Florida will recount all the ballots cast for Governor, U.S. Senator, and Agriculture Commissioner. Those are the only statewide offices that were on the ballot this week, except for Attorney General and Chief Financial Officer. See this story. Probably at no time in history has any state previously had to recount more than one statewide office in any particular election. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
The Conservative Party appeared on the Illinois ballot this week, for the jointly elected offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Preliminary election returns show it received 4.28% of the vote.
According to this story, the Illinois State Board of Elections agrees that in the 80 counties (out of 102) in which the party exceeded 5% for Governor, the Conservative Party is now ballot-qualified in those 80 counties, but only for partisan county office.
This conclusion by the Illinois Board of Elections is startling. In 2014, the Libertarian Party nominee for Governor polled over 5% of the vote in Alexander, Bond, Brown, Bureau, Calhoun, Carroll, Cass, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Coles, Crawford, Cumberland, DeWitt, Douglas, Edgar, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Gallatin, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Jersey, Johnson, Knox, Lawrence, Lee, Livingston, Logan, McDonough, Macoupin, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Mason, Menard, Mercer, Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Perry, Piatt, Pike, Pope, Pulaski, Putnam, Randolph, Richland, Saline, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott, Shelby, Stark, Stephenson, Tazewell, Union, Vermilion, Washington, and Williamson Counties. But, as far as is known, no one thought the Libertarian Party was then ballot-qualified for partisan county offices in those 69 counties.
California has millions of votes remaining to be counted, so it isn’t easy to make observations about the final returns. But already it is obvious that a large proportion of voters cast a blank ballot for the two statewide offices with only two Democrats on the ballot.
The election returns posted on the Secretary of State’s web page change daily. As of Saturday morning, November 10, there were only 7,045,964 votes counted for U.S. Senate, and only 6,619,548 votes counted for Lieutenant Governor.
But Proposition Six, the gasoline tax measure, has 7,831,910 votes counted so far. Proposition Ten, concerning rent control, has 7,815,128. In the Governor’s race, with one Democrat and one Republican, 7,971,464 votes have been counted.
The Secretary of State’s web page does not have any data on the number of people who went to the polls, but that figure will be available when the official count is completed in early December. Thanks to Rob Richie for suggesting the subject of this blog post.
Janavi Mehta, a writer for the student newspaper The Guilfordian, at Guilford College, Greensboro, North Carolina, has a strikingly clear and concise column explaining the role of minor parties in the U.S. Thanks to Ken Bush for the link.
On November 8, the Montana Green Party filed this 19-page brief in Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87. The issues are two aspects of the petition procedure for new parties: (1) the March 15 deadline is too early; (2) the distribution requirement violates one person, one vote.
Courts have been unanimous (except for one peculiar Utah decision from 1972) that distribution requirements for statewide petitions are unconstitutional, if the distribution requirement gives the voters of some geographical areas more power than it gives the voters of other areas. Generally an unconstitutional distribution requirement offends one person, one vote, if the number of signatures required inside each area is the same, but the population of the areas varies.
Montana’s distribution requirement, unique in the history of state ballot access laws, is the opposite. The areas have equal populations, but the required number of signatures inside each area varies widely. Montana requires signatures inside at least 34 state house districts to equal 5% of the winning candidate for Governor’s vote inside that district. That requirement varies hugely, from 55 signatures, to 150 signatures. So the voters of the districts with only 55 signatures have more power to get a party on, than the voters in the districts that require 150 signatures.
This may sound arcane, but it is firmly established in precedent, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision Moore v Ogilvie. Thanks to Jim Riley for news that this brief had been filed.
