Several West Virginia election law bills, other than the public funding bill mentioned in the post just below this one, have been introduced. HB 2497 would convert the elections for the state’s executive positions into non-partisan elections, including the Governor. In the entire history of the United States, at least since 1824, no state has had non-partisan gubernatorial elections.

HB 2417 and SB 29 would require declared write-in candidates to pay filing fees, even though in 2000, a U.S. District Court in West Virginia struck down the old law that required write-in candidates to pay filing fees. That case was Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp. 2d 587, and was won by the Constitution Party for its presidential candidate. SB 29 says the write-in candidate only needs to pay one-fourth of the normal fee (the normal fee is 1% of the annual salary for most statewide offices and U.S. House, and $2,500 for President). HB 2417 requires the full filing fee for write-in candidates.

HB 2444 would change the order of party columns on the ballot. Currently, the party whose presidential candidate won the state is listed first on the ballot. The bill would change the formula so that the party with the most registered voters would be listed first. This would benefit the Democratic Party.

HB 2300 would abolish the straight-ticket device. HB 2481 would put “None of the Above” on ballots, and if NOTA received a plurality, there would be no winner and another election would be held. HB 2378 is the National Popular Vote Plan bill.

A bill is also about to be introduced on behalf of acting Governor Earl Tomblin for his plan for the special gubernatorial election. Unlike the bill on this subject already introduced by several Republicans, which requires a May primary and an August election, the Governor’s bill provides for a June 2011 gubernatorial primary. The Governor has already proclaimed that the special gubernatorial election itself will be October 4, 2011. If no bill on this subject passes, all parties will nominate gubernatorial candidates by convention, not primary.

In 2006, when U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman ran as an independent for the U.S. Senate and won, his ballot title was “Connecticut for Lieberman Party”. Connecticut election law says that if a group polls at least 1% for any partisan office, it is then automatically on the November ballot for that same office in the next election.

Senator Lieberman wasn’t interested in the political party that his 2006 showing created, but some of his political opponents organized the party, and started running for partisan office under that party’s label. In 2010, the party’s nominee for U.S. Senate, John Mertens, did not poll as much as 1%, so the party ceased to be ballot-qualified for U.S. Senate. However, also in 2010, the party had six nominees for State House, and all of them polled more than 1%, so the party continues to be ballot-qualified in those six districts for 2012. Because Senator Lieberman is not running for re-election in 2012, it may be that the people involved in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party will lose interest in their party. But, one never knows, and it will be interesting to see if the party continues to exist.

In the 2010 election, Tea Party candidates appeared on the general election ballot under the “Tea Party” label, for federal or state office, in Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York. Even though there were 18 Tea Party nominees in races with both a Democrat and a Republican also in the race, there is no instance at which the Tea Party nominee seems to have altered the outcome of the winner.

It is not necessarily true that every voter who voted for a Tea Party nominee would have voted for a Republican, if the Tea Party nominee had not been on the ballot. But assuming that it is true that every vote for a Tea Party nominee meant a lost vote for a Republican, nevertheless, no election outcome changed. In all the races with a Tea Party nominee, one of the major party nominees polled an absolute majority of all the votes cast in that race anyway. The only exception is the Florida U.S. House race, 12th district. But even there, the Republican nominee won, although with only a plurality.

The ballot-listed Tea Party had four candidates for U.S. House (three in Florida, and one in New Jersey), one for U.S. Senate (in Nevada), and 16 for state office (all in Florida, except for one in New York). Three of these races had only one major party nominee. The most impressive showing by a ballot-listed Tea Party nominee in a congressional race with two major party opponents was in Florida’s 12th U.S. House district, where Randy Wilkinson polled 10.71%. The 12th district is centered on Polk County, in the middle of the state. The 12th district has been represented by Republicans ever since it was created in 2001.

The most impressive showing by a ballot-listed Tea Party nominee for state office in a race with both major parties was in New York, where David J. DePietro polled 10.77% in the 59th State Senate district. The Republican nominee won with an absolute majority of the vote cast. This post was updated on February 13, 2011, to include the New York reference.