The Federal Election Commission has released data for May 2016, for presidential candidates whose campaigns are active enough to file monthly reports. The only two non-major party presidential candidates listed are Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
Click here to see the Johnson report and here to see the Stein report. During May, Johnson raised $350,561.42 and has cash on hand of $175,574.31. Stein raised $166,992.77 and has cash on hand of $195,762.64.
On June 20, Monmouth University Polls released this presidential poll, including four named candidates, plus an “other” category. Scroll down slightly to #2.
For the first time ever, an independent candidate for State Senate is likely to qualify for a North Carolina government-printed ballot. He is Eric Fink, who is running against Senator Phil Berger, a Republican with no Democratic or Libertarian opponent. Also, three independents are likely to qualify for State House. North Carolina has never had as many as four independent candidates on the ballot for legislature.
North Carolina ballot access requirements have historically been so severe, the state has never had an independent candidate on a government-printed ballot for either house of Congress, or for Governor. That is true for no other state. The North Carolina independent petition requirement was originally 10% of the last vote cast. It was increased in 1935 to 25% of the last vote cast, then reduced in 1973 back to 10%. The 10% requirement was held unconstitutional in 1980 for statewide office, and in 1991 for district office.
See this story on the independent candidates this year. North Carolina has 50 State Senate seats up this year, and 120 State House, so four independents is still quite sparse. The petition deadline for candidates to submit signatures to the counties for verification was June 9, but the deadline for the verification process to be finished is June 24. The article misleads people into thinking petitioning is still going on. The article mentions that Representative Ken Goodman plans to introduce a bill in 2017 to require independent candidates to file with no petition at the same time that primary candidates must file, and then to compete in an “independent primary”. The article misses the irony that if that system were in effect this year, the filing deadline for independents would have been in December 2015, before the controversial vote on a bill on bathrooms that caused these independent candidates to run. The story also misses the point that such an early deadline for independents would be unconstitutional. In 1980 the old April petition deadline in North Carolina for independents was struck down. Thanks to Douglas Joy for the link.
Political scientist Seth Masket has this relatively short and simple summary of political science research showing that type of primary does not effect whether moderates or extremists get elected. The article is in Pacific Standard, an award-winning bimonthly magazine that has existed since 2008. It is published in Santa Barbara, California. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On June 20, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court that Virginia’s discriminatory listing of candidates on the general election ballot is constitutional. Libertarian Party of Virginia v Alcorn, 15-1162. The decision is by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee. It is co-signed by Judge G. Stephen Agee, a Bush Jr. appointee, and Andre M. Davis, a Clinton appointee. The Virginia law says the nominees of the qualified parties are always listed first on the ballot, followed by the nominees of the unqualified parties, and then by independent candidates. Ironically, Virginia does require random placement of each candidate within each category, so a random order procedure is used in every election to determine whether the Republican or the Democratic Party nominees are listed first or second.
The decision does not mention any of the court decisions that say the U.S. Constitution requires an equal chance for all candidates to be listed first on the ballot, except for a U.S. District Court decision from Oklahoma that struck down a law saying the Democratic Party should always be listed first (the law mentioned the Democratic Party by name). The Fourth Circuit decision ignores contrary decisions of the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, a U.S. District Court in New Mexico, and the California and New Hampshire Supreme Courts.
The decision says the state has an interest in encouraging more voters for the two major parties, as opposed to all others. It says, “The ballot ordering law may also favor Virginia’s ‘strong interest in the stability of its political system. “maintaining a stable political system is, unquestionably, a compelling state interest’. While minor parties have long been an important feature of political protest and American democratic life, it is also entirely legitimate for states to correlate ballot placement with demonstrated levels of public support. Indeed, there are many who believe that ‘the emergence of a strong and stable two-party system in this country has contributed enormously to sound and effective government.’ The last sentence quotes a concurrence from a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Davis v Bandemer, which was about gerrymandering and had nothing to do with minor parties or equal treatment for candidates.
The decision admits that candidates listed first get extra votes, but says, “Virginia’s ballot ordering law ensures that at least the beneficiary will not be some entity with little actual public support. Of course, we acknowledge that the two major parties may possess a self-interest in preserving their preferred status, but we will not leap from that fact to the conclusion that a requirement of demonstrated public support is somehow inimical to the public good. Reinforcing through facially neutral and nondiscriminatory methods affiliations already democratically expressed by large portions of the public simpy does not offend the Constitution.”
