According to this story, all four Republicans running for Utah Governor want to return to the old nomination system, in which no one can get on a Republican primary ballot unless he or she wins substantial support at a party meeting. Even Jon Huntsman, who got on the primary ballot this year via a petition, favors ending the petition alternative.
Montana requires all qualified parties to nominate by primary. According to this story, both candidates in the upcoming Green Party U.S. Senate primary are really acting on behalf of one of the two major parties. Dennis Daneke, one of the two candidates, says if he wins the primary, afterwards he will withdraw, because he supports the Democratic Party and doesn’t want a Green candidate on the general election ballot for U.S. Senate. The other Green primary candidate for U.S. Senate, by implication, is running because in her heart she favors the Republican Party, and she wants a Green on the November ballot.
The Green Party says neither candidate is a bona fide Green. If the state allowed small qualified parties to nominate by convention, then the Green Party would have control over whether or not it wants to run someone for U.S. Senate. A convention is always free to decide to run no one for a particular office. This is one more example of why mandatory primaries for small qualified parties are a bad idea.
The New Hampshire Libertarian Party has told the press that it will soon file a lawsuit over ballot access during the health crisis. See this story.
This May 10 New York Post editorial says the U.S. District Court decision, restoring the New York presidential primary, is a “win for democracy.” The issue is not resolved because the state is appealing.
There is much commentary from experts who believe that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that presidential electors are free to vote for any qualified candidate in December, that there will be an increase in electors who “disobey.” This concern is not well founded.
In many states, the major parties in recent years have been very relaxed and casual about whom they choose to be presidential elector candidates. But if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of elector freedom, that will change. Major parties in the future will probably choose presidential elector candidates who are individuals with a long record of service to their political party. The U.S. Constitution permits state legislators to be presidential electors. Major parties would be free to choose their elector candidates from the ranks of veteran state legislators from their own party. Experienced state legislators are known and understood by major party leaders. Experienced state legislators who have a record would be “safe” choices for the major parties.
So, paradoxically, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of elector freedom, the consequences are likely to be fewer “disloyal” electors in the future, rather than more.
