James Nevius, writing in The Guardian, imagines what the 2016 U.S. presidential race would be like if all states used Instant Runoff Voting in presidential elections. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.
6
According to this article, it is likely that the only two candidates on the November 2016 ballot in California’s 46th district will be Democrats. In the primary, there are four Republicans running, and three Democrats. It is probable that with four Republicans in the race, no Republican will manage to place first or second. The 46th district is in Orange County, California’s third-most populous county. No incumbent is running, because the incumbent, Loretta Sanchez, is running for U.S. Senate.
California has used top-two in two elections so far, 2012 and 2014. Although there have been some November U.S. House races in those years between two Democrats in Los Angeles County, so far there have been no Democrat-versus-Democrat general election races in any of the U.S. House races to the south and east of Los Angeles County. Those counties include Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, all very populous.
On April 26, the Independent Party filed this reply brief in Independent Party v Padilla. The case challenges the Secretary of State’s refusal to ask the counties to tally how many registered members the party has. In California, parties get on the ballot by persuading approximately 60,000 voters to join the party via voter registration forms. The Secretary of State bases on his refusal on two grounds: (1) recognizing a political body named “Independent Party” would cause voter confusion with independent candidates; (2) the law says two parties can’t have names so similar as to cause confusion, and “American Independent Party” is already on the ballot. California has no law saying a party can’t be called the “Independent Party”, and ballot-qualified parties named “Independent Party” exist or have recently existed in eleven other states.
Of course, California no longer allows independent candidates to use the word “independent” on the ballot, except that independent presidential candidates may still use that word. California hasn’t had an independent on the ballot for president since 1992.
The case has a hearing in Sacramento on May 2, Monday, at 1:30 p.m. Mark Seidenberg will be allowed to address the court, to represent the interests of the American Independent Party.
Vermont election law recognizes qualified major parties (which nominate by primary) and qualified minor parties (which nominate by convention). The Vermont election law says that major parties don’t need to tell the state whom the party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates are until September 14, 2016. That law, section 2716, sets their deadline as 55 days before the general election.
But the law also seems to say that qualified minor parties must tell the state whom their presidential and vice-presidential candidates are by May 26.
On April 26, the Vermont Secretary of State ruled that although qualified minor parties must indeed certify the names of their presidential and vice-presidential candidates by May 27, they may use stand-ins for both offices. So, if the party hasn’t chosen its actual national ticket by that date, when the actual choice is made, the stand-ins can withdraw and the state will accept replacements.
The Secretary of State also will ask the legislature to amend the election law so that both types of qualified parties in the future will have the same late deadline. Thanks to Oliver Hall for this news.
Salon has this article about Jill Stein’s attempts to communicate with Bernie Sanders.