held
A candidate is entitled to a separate contribution
limit even if:
•
The candidate is unopposed in an election; (can happen in most states).
•
A primary or general election is not held because the candidate is unopposed; (Florida)
•
The general election is not held because the candidate received a majority of votes in the
previous election. (Louisiana)
2 USC 7 —-
§7. Time of election
The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
(R.S. §25; Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 130, §6, 18 Stat. 400 ; June 5, 1934, ch. 390, §2, 48 Stat. 879 .)
Codification
R.S. §25 derived from act Feb. 2, 1872, ch. 11, §3, 17 Stat. 28 .
The second sentence of this section, which was based on section 6 of the act Mar. 3, 1875 and made this section inapplicable to any State that had not yet changed its day of election and whose constitution required an amendment to change the day of election of its State officers, was omitted.
Amendments
1934-Act June 5, 1934, substituted “3d day of January” for “fourth day of March”.
Constitutional Provisions
The first section of Amendment XX to the Constitution provides: “The terms of Senators and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.”
Time for election of Representatives, see Const. Art. I, §4, cl. 1.
——
THE day for THE election ——
Too many LAWLESS M-O-R-O-N-S to count in LA and other States —
who try to elect USA Reps (and USA Sens) on any other day/date.
See also the SCOTUS Love case — that tried and failed to educate such MORONS.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/67.html
Foster v Love (1997) — a mere 20 years ago — esp for MORONS.
@Demo Rep
See ‘Love v Foster’. After the SCOTUS decision, the federal district court changed the date of the Open Primary to the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November. The Love litigants sought to get rid of the Open Primary entirely, but the district court harmonized the Open Primary with the federal statute. The district court decision was upheld by the 5th Circuit.
I don’t know why calling the Louisiana election a “Primary” seems to be the hill you plan to die on, but it is a regular election, that can (but doesn’t have to) have a runoff election afterword. If someone gets 50%+1 votes they win and go to DC.
J.R. — the Dist Ct and the 5th Circ after SCOTUS = more judicial LAWLESS MORONS at work.
2 USC 7 for Congress election days = language in State Consts for State general election days — for State legislatures and State executive and judicial offices —
— fixed so that the gerrymander hacks can NOT have different election day machinations.
Also a blatant subversion of 14 Amdt, Sec. 2 if a USA Rep is not elected on the 2 USC 7 day.
@Brandon, Richard Winger, incorrectly in my opinion, insists in differentiating between the electoral systems in place in Washington and California, and that in Louisiana. Louisiana calls the first election the primary (remember primary means first). The F.E.C. apparently recognizes this when it notes that separate contributions may be made for a general election, even it is not held because a candidate received a majority in the previous (primary) election.
It seems obvious to me, and probably just about everybody, that there is a huge difference between allowing minor parties to be on the ballot for Congress in November, versus not being allowed on in November. November is when the peak of voter interest exists.
We have empirical evidence from the blanket primary in California that it doesn’t matter. In districts in which there was one candidate from each party, and therefore assured that each candidate on the primary ballot would be on the general election ballot in November, the results were the same for the primary and the general election.
The only exception was in Audie Bock’s assembly race where it was illegal to vote for her in the primary. Instead, would-be supporters voted for the minor party candidates. Had it been a Top 2 primary, voters could have voted directly for her.
You say “it doesn’t matter” but you ignore the social impact of minor party campaigns. No one knows who is listening to the campaign message of a minor party candidate in the general election season, but clearly some people are listening. Ideas are being disseminated. Conversations are being started. All of this free speech activity is stifled under top-two, because a minor party candidate who can’t even be a write-in candidate in November, much less be on the ballot, has no audience whatsoever. Only a crazy person would claim to be a candidate when it is impossible for any voter to vote for that person. So all the minor party candidates stop talking after June. The main point of minor party campaigns for public office is expressive.
What percentage of the voters in CA gerrymander districts did NOT vote if there was NOT 1 D and 1 R candidate ???
ie find it intolerable to vote if there are —
2Ds, 2Rs, 1 D and other, 1 R and other ???
—
ONE election day — NO primaries
PR and Appv
In the 2016 November election, 16% of the people who cast a ballot left it blank for US Senate.
2 Ds in such USA Senate election —
Perhaps 40-60 percent of all CA Elephants did NOT vote for a Senator candidate ???
When California had the blanket primary, we know that the same percentage of voters were responsive to minor party messages to the point of actually voting for the minor party candidates in the primary and general election. It is true that more people voted in the general election.
We could speculate that the more politically aware voters would vote for minor parties, while those who were casually interested or non-interested would either have not voted or would have voted for a major party, but for the minor party campaigns. But the safer assumption is that they did not have any particular influence.
Under segregated partisan primary system, voters are denied the full range of possible political expression. This is clearly a stifling of free speech. Candidates only speak to some voters, voters only listen to some candidates, and even though they may give contributions, canvas or otherwise provide support, they are denied the most fundamental opportunity to express support, by voting for their candidate of choice.