Politics1 Has Very Helpful Chart of Which Presidential Candidates are on Which Ballots; Chart Includes Write-in Filing Also

Posted on by September 15, 2012
19

Politics1 has this very useful chart, showing which presidential candidates are on the ballot in each state. The chart also includes write-in filing. Of course, the deadline for filing for write-in status in most states is still in the future, so that part of the chart isn’t complete.

It is very difficult to be perfectly accurate. BAN believes the Politics1 chart, as last updated on September 14, has these errors: for Stewart Alexander, Ohio should be shown as on, and Iowa should not be shown as on. For Virgil Goode, Kansas and Oregon should not be shown as on, and New Hampshire should have a question mark. For the list of those candidates who don’t fit on the chart: for Colorado, Randall Terry only has write-in status so his name should not be in bold; for Utah, Nelson Keyton only has write-in status so his name should not be in bold; for Louisiana, Andre Barnett should not be listed. Also Kansas should list Chuck Baldwin. Although it is conceivable that the Kansas Reform Party could still change its nomination from Baldwin to Goode, this appears very unlikely.

There are four presidential candidates who are on the ballot in three states: Roseanne Barr, Tom Hoefling, Merlin Miller, and Randall Terry. The chart gives Barr and Hoefling their own column but puts the other two at the bottom of the chart.

There are 27 individuals who are running for President and who are listed on the ballot in at least one state. The previous record was 23, which occurred in both 2008 and 1992. For purposes of this statistic, when a party has a presidential candidate who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications to be President, and therefore has a stand-in in some states but not other states, that is counted as one candidate, not two. Thanks to Darryl Perry for the link.

Michigan Secretary of State Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Reject Libertarian Ballot Access Lawsuit; Also Party Files Rebuttal

Posted on by September 15, 2012
6

On September 14, the Michigan Secretary of State asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to act on the Libertarian Party’s ballot access case involving the interpretation of Michigan’s “sore loser” law. Here is the state’s brief, which has a picture of the ballot that Michigan intends to print, omitting any presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party. Here is the party’s rebuttal brief, which was submitted the same day.

At Least Seven States Can’t Print Ballots Yet, Due to Unresolved Issues

Posted on by September 15, 2012
3

At least seven states cannot print ballots yet because of unresolved questions about the ballot. Here is an article explaining that Connecticut must wait until the State Supreme Court decides which party should be listed first on the ballot.

New York can’t print any ballots until the Independence Party chooses a presidential candidate, which it will probably do on September 20, the New York state deadline for that.

At least six Colorado counties can’t print ballots until a federal court decides whether bar codes should be on ballots.

Pennsylvania doesn’t know yet for sure whether the Libertarian statewide candidates will be on the ballot or not. In Pennsylvania, when a challenge process is still pending, it is customary for some ballots to be printed with the challenged candidates listed, and then to mark them off if the challenge goes against them.

New Hampshire won’t print any ballots until the Ballot Law Commission decides whether Virgil Goode should be listed as the Constitution Party nominee for President. That will be decided by the Ballot Law Commission on September 20.

Kansas won’t print any ballots until the challenge to President Obama’s qualifications is resolved.

This list isn’t necessarily complete, and does not try to deal with Michigan. Federal law requires overseas absentee ballots to be mailed no later than September 22.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Explains Why State Officers of Americans Elect Cannot Nominate Presidential Electors

Posted on by September 14, 2012
16

Here is the short decision of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court in Lawhorn v Ziriax, 2012 OK 78. The decision implies, but not does explicitly say, that qualified parties in Oklahoma cannot nominate presidential electors unless their party holds a national convention. This is based on an incidental part of the election law that says presidential elector candidates must take an oath to support the candidate chosen at that party’s national convention.

The irony of this interpretation is that even if Americans Elect had gone ahead with its original plans, it never planned to nominate a presidential or vice-presidential candidate at a national convention. Instead, the party expected to nominate via an on-line vote of any registered voter in the nation who wished to participate.

The decision also mentions that the national Americans Elect rules do not authorize any state party organizations, which implicitly seems to say that the national rules of the Americans Elect Party take precedence over Oklahoma state election laws, which give state parties the authority to choose presidential elector candidates. Yet in 2000, the last year the Libertarian Party was a qualified party in Oklahoma, the Libertarians passed a bylaw saying all registered voters could vote in the Oklahoma Libertarian primary. The party said it had a First Amendment Freedom of Association right to decide for itself how to run its nomination process. The party actually won that case in the 10th circuit, but Oklahoma appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Libertarian Party did not have a constitutional right to invite all voters to vote in its primary. Yet now, Oklahoma’s highest state court seems to be saying that national party rules can supersede not only state election law, but the wishes of party members in the state. A majority of registered members of Americans Elect had participated in the nomination of Gary Johnson for president.

The decision mentions that national leaders of Americans Elect have a trademark on the name. The decision therefore implies, but does not say, that trademarks for political parties can overcome state election law. There is no authority for that idea in any other reported decision, and the 9th circuit ruled last year that trademarks for political party names cannot be used to overcome state election laws.