The Billings Gazette has this comprehensive article about the surprising strength of Wyoming candidates who ran in 2010 outside the two major parties. The “other” vote for Wyoming Governor this year was 10.3%, the highest such percentage for that office, for candidates running outside the two major parties, since 1894. In 1894 the Peoples Party candidate for Governor had received 11.3%.
The article notes that the new Wyoming Senate consists of 26 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
The Billings Gazette has this comprehensive article about the surprising strength of Wyoming candidates who ran in 2010 outside the two major parties. The “other” vote for Wyoming Governor this year was 10.3%, the highest such percentage for that office, for candidates running outside the two major parties, since 1894. In 1894 the Peoples Party candidate for Governor had received 11.3%.
The article notes that the new Wyoming Senate consists of 26 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
On November 26, the Libertarian Party filed its opening brief in the 8th circuit in Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger. The case challenges a law that says a ballot-qualified party with its own primary cannot place any of its legislative nominees on the November ballot, unless approximately 10% to 15% of all the voters choose that party’s primary ballot and vote for that party’s legislative nominees. The law is so restrictive, no minor party has had any nominees on the November ballot since 1976, when the American Party was able to overcome the hurdle.
The U.S. District Court had upheld the law anyway. The North Dakota law is very strange, because it is only severe for the party’s candidates for legislative office. There is also a minimum primary vote test for the statewide offices, but it is far less onerous. For statewide office, the law requires that 300 people choose the party’s primary ballot and vote for one of the party’s nominees. 300 people in the whole state works out to about 6 voters per legislative district. By contrast, if the party wants to have legislative candidates, it needs between 110 and 130 people to choose its primary ballot in any particular legislative district. The contrast between a requirement of six voters, versus 130, is extreme and illogical.
On November 22, Joe Miller, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Alaska, filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging problems with the state’s vote count in his race. He filed in state court after the federal judge in his federal case said the case belongs in state court.
The first procedural dispute is which state court should hear the case. Miller filed in Fairbanks, but the state wants it transferred to Juneau, where all the vote-counters reside and have been working. The second procedural dispute is how quickly the case should be heard. Incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski filed a request to intervene in the lawsuit, and raised the issue that the case needs to be settled quickly. Then, on November 26, Miller filed a brief arguing that Murkowski should not be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit. See this story. The case is Miller v Lieutenant Governor, 4FA-10-03151.
The November 26 issue of the Houston Chronicle has this editorial, advocating that the 2011 session of the Texas legislature pass the bill to eliminate the straight-ticket device.
On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the state of Illinois to respond to the lawsuit filed by U.S. Senator Roland Burris. The case is Judge v Quinn, 10-367. The issue was how candidates could qualify to get on the ballot in the special election for U.S. Senate, two-month term, that was held on November 2, 2010.
The lower courts had ordered that Illinois simply print on the ballot the names of people who had qualified in the U.S. Senate race for the full term, on the ballot as the candidates for the short term. U.S. Senator Roland Burris was not running for the full term, but he wanted to run for the short term. But the lower courts left him no possibility of qualifying to run for the short term.
Illinois’ response is due December 3, 2010. If the U.S. Supreme Court does hear this case, it would have no effect on this particular Illinois Senate election, but it would set rules for future special elections.