On August 12, Public Policy Polling released a poll for the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky. The results: Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell 44%; Democrat Alison Grimes 40%; Libertarian David Patterson 7%; undecided 9%. See the poll here; question four has the Senate race.

Question five asks Patterson voters whom they would vote for if they weren’t voting for Patterson. The results show that voters who wish to vote Libertarian are almost evenly divided between McConnell and Grimes.

No minor party or independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Kentucky has ever received as much as 5%. The best showing for U.S. Senate candidates in Kentucky who weren’t major party nominees came in 1914, a year when Kentucky was having elections for both its Senate seats. Progressive Party nominee Burton Vance in the regular election received 4.15; Progressive Party nominee George Nicholas in the special election received 4.14%. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.

Virginia will hold a special U.S. House election for the 7th district on November 4, 2014. The term is just for the remainder of November, December, and a few days in January 2015. The Democratic and Republican Parties were permitted to nominate candidates for the special election by party meeting, so no major party candidate needed a petition.

But Virginia says any other candidate in the special election must submit 1,000 valid signatures, and the period for collecting them runs for only ten days, from August 5 through August 15. Even though the Fourth Circuit ruled in 1981 that states must make reductions in the number of signatures, or extend the deadline, in special elections (because the petitioning period is so much shorter), the State Board of Elections says any candidate affected by the rule must bring a lawsuit.

On August 11, the California Supreme Court removed Proposition 49 from the November 2014 ballot. That measure asks the voters if they want members of Congress and of the legislature to work for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. One Justice wanted to keep the measure on the ballot. One justice wrote extensively to say why it should not be on the ballot. The other five justices expressed no opinion on the merits, so theoretically, when the Court issues a complete opinion (instead of just an order), it is possible the measure might be on a future ballot, such as the June 2016 ballot. The case is Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Bowen. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.