The Ninth Circuit will hear Chamness v Bowen on February 13, Wednesday, in its courthouse on the western edge of Pasadena. This is the case that challenges California law that permits some members of political parties to list their party affiliation on the ballot, whereas certain other members of political parties are not permitted to list their party affiliation. Also, the law does not permit independent candidates to have the ballot label “independent” on the ballot. Instead they must use the label “no party preference”. However, California still permits independent presidential candidates to be listed on the ballot as “independent.”

A survey of California’s independent candidates for Congress and state legislature, conducted in June 2012, found that more than two-thirds of those candidates wished they could have “independent” on the ballot. The only independent candidates who said they didn’t want “independent” were a few who worried that “independent” would be confused with “American Independent.” Also, a few of the independent candidates could never be reached.

Anyone who is in southern California on February 13, 2013, should consider attending this hearing. The Court has set aside 40 minutes for the hearing. The Courthouse, at 125 South Grand Avenue, Pasadena, is one of the nation’s most beautiful courthouses. It was once a luxury hotel and is set in extensive gardens. The building is entirely for the use of the Ninth Circuit when it hears cases in southern California, and is not a courthouse for any other court.

This Bloomberg article describes the unusually high re-election rate for incumbent members of Congress running for re-election last month. Perhaps most surprising is that only one incumbent U.S. Senator was defeated for re-election in the November election (also one incumbent was defeated in a primary earlier in the year).

In the House, only 40 incumbents were defeated, and in 13 of those instances, two incumbents were running against each other, so defeat of an incumbent was inevitable. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, was not on the ballot in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma does not permit write-ins. But Johnson was on the ballot in all the states that border Oklahoma. In the 46 counties that border Oklahoma (which includes counties in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas), Johnson polled 1.52% of the total vote cast.

If one assumes that Oklahoma would have voted for Johnson at the same level at which voters in neighboring counties voted for him, then Johnson would have polled 20,290 votes in Oklahoma (the Oklahoma vote for President was 1,334,872, and 1.52% of that number equals 20,290).

Johnson is the only minor party presidential candidate in 2012 who was on the ballot in all states bordering Oklahoma, so a similar analysis cannot be made for any other candidate. Jill Stein was not on in Missouri or Kansas; Virgil Goode was not on in Texas, Arkansas, or Kansas.

Oklahoma is a state which has almost always given a higher share of its vote to the Libertarian presidential candidate than that candidate received in the nation as a whole, in the years when the Libertarian has been on the ballot in Oklahoma. In 1980 Ed Clark received 1.07% nationwide but 1.20% in Oklahoma. In 1984 David Bergland received .25% nationally but .72% in Oklahoma. In 1988 Ron Paul received .47% nationally but .53% in Oklahoma. In 1992 Andre Marrou received .28% nationally but .32% in Oklahoma. In 1996 Harry Browne received .50% nationally but .46% in Oklahoma. In 2000 Browne received .36% nationally but .53% in Oklahoma.