The Nebraska Senate has been debating how the state should elect presidential electors intermittently, starting on January 27. Currently each of Nebraska’s three U.S. House districts elects its own presidential elector. LB 382, introduced over a year ago, provides for winner-take-all elections for presidential elector, similar to the laws of 48 other states. The bill is sponsored by Senator Charlie Janssen, a Republican.

Senator Ken Haar, a Democrat, has proposed two amendments, which are being debated on January 29. One says that each of Nebraska’s five Public Service Commissioner districts should elect its own presidential elector. This would eliminate the current provision that the two at-large electors be chosen by the statewide vote.

The other Haar amendment provides that the presidential electors should be elected, based on the percentage of the popular vote received by each presidential candidate. If this idea had been in effect in 1992, Ross Perot would have received one electoral vote from Nebraska, Bill Clinton would have received one, and George H. W. Bush would have received three. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news about the debate on LB 382.

Politico, which seldom covers minor party or independent candidates for Governor or U.S. Senator, has this article about Rob Sarvis’s annoncement on January 29 that he will seek the Libertarian nomination for U.S. Senate in Virginia.

On January 27, Georgia asked for reconsideration in the Eleventh Circuit in Green Party of Georgia v Kemp, 13-11816. This web page had previously reported that Georgia did not ask for reconsideration. However, it turns out that the rules permit reconsideration within three weeks of the original decision, not two weeks. BAN regrets the error.

The state’s brief, asking for reconsideration, says “It is unassailable that a signature requirement of 5% to qualify as a political body is valid.” This is not true. There are at least thirteen decisions that hold that petitions below 5% are unconstitutional, including one by the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Courts do find that severe petitions, even if they are lower than 5% of the number of registered voters, are unconstitutional, if the evidence shows that it is obvious there is no need for the required number of signatures. These decisions include:

1. Alabama: Patton v Camp, 1990. A petition of 1% of the number of registered voters for an independent candidate was unconstitutional, given that a newly-qualifying party only needed a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.

2. Arkansas: Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v Priest, 1996. A petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote was unconstitutional, given that a statewide independent only needed 10,000 signatures.

3. Colorado: Ptak v Meyer, 1994. A petition of 1,000 signatures for legislature was unconstitutional, given that a U.S. House candidate only needed 500 signatures.

4. Florida: Danciu v Glisson, 1974. A petition of 5% of the registered voters for an independent candidate was unconstitutional, given that a newly-qualifying party needed 3% of the registered voters.

5. Illinois State Board of Elections, 1979. A petition of 5% of the last vote cast for for Mayor of Chicago was unconstitutional, given that the statewide petition was a smaller number, 25,000 signatures. This decision was unanimous and was from the U.S. Supreme Court.

6. Iowa: Oviatt v Baxter, 1992. A petition of 2% of the last gubernatorial vote for U.S. House was unconstitutional, given that the statewide petition was 1,000 signatures.

7. Kansas: Reagan v State, 1982. A petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote for newly-qualifying parties was unconstitutional, given that old qualified parties were permitted to remain on the ballot with no numerical showing of support and the old parties had never needed any petition.

8. Michigan: Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State, 1982. A showing of support of three-tenths of 1% of the total vote cast in a primary was unconstitutional, given the historical record that showed in practice this was very difficult to achieve (this was a vote test in a primary).

9. New York: Rockefeller v Powers, 1996. A petition of 5% of the number of registered voters, for a presidential primary candidate within any particular U.S. House district in which he or she tried to qualify, was unconstitutional, given the historical record that showed in practice this was very difficult to achieve.

10. North Carolina: Delaney v Bartlett, 2004. A petition of 2% of the number of registered voters for statewide independents was unconstitutional, given that newly-qualifying parties only needed a petition of 2% of the last gubernatorial vote.

11. North Dakota: McLain v Meier, 1980. A petition of 15,000 signatures for newly-qualifying parties was unconstitutional, given the historical record that showed the petition, in practice, was so difficult it had only been used once in the 41 years it had existed.

12. Tennessee: Libertarian Party of Tennessee v Goins, 2010. A petition of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote for newly-qualifying parties was unconstitutional, given the historical record that showed the petition, in practice, was so difficult it had only been used once in the 69 years it had existed.

13. Tennessee: Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 2012. A petition of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote for newly-qualifying parties was unconstitutional, given that independent candidates only need 25 signatures.