Stop Common Core Party Will Change its Name to “Reform Party”

Posted on by January 13, 2015
14

The Stop Common Core Party, which is a ballot-qualified party in New York state, is in the process of changing its name to “Reform Party.” See this story. This is the first time a ballot-qualified party named “Reform Party” has ever existed in New York. In September 1995, Ross Perot launched the Reform Party nationally. But because there was already a ballot-qualified party in New York called the Independence Party (which had been formed in 1994), the Independence Party became the New York state affiliate of the Reform Party, and the “Reform Party” name did not appear on New York ballots.

The new Reform Party of New York will have state officers who are loyal to the Republican Party. The new state chair of the Reform Party is Michael Lawler, who was the campaign manager for Rob Astorino last year. Astorino was the Republican Party nominee for Governor. His campaign organized the “Stop Common Core Party” to give Astorino yet another line on the ballot; he also was the Conservative Party nominee. Thanks to Michael Drucker for this news.

UPDATE: the original Reform Party has an organized affiliate in New York state, and it objects to the name change and will agitate to prevent the Common Core Party from re-naming itself the Reform Party. The original Reform Party in New York has a web page, reformpartyny.org.

Connecticut Bill to Ease Definition of Qualified Minor Party

Posted on by January 13, 2015
Reply

Connecticut Representative Devin Carney (R-Old Saybrook) has introduced proposed House Bill 5303, to ease the definition of a qualified minor party. Current law says that if a group polls 1% for any particular race, then it is ballot-qualified just for that one race in the next election. The bill would say that if a group gets 1% for a statewide race, it is then ballot-qualified for all the statewide races.

The bill is just a proposed bill so far, so the exact language hasn’t been drafted. If the eventual draft says that the status lasts for the next two elections, then the Libertarian Party would be on the 2016 statewide ballot automatically, because it got over 1% for U.S. Senate in 2012 (and there was no U.S. Senate election in 2014). Under existing law, the Libertarian Party is on automatically in 2016 for U.S. Senate but not for President.

Even if the bill, when drafted, says the 1% vote test only applies to the next election (instead of the next two elections), if it were enacted, it would put the Green Party on the 2016 ballot for President and U.S. Senate, because Greens received over 1% in 2014 for Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Comptroller. Also, if enacted, it would put the Working Families Party and the Independent Party on the 2016 ballot for President, because each of them polled over 1% for all the statewide races in 2014, but neither got 1% for President in 2012. The Working Families Party has never been on for President in Connecticut, and the Independent Party in 2012 ran Rocky Anderson for President and he got less than 1%.

Representative Carney also introduced proposed House Bill 5304, which would put the names of the qualified minor parties on the voter registration form. Currently the form only mentions parties that got 20% for Governor in the last election. Parties that got 20% for Governor in the last election are the only parties entitled to a primary, and they are on the ballot automatically for all partisan offices, even those that they didn’t contest in the previous election. Thanks to Joshua Katz for this news.

Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rules Write-in Candidates are Bona Fide Candidates and May Request a Recount

Posted on by January 13, 2015
1

On January 8, 2015, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court issued a 33-page opinion in Hansen v O’Reilly, 2014-0085. The case involves a write-in candidate for the Virgin Islands Senate in the November 4, 2014 election. Incumbent Senator Alicia “Chucky” Hansen, an independent candidate, had been removed from the ballot because an earlier decision of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ruled that she is not eligible to run. Therefore, she filed as a write-in candidate.

The canvass of votes showed that she was not re-elected. She then asked for a recount, but the lower territorial court ruled that she is not a “candidate”, even though the Virgin Islands allows write-in votes and does not even require write-in candidates to file a write-in declaration of candidacy. Therefore, the lower court felt she had no right to request a recount.

The Virgin Islands Supreme Court reversed that finding, and said that write-in candidates are bona fide candidates. Page 17 says that write-ins for bona fide candidates must be counted, which is a helpful conclusion, although it is just dicta in this case, because Hansen’s write-ins had been counted. The Supreme Court noted that she actually campaigned, and voluntarily notified the Board of Elections of her write-in candidacy, even though there is no requirement that write-in candidates file any paperwork.

Unfortunately for Hansen, the Supreme Court still ruled that she is not entitled to a recount. It used a technicality to find that she is not entitled to a recount. The Board of Elections never formally granted her request for a recount. Instead, it did start to recount her votes, but was ordered to stop the recount, because the recount had never been formally authorized by the Board. The Supreme Court said Hansen should have sued the Board over its failure to formally authorize her recount. Of course, Hansen’s response to that is that it would be ridiculous to sue the Board when the Board was proceeding to recount her votes. Hansen says the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s decision on that part of the case is so unfair, that she will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the Virgin Islands Supreme Court.