WASHINGTON, D.C. WILL USE RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS IN 2026
WILL EASE PATH FOR MINOR PARTIES TO GAIN QUALIFIED STATUS
On December 16, the D.C. City Council voted that the District will use Ranked Choice Voting starting this year for all partisan elections. D.C. becomes the third jurisdiction to use RCV in federal elections, following Maine (in 2018) and Alaska (in 2022).
Results from Maine and Alaska show that RCV boosts the percentage of votes cast for minor parties. In Maine in 2020, the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate polled the highest percentage for any third party candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine history. For President that year, the percentage for the Green Party in Maine was 1.00%. That was the party’s best percentage in any state that year, and triple the national percentage in the states in which it was on the ballot.
In Alaska, the Alaskan Independence Party benefited from RCV in 2024, when it polled the third highest percentage for U.S. House in the party’s history, a history that goes back to 1974. Only 2008 and 1992 were higher.
How RCV Will Affect Qualified Status in DC
Parties become ballot-qualified in the District by polling 7,500 votes for a districtwide office. Although the Green Party always attains this goal, other third parties have trouble with it. The Libertarian Party has only surmounted it four times: 2012, 2016, 2018, and 2020.
No other nationally organized minor party has ever polled 7,500 votes in D.C., not even the Reform Party, except that the Socialist Workers Party did it in 1976. But the vote test should be easier in the future with the use of RCV.
How RCV Came to D.C.
D.C. has Ranked Choice Voting because the voters voted for it in November 2024. It was on the ballot as an initiative, because the City Council had always refused to pass it. After it passed, it had to survive a lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party.
Even after a court upheld it, there was still no guarantee that it would be used in 2026, because it wasn’t certain that the government was ready. But the City Council vote of December 16 determined that the city will use it this year.
CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO
The lawsuit filed by four California minor parties against the top-two system is finally starting to move. On December 19, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney set a hearing for February 27, 2026. Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d. 3:24cv-8308. The hearing will be on Zoom and anyone will be able to watch remotely.
This comes at a time when the California top-two system is getting bad publicity. Veteran California political analysts Phil Matier, George Skelton, and Joe Mathews have all pointed out that the top-two system might disenfranchise Democrats in the 2026 gubernatorial race. This is because polls show the two prominent Republicans running might place first and second. Although Republicans consistently poll only 40% of the California statewide vote in this era, there are so many prominent Democrats running that none of them might place higher than third. Politico and Political Wire have also carried commentary.
CONGRESS RCV BILLS
On December 10, bills were introduced in both houses of Congress to require states to use Ranked Choice Voting in congressional elections. They are HR 6589 and S.3425. The House bill has 16 sponsors; the Senate bill has two.
The bills apply to primaries and general elections. If enacted, they would ban top-two systems, but not top-four systems.
This is the third session of Congress in which a bill like this has been introduced in the House, and the second time one was introduced in the Senate. Both bills have more sponsors than ever before. All the sponsors are Democrats.
The previous bills in the House were HR 9578 in 2024, and HR 4464 in 2019. The lead sponsor in the House has always been Congressmember Jaime Raskin of Maryland. The previous bill in the Senate was S.5048, introduced in 2024. The lead Senate sponsor has always been Peter Welch of Vermont.
The other House sponsors, by state, are: California, Scott Peters and Eric Swalwell; Florida, Summer Lee; Illinois, Delia Ramirez; Maine, Chellie Pingree; Massachusetts, Seth Moulton and Ayanna Pressley; Michigan, Shri Thanedar; Minnesota, Kelly Morrison, Ilhan Omar, and Angie Craig; New Mexico, Teresa Leger Fernandez; Tennessee, Steve Cohen; Virginia, Donald Beyer; and Washington, Pramila Jayapal.
The other Senate sponsor is Andy Kim of New Jersey.
SUPREME COURT ELECTION CASES
Oral argument has been held in the U.S. Supreme Court in three cases involving election law, and a decision in any of them could come at any time after the Court returns from recess on January 9.
Campaign Finance: the Court heard National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-3051, on October 9. A decision will probably strike down limits on how much political parties can spend on their own nominees, when there is coordination between the party and its nominee. It is possible that the decision will bolster First Amendment protections for parties in general, and that could help ballot access litigation.
Voting Rights Act: the Court heard Louisiana v Callais, 24-109, on October 15. The decision may weaken the part of the federal Voting Rights Act that relates to redistricting. In effect, the Act ever since the 1980’s has required a limited amount of proportional representation for racial and ethnic minorities. But that policy is now at risk.
Standing for Candidates: the Court heard Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568, on October 8. The issue is whether candidates have standing to challenge election laws, even if it is not obvious that the challenged law harms the candidate. It is likely that the candidate, Congressman Michael Bost, will win this case, and the decision might benefit ballot access cases.
Unscheduled Cases
The Court has agreed to hear two other election cases, but hasn’t set oral argument dates:
When Must Postal Ballots Arrive: on November 10, the Court agreed to hear Watson v Republican National Committee, 24-1260.
The issue is whether an 1872 federal law that sets congressional election day in November really means that all ballots must have been received by election day. The case is from Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit had ruled that the ballots must arrive by election day, which was a surprising outcome, since no other court had ever come to that conclusion. The Mississippi Libertarian Party is also in the case on the side of the Republican Party. Both parties are opposed to couting ballots that arrive after election day. It isn’t clear why, because their stance injures the voting rights of voters who live in places where postal delivery is slow.
Birthright Citizenship: on December 5, the Court agreed to hear two combined cases on whether the 14th amendment means that people born in the United States are automatically citizens, even if their parents are illegal aliens. Trump v Barbara, 25-365. This is an election case, because citizenship determines not only who can vote, but who can run for public office and who can sign petitions to get candidates and initiatives on the ballot.
Cert Decision Still Pending
Finally, an important case, but one in which the Court still hasn’t decided whether to grant cert, is a North Dakota case on whether private citizens and groups can file lawsuits based on the federal Voting Rights Act. The Eighth Circuit had ruled that only the government can bring such cases, which is a sharp departure from past precedent. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe, 25-253.
PROCEDURAL WIN IN ARKANSAS
On December 12, the Eighth Circuit rejected a request from Arkansas to stay the decision of the lower court that blocked many new laws that make it tougher to qualify initiatives. League of Women Voters v Jester, 25-3389.
GEORGIA CASE ON PARTY RIGHTS
On December 15, U.S. District Court Judge William M. Ray, a Trump appointee, ordered that the Georgia Secretary of State be brought into the lawsuit Catoosa County Republican Party v Catoosa County Board of Elections, n.d., 4:24cv-95. This is the lawsuit over whether the Republican Party has the right to exclude candidates from its primary ballot if the party feels the candidates are not in sympathy with the party’s beliefs.
The fact that the Judge brought the Secretary of State into the case is a sign that he is taking the case seriously. The state courts treated the parallel case with utter disdain.
If the Catoosa County Republican Party wins this case, that would be an earthquake for Georgia elections. Georgia has the worst ballot access laws of any state for minor party and independent candidates. But if parties could block candidates from their primary ballot, that would create a strong need for more people to be able to qualify to run outside the two major parties.
GEORGIA CASE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE
On December 8, Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, sued his own state over a discriminatory campaign finance law. Safe Affordable Georgia v Krayenbuhl, n.d., 1:25cv-6985. The lead plaintiff is Raffensperger’s campaign committee. He and the Lieutenant Governor are both running against each other for Governor in the Republican primary. The law lets the Lieutenant Governor receive higher campaign contributions than Raffensperger may receive.
The Georgia Libertarian Party had filed a similar lawsuit several years ago, but the judge in that case ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The new case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Eleanor Ross, an Obama appointee.
BOOK REVIEW: AFTER POPULISM
After Populism, by William C. Pratt M. Kennedy, 2022, 338 pages.
Many books describe the farm protest parties of the period 1874 through 1900. But virtually none cover the minor parties supported by farmers in the 20th century, except for books that concentrate on the Socialist Party in Oklahoma, and the famous Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota. Surprisingly, the northern Great Plains states contained hotbeds of support for the Socialist Party and the Communist Party during the years 1901 through 1950. After Populism is a history of radical left parties in those years, especially in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and eastern Montana.
Most people would probably be surprised to know that the highest percentage of the vote ever attained by a Communist Party gubernatorial candidate was in North Dakota in 1930. The Communist Party had a presence in the northern prairie states, rooted in farmers. Even though the party didn’t win any partisan elections in the farm states, known Communists were elected to county commission seats through winning major party primaries.
In partisan elections, the Communist Party showed support in these counties: Box Butte (Nebraska); Butte (South Dakota); Mountrail, Williams, and Burke (North Dakota), and Sheridan (in eastern Montana). The Socialist Party had notable strength in these counties: Wheeler (Nebraska); Butte and Harding (South Dakota), Burke and Williams (North Dakota).
Pratt describes the personalities who led these parties. His research is so extensive, he used the Russian State Archives and many FBI records. He describes the interaction of these parties with the Farmers Union. The book has an Epilogue describing left-wing farmer activism in the 1980’s.
In the 1930’s, Nebraska and South Dakota had very severe restrictions on ballot access for minor parties, so Communists had to run as independent candidates in those states. In 1948, when the Communist Party supported the Progressive Party and its presidential nominee, Henry A. Wallace, Nebraska was one of the three states that kept Wallace off the ballot.
The book also tells the story of the left-wing non-ideological minor parties in the Northern Plains states, such as the almost forgotten Farmer-Labor Party of South Dakota and the Progressive Party of Nebraska (in each case, in the 1920’s).
LEGISLATIVE NEWS
In a minority of states, legislators are already introducing bills for 2026 sessions:
Arizona: Representative Alex Kolodin (R-Scottsdale) has introduced HB 2022. It moves the date of the non-presidential primary from the last Tuesday in August to the last Tuesday in July. If the bill were to pass, the petition deadline for a new party would move from November of the year before the election to October of the year before the election. Arizona aleady has the nation’s earliest deadline to get a new party on the ballot.
Alabama: many legislators are introducing HB 67, which lowers the cost for individuals and groups to get a list of registered voters. The current cost is over $30,000, but the qualified parties get the list without having to pay for it. The bill would lower the cost to $1,000.
Missouri: State Senator David Gregory (R-St. Louis) has introduced SB 1139 to bring back presidential primaries. The state has frequently changed its policy on whether to have presidential primaries. It had then in 1988 and 1992, but not 1996. It had them 2000-2020, but not 2024. Opposition to presidential primaries is based on the need to spend tax money on them.
Nevada: on November 19, a special session of the legislature passed SJR 1. It would provide that every registered voter automatically receive a postal ballot. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it needs to pass again in the 2027 legislative session.
New Jersey: State Senator Andrew Zwicker (D-Hillsborough) and Assemblymember Joe Danielsen (D-Somerset) say they will soon introduce a bill to use Ranked choice Voting for all federal and state offices.
New York: Bills have been introduced in each house of the legislature to move the presidential primaries from April to the first week in March. They are S8604 by Senator James Skoufis, and A9310 by Assemblymember Landon Dais. Both are Democrats.
DEMOCRATS WON’T RELEASE 2024 AUTOPSY
On December 18, Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said he will not reveal the contents of a new report on why the party lost the 2024 presidential election. The report had been commissioned in July 2025 and was under the direction of Paul Rivera, a New York consultant. Rivera interviewed over 300 Democratic leaders for the report.
Unless the report leaks, we will never know if it mentions the decision of the Democratic Party to attack the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. independent candidacy.
NEW JERSEY FUSION LOSS
On December 9, the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to hear In re: Tom Malinowski petition for Nomination for General Election. This is the lawsuit filed by the Moderate Party, which argued that the State Constitution protects the right of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. The party had lost in the lower court, so now the case is over.
BOTH MAJOR PARTIES ATTACK ARIZONA INDEPENDENT PARTY
Both major parties have sued the Arizona Secretary of State to force him to remove the Arizona Independent Party from the ballot. The Arizona Democratic Party sued on December 4, and the National Republican Committee and the Arizona Republican Party sued on December 11. Both cases are in Maricopa County Superior Court. Also, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission filed a similar lawsuit on December 2.
The case numbers: the Commission case is cv2025-064149; the Democratic case is cv2025-064362; the Republican case is cv2025-065841. The cases will probably be combined. Currently two different judges have the cases.
The Arizona Independent Party got on the ballot by the device of having No Labels (which was ballot-qualified) change its name to Arizona Independent. No qualified party in Arizona had ever changed its name, but qualified parties in many other states have done it. Generally, even when a state had no law on whether a party could change its name, states allowed it. States in which parties changed their name have been Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Also, Utah let two qualified parties merge (Forward and United Utah).
In the past, the major parties changed their name. The Republican Party changed its name to the Union Party in 1864, hoping to gain support from Democrats who supported the Civil War. The party changed it back to “Republican” in 1865, after the war was over. The Democratic Party was originally called the Democratic-Republican Party, then changed its name to the Jacksonian Democratic Party in 1825, and then to its current name in 1836.
The Democratic Party said letting the party change its name to Arizona Independent would create a “short-cut” for independent candidates to get on the November ballot. The Democratic Party assumes future independent candidates would file in the new party’s primary, and they probably would. Arizona has very difficult requirements for independent candidates. The statewide independent petition in 2026 is not yet known exactly, but it will probably be between 47,000 and 48,000 signatures, more than any other state requires in 2026, except Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.
The Arizona law on the number of signatures for statewide independents is probably unconstitutional, because it is greater than the number needed for a new party. Courts in Alabama, Florida, Maryland and North Carolina have ruled that states can’t require more signatures for a statewide independent than for a new party. Yet the Democratic Party’s brief makes no mention of these precedents and suggests that it is good policy to require more signatures for independents than for new parties.
The Democratic brief says, “Such laws are designed to weed out the cranks, the publicity seekers and the frivolous candidates.”
The Commission’s brief says voters will be confused if any party has the word “Independent” in its name, ignoring the fact that Arizona already had the American Independent Party on the ballot in 1968 and 1972. Also 46 other states at one time or another have allowed a party on the ballot if it had the word “Independent” or “Independence” as its name, or if that word was part of its name.
The Republican brief says if the name change is permitted, “The Republican Party will face increased competition for votes and will have their share of votes diluted by ‘independent’ candidates who take a short-cut to ballot access.”
2026 PETITIONING
During December 2025, the Arkansas Libertarian Party and the New Mexico Forward Party each finished their petition for qualified status in the 2026 elections.
MAINE PETITIONS
During December 2025, the Maine Green and Libertarian Parties each notified the Secretary of State that they want independent voters to be able to sign their petitions. A new law lets parties make this choice.
WHEN DID A THIRD PARTY LAST MEET ONGOING “PARTY” DEFINITION?
The chart below shows the law of each state on what a qualified party must do to keep its status. “Qualified” means a party that can place nominees on the general election ballot with just as much ease as the major parties.
Some states have one method for a party to be qualified for all offices, and a separate, easier law on how a party can be on the ballot for just some offices. The chart only shows the method that covers all offices.
The states are listed in order of how long it has been since a party other than the Democratic and Republican met the requirement. There is huge variation in how easy these laws are. Two-thirds of the states have laws that minor parties always, or almost always, manage to meet. Yet one-third of the states have requirements that are so difficult that no third party has met them in at least 20 years.
It is important to know that the chart only deals with existing laws, but that it projects what would have happened if the current law had always been in place.
The most extreme law is Pennsylvania’s law, which is so difficult, if it were in effect in every state, even the Republican Party wouldn’t be ballot-qualified in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and D.C, and even the Democratic Party wouldn’t be qualified in Idaho and Wyoming.
| State | Last Used | Which Party? | Requirement | Created |
| Pa. | never | – – | Registration of 15% | 1986 |
| Ga. | 1912 | Progressive | Poll 20% for Governor or for President in entire USA | 1964 |
| N.J. | 1912 | Progressive | Poll 10% for statewide Assembly vote | 1920 |
| Iowa | 1920 | Socialist | Poll 2% for office at top of ballot 3 times in a row | 2025 |
| Tenn. | 1968 | American | Poll 5% for office at top of ballot | 2016 |
| Ct. | 1990 | A Connecticut | Poll 20% for Governor or have reg. of 20% | 1963 |
| Va. | 1994 | Reform | Poll 10% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 1994 |
| Ark. | 1996 | Reform | Poll 3% for office at top of ballot | 1977 |
| La. | 1996 | Reform | Poll 5% for president or statewide state office | 2024 |
| Wash. | 1996 | Reform | Poll 5% for president | 2008 |
| Ala. | 2000 | Libertarian | Poll 20% for any statewide office | 1982 |
| Ill. | 2006 | Green | Poll 5% for Governor | 1931 |
| Minn. | 2010 | Independence | Poll 8% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 2023 |
| Ohio | 2014 | Green | Poll 3% for office at top of ballot | 2013 |
| R.I. | 2014 | Moderate | Poll 5% for office at top of ballot | 1994 |
| Ky. | 2016 | Libertarian | Poll 2% for President | 1972 |
| N.H. | 2016 | Libertarian | Poll 4% for office at top of ballot | 1997 |
| No.D. | 2016 | Libertarian | Poll 5% for President, Gov., Sec of State or Att. Gen. | 2005 |
| Ind. | 2022 | Libertarian | Poll 2% for Secretary of State | 1980 |
| Ks. | 2022 | Libertarian | Poll 1% for any statewide office other than president | 1984 |
| Md. | 2022 | Libertarian | Poll 1% for office at top of ballot | 1998 |
| Mass. | 2022 | Libertarian | Poll 3% for any statewide office | 1990 |
| N.M. | 2022 | Libertarian | Poll 5% for office at top of ballot | 1983 |
| Wis. | 2022 | Consti, Green, Libertarian | Poll 1% for any statewide office | 1985 |
| Alaska | 2024 | Alas. Indpc, Libertarian | Registration of 5,000 | 2022 |
| Ariz. | 2024 | Libertarian, No Labels | Registration of two-thirds of 1% | 1992 |
| Calif. | 2024 | AIP, Libt, PFP, Green | Registration of .33% | 2014 |
| Colo. | 2024 | many | Poll 1% for any statewide office or 1,000 registrants | 1998 |
| Del. | 2024 | Libt, Indp, Conservative | Registration of one-tenth of 1% | 2010 |
| D.C. | 2024 | Green | Poll 7,500 votes for any districtwide office | 1999 |
| Fla. | 2024 | many | File list of officers and bylaws | 1999 |
| Hi. | 2024 | Libertarian | Have been ballot-qualified 3 elections in a row | 1997 |
| Idaho | 2024 | Libertarian, Constitution | Run 3 candidates | 1977 |
| Maine | 2024 | Green, Libertarian | Have 5,000 registrants | 2023 |
| Mich. | 2024 | many | Poll 1% of winning candidate’s vote, any statewide | 2002 |
| Miss. | 2024 | many | File list of party officers | 1890 |
| Mo. | 2024 | Libertarian | Poll 2% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 1979 |
| Mt. | 2024 | Libertarian | Poll 5% of winner’s vote any statewide, last 2 elec. | 1991 |
| Neb. | 2024 | Libertarian | 10,000 regists or poll 5% any statewide, last 2 elections | 2017 |
| Nev. | 2024 | Indp. Amer, Libertarian | Poll 1% US House vote for any office | 1993 |
| N.Y. | 2024 | Conservative, Wk Families | Poll 2% for office at top of ballot | 2020 |
| No.C. | 2024 | Libertarian, Green | Put presidential nominee on ballot in 35 states | 2017 |
| Okla. | 2024 | Libertarian | Poll 2.5% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 2018 |
| Ore. | 2024 | many | Poll 1% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 2013 |
| So.C. | 2024 | many | Run one candidate in either of last two elections | 1986 |
| So.D. | 2024 | Libertarian | Poll 2.5% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 2018 |
| Texas | 2024 | Libertarian, Green | Poll 2% for any statewide office, any of last 5 elections | 2019 |
| Utah | 2024 | many | Poll 2% for any statewide, either of last 2 elections | 2012 |
| Vt | 2024 | Prog, Libt, Green Mt P&J | Have town committees in ten towns | 1977 |
| W.Va. | 2024 | Libt, Green, Constitution | Poll 1% for Governor | 1916 |
| Wyo. | 2024 | Libertarian, Constitution | Poll 2% for U.S. House, Governor, or Sec. of State | 1998 |
This shows each state’s law on how a qualified party maintains its status, and also shows the last time a party other than the two major parties met that test. The laws are for qualified status for all offices. In Ct., Ga., Il., La., and NM, there are easier laws that give a party qualified status for just some offices, but they are not included above.
MINOR PARTIES AND INDEPENDENTS: LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS, NOV. 2025
Below are vote totals for the independent candidates, and for the only minor parties that ran any nominees, in the regularly-scheduled legislative elections of November 2025. The only states with regularly-scheduled legislative elections were New Jersey and Virginia. The percentages are that party’s total vote divided by the number of votes cast in the districts in which those minor party or independent candidates were on the ballot.
| PARTY | N.J. vote | N.J. % | Va. vote | Va. % |
| Green | 2,150 | 1.37% | – – | – – |
| Libt. | 2,198 | 2.31% | 1,853 | 3.00% |
| indp. | 2,014 | 2.30% | 11,629 | 5.88% |
WRITE-IN CANDIDATES ELECTED IN AT LEAST SIX STATES IN NOVEMBER 2025
On November 4, 2025, write-in candidates were elected to local office in at least six states.
Kansas: Spring Hlll Mayor, Chad Young.
New York: Cato Supervisor, Jody Snyder; Cato Highway Superintendent, Gary Cole; Cato Clerk, Kathy Pelkey; Cato Town Board Member, Dave Berlinski; Cato Town Board Member, Wendy House; Spring Valley Trustee, Yosef Kaufman.
Utah: Charleston Mayor, Doug Clements.
Virginia: School Board Members: Bland County, Jerri Harman; Franklin County, Jerry Conner; Grayson County, Pamela Blair; Greene County, Rebecca Roach and David Mastervich; Lunenburg County, Karen Champion; Page County, Daniel Bogdewic.
Washington: Prescott Mayor, Karen Gleason.
Pennsylvania: every year, there are always hundreds of write-in candidates elected in this state, because there are so many local offices for which people customarily don’t bother to get on the ballot. Instead they rely on write-ins. This is especially true for Township offices and elections for polling place officials.
FORWARD PARTY CHOOSES A NEW UTAH STATE SENATOR
On December 11, the Utah Forward Party released the results of its online private primary to fill the vacancy in the State Senate, Eleventh District. The reason the Forward Party had the authority to choose a new State Senator is that the seat had been held by a member of the Forward Party, and he had resigned. Utah is one of the eleven states in which the party that had held the seat previous to the vacancy chooses the new legislator.
Normally, Utah parties that choose a replacement legislator make the choice with a meeting of party officers. The Forward Party instead organized a private online primary. Six members of the party who wanted the seat competed. All the registered voters in the district were able to vote in that primary.
The new Senator is Emily Buss. She will run in the 2026 election to try to keep the seat. If she does, that will be historic. No minor party nominee for the Utah legislature has won a public election since 1916, when a Socialist Party nominee won.
TENNESSEE U.S. HOUSE ELECTION
On December 2, Tennessee held a special U.S. House election to fill the vacant 7th district seat. The results: Republican 53.90%; Democratic 45.06%; America Party .11%; three independents .93%. When this seat had been up in 2024, the results had been: Republican 59.50%; Democratic 38.05%; independent 2.45%.
The America Party nominee, Bobby Dodge, was on the ballot with the label “independent”, because the America Party is not a qualified party in Tennessee.
LEGAL MARIJUANA NOW PARTY MEETS NEBRASKA BALLOT TEST
On Deceember 2, the Nebraska Secretary of State released a new registration tally. It shows that the Legal Marijuana Now Party, which was already ballot-qualified, now has 10,050 registered voters. Because it now has over 10,000 registrants, it can remain ballot-qualified even if it fails to meet the alternate vote test. The law requires a party to poll 5% of the vote every four years, but if it has 10,000 registrants, it is exempt from the vote test.
Instead of requiring a specific method of redistricting or voting in Congressional elections, Congress should simply allow states to redistrict by any method of redistricting (single, multi- or overlay) and to vote by any method (plurality (with run-offs), approval, proportional or ranked choice) vote that any state may prefer. They should only prohibit plurality voting if it doesn’t have run-offs.