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.
This news story says Donald Trump was asked whether he would run for president outside the major parties. He said “no”, but not in an absolute sense.
Also, see this story. Trump’s comment that everyone who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 would have voted for George H. W. Bush if Perot had not been running is contradicted by 1992 exit polls. Those exit polls showed half of Perot’s voters would have voted for Bill Clinton if Perot had not been running, and the other half said they would vote for President Bush. Of course some of them would have voted for another candidate.
On a related note, this Public Policy Poll released on July 8 for the North Carolina Republican primary says Trump is leading. Thanks to PolitialWire for the link.
Will Leitch, an author and blogger who is more noted for his writing on sports, here comments on the Fox News rules for the August 6, 2015 Republican presidential debate. His piece is on Bloomberg Politics. Leitch writes, “Allowing pollsters and television networks to choose who gets to be a candidate long before any actual voter gets to see them is profoundly undemocratic in the purest way.”
Law Professor Vikram Amar has this article on Verdict, expressing the view that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission means that the National Popular Vote movement is free to use the initiative process to pass its plan. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The same logic also supports using the initiative to pass laws for each U.S. House district to elect its own elector, or laws to apportion each state’s electors in proportion to the popular vote within each state.
