California City News has this op-ed, written by me, about the effect the California top-two system has had on minor parties.
6
On July 9, the Constitution Party submitted its petition to be a “limited political party” in Alaska. A “limited political party” is one that is ballot-qualified for President. The requirement is 3,005 signatures and the party submitted over 4,500. Thanks to J. R. Myers for this news. In 2012 the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee, Virgil Goode, was not on the ballot in Alaska.
On July 9, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in League of Women Voters of Florida v Detzner, SC14-1905. The order says the state’s U.S. House district boundaries for eight districts violate the State Constitution. The order says the legislature must quickly redraw the boundaries of these eight districts:
5, Corrine Brown
13, David W. Jolly
14, Kathy Castor
21, Theodore E. Deutch
22, Lois Frankel
25, Mario Diaz-Balart
26, Carlos Curbelo
27, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Of course, new boundaries for this districts will mean new boundaries for next-door districts, so probably a majority of the 27 districts will need new boundaries. The vote was 5-2. The State Constitution says that the legislature must not be influenced by considerations of partisanship. The State Supreme Court found that the Republican majority in the legislature had violated that provision of the State Constitution. The lower state court had also invalidated the plan, but the lower court had only ruled that two particular districts needed to be redrawn.
The Green Party and the Constitution Party are about to file a motion for clarification with a U.S. District Court in Tennessee, to determine if they are still on the ballot for 2016. As previously noted, on July 2 the Sixth Circuit agreed with last year’s U.S. District Court decision that Tennessee’s law on how a party remains on the ballot is unconstitutional. The Tennessee legislature is not in session, so the existing law can’t be repaired until the 2016 session of the legislature.
A few Republican Party leaders have expressed the idea that somehow, the party should keep Donald Trump out of its upcoming presidential debates. This National Journal article explains that federal campaign finance laws do not permit that. Debate sponsors must use objective criteria, such as poll results, not political criteria. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the link.