Due to a combination of eccentric behavior on the part of the California Secretary of State, and the California Republican Party, if Donald Trump carries California in the popular vote on November 8, he still won’t get California’s electoral votes. See the post immediately underneath for an explanation. Due to the ballot format, California voters who wish to vote for Donald Trump will be forced to cast an overvote. The ballot design forces Trump voters to vote for 108 different individuals for presidential elector, yet California is only entitled to 55 electoral votes. Therefore, the votes for Trump will be overvotes and all will be invalid.

The California Republican Party was free to have nominated the same presidential elector candidates as the American Independent Party. The AIP turned in its list first, so the Republican Party was aware of the AIP names. But the Republican Party, which filed its slate at the last hour before the deadline for electors, chose to ignore the AIP list and submit different candidates. The AIP had been suggesting a joint list to the Republican Party ever since August, and had even offered to let the Republicans choose 50 members, but the Republicans ignored the AIP request.

This Peoria Journal Star story explains what happens if any Green or Libertarian nominee for one of the three statewide offices polls as much as 5%. The story says that would make the party ballot-qualified. Unfortunately, the story is not entirely accurate. If either the Libertarian or Green Party gets 5% for president, U.S. Senate, or comptroller, that would only cause the party to become ballot-qualified for the statewide offices in 2018, but not U.S. House, state legislature, or partisan county office.

The only way for a 5% vote to create a ballot-qualified party for all office is to poll 5% for Governor. That is impossible this year, because Governor isn’t up. If either party does poll 5% this year for a statewide office, however, it is somewhat plausible that party could sue to become ballot-qualified for all office, not just statewide office. Once Illinois has recognized that a 5% showing proves that a party has voter support, it is difficult to imagine why that support should only be recognized for statewide offices, but not other offices.

On September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady, a Bush Jr. appointee, issued an eight-page order in De La Fuente v Alcorn, e.d., 1:16cv-1201, a Virginia lawsuit. The order refuses to put De La Fuente on the Virginia ballot because the ballots have already been printed. But it suggests that the lawsuit has merit, particularly on the issue that Virginia requires candidates for presidential elector to submit their complete Social Security numbers to the State Board of Election before an independent candidate petition may begin to circulate.

The decision says, “Defendants’ expansive use of social security numbers in the ballot qualification process gives cause for concern, and the Court looks forward to examining the issues going forward.” A hearing will be held on November 18 on the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. De La Fuente’s complaint charged that his petition effort in Virginia was damaged because he could not start petitioning until after all his candidates for presidential elector had filed paperwork, and his attempts to recruit presidential elector candidates was delayed because so many potential electors refused to reveal their Social Security numbers to the Board of Elections.

The order also says, “Democracy is diluted when the public’s choice of candidates is limited. Although the two-party system dominates our country’s political landscape, the diffusion of ideas through third-party and independent candidates has a meaningful influence on the political dialogue. This ideological check is important because it reminds the dominant parties that their position of strength is wholly dependent on the will of the people. Should they fail to maintain that support, it is critical that individual voters have someone else to whom they can turn. Without that check, the dominant parties will maintain that dominance without regard to their merit and without an ear to the needs of their constitutents.”