Paul Mitchell has this detailed analysis of how the California top-two system has taught major party candidates to run phony ads, with the motive of tricking the other major party’s voters into choosing the weaker opponent.
1
On June 25, the non-voting Delegate to the U.S. House from Puerto Rico, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, introduced HR 6211. It provides for statehood for Puerto Rico. Gonzalez-Colon is a Republican, and she has 22 Republican co-sponsors, and 14 Democratic co-sponsors. The text of the bill is not yet on the webpage for Congress. The Puerto Rico representative to the U.S. House is called a “Resident Commissioner” and is elected to a four-year term, in presidential election years.
In Puerto Rico, the Republican Party is not a ballot-qualified party, but the New Progressive Party is, and considers itself the Republican Party affiliate in Puerto Rico. Gonzalez-Colon was elected as the nominee of the New Progressive Party. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
On June 27, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said he will retire next month.
Justice Kennedy has not been a friend of minor party or independent candidate ballot access. The last time the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned minor party ballot access was in 2005, when five of the nine justices said helpful things about the issue. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a concurrence in Clingman v Beaver, saying “The State is itself controlled by the political party or parties in power, which presumably have the incentive to shape the rules of the electoral game to their own benefit…As such restrictions become more severe, and particularly where they have discriminatory effects, there is increasing cause for concern that those in power may be using electoral rules to erect barriers to electoral competition.” Justice Kennedy did not join this concurrence, although four justices either joined this concurrence, or joined the dissent which said very similar things.
Justice Kennedy also wrote the opinion in Arkansas Educational TV v Forbes, which said the Constitution permits public radio and television to sponsor debates that include only the Democratic and Republican nominees. And he joined the opinion in Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, which upheld the ability of states to ban letting two parties jointly nominate the same candidate.
Kennedy did dissent, however, in the 1992 case that said Hawaii could ban write-in voting, Burdick v Takushi.
Rhode Island requires independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, to file a declaration of candidacy by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27. The petitions aren’t due until July 10. Statewide candidates need 1,000 signatures.
The only statewide candidates from unqualified parties are two candidates of the Compassion Party, which wants to legalize marijuana. They are Anne Armstrong for Governor, and Alan Gordon for Attorney General.
The Libertarian Party has several candidates for the legislature. No Green Party candidates for any federal or state office filed.
Rhode Island has three ballot-qualified parties, Democratic, Republican, and Moderate. The Moderate Party has one candidate for Governor, and one for Lieutenant Governor (the two offices are elected separately). The party needs to poll at least 5% for Governor in order to retain its qualified status.
On June 25, a U.S. District Court in the U.S. Virgin Islands said it would not now rule on whether independent candidate Positive Nelson should be on the November 2018 ballot. Instead, Nelson must seek relief from the territorial court. The Virgin Islands elects its governor and lieutenant governor as a team. The ticket had been rejected because the Lieutenant Governor candidate, Gary Udhwani, may not have been a registered voter when the petition was submitted. Udhwani had been a registered voter in the past, and his name was apparently purged without telling him. Also he collected some of the signatures, and the Virgin Islands law does not allow unregistered individuals to circulate a petition (although that policy violates the U.S. Supreme Court decision American Constitutional Law Foundation v Buckley).
If the territorial court gives no relief, the U.S. District Court will then take action. Nelson v Fawkes, 1:18cv-17.