Congress Might Restore Section 4 of the Federal Voting Rights Act

The Hill has this report on the prospect that Congress might repair Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The old section 4 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, 2013. According to the article, there is significant support among some Republicans in the House for a bill to enact a new section 4.

Section 4 was the part of the Act that determined which parts of the nation are subject to section 5, the pre-clearance requirement. The original act, passed in 1965, said certain parts of the country that seemed to have had a bad record on voting rights must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election laws. Section 5 is still intact, but it has no practical usefulness if there is no law on which parts of the country should be included in section 5.

The Voting Rights Act has only rarely been useful in stopping restrictive ballot access law changes. In 1966 the Act was used to prevent Mississippi from raising the number of signatures for statewide independents from 1,000 signatures to 10,000. In 1982 the Act was used to prevent Alabama from creating new petition barriers in the spring of the year and expecting them to be implemented for the 1982 election. In 1995, when Alabama again raised the ballot access barriers, from a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, the Justice Department initially refused to approve the change, and asked the state for a list (covering the last 15 years) of all independent and minor party candidates who were members of a racial minority. The state would have had great difficulty in compiling such a list. Unfortunately, while the state was working on it, someone else in the Justice Department countermanded the original request to the state, and the change was implemented immediately. By then, though, some groups had used the 1% petition for 1996, so the state permitted everyone to continue to use the 1% test for 1996 only, and the law wasn’t implemented until 1997.

Working Families, Conservative Parties Do Well in 2013 New York City Mayoral Election

Both the Working Families Party and the Conservative Party did comparatively well in the November 5, 2013 New York city Mayoral election. The Working Families Party polled 3.95% for its nominee, Bill DeBlasio, who was also the Democratic nominee. This was the highest percentage of the vote the Working Families Party has ever received for Mayor of New York city. Here are the incomplete results for each party in that race.

In 2009, the WFP had polled 2.41% for William C. Thompson, who was also the Democratic nominee. In 2005 the WFP did not run anyone for Mayor. In 2001 the WFP polled 2.20% for Mark Green, who was also the Democratic nominee.

Also in 2013, the Conservative Party did well, compared to the recent past. In 2013 it polled 2.27% for Joe Lhota, who was also the Republican nominee. This was the first time the Conservative Party had cross-endorsed the Republican mayoral nominee since 1985.

In 2009, the Conservative percentage for Mayor, for Stephen Christopher, was 1.56%. In 2005, it was 1.13% for Thomas Ognibene. In 2001, it was .24% for Terrance M. Gray. In 1997 it had no candidate. In 1993 it received .53% for George Marlin. In 1989 it received .51% for Ron Lauder. In 1985, it cross-endorsed the Republican nominee, Diane McGrath, and got 1.99%. In 1981, for its own nominee, John Esposito, it got 4.92%. In 1977, for its own nominee, Barry Farber, it got 4.00%. In 1973, for its own nominee, Mario Biaggi, it got 10.96%. In 1969, it cross-endorsed Republican nominee John Marchi and got 8.91%. Most famously, in 1965, its first Mayoral candidate, William F. Buckley, got 13.35%. Thanks to Mike Drucker for the link to the 2013 returns by party.

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Use of Straight-Lever Device for Independent Candidates, Continues to Generate Discussion

At the November 5, 2013 election, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, gave the independent candidates their own straight-ticket device, and considered every candidate with that label to be the nominee of the Independent Party. This policy continues to generate discussion; see this lengthy article about the matter.

New York Daily News Story on Independence Party

The New York Daily News, which has long been hostile to the Independence Party of New York, has this story about the party’s showing in the New York city mayoral race of November 5, 2013. The Independence Party’s candidate, Adolfo Carrion, placed third in the race, but the story focuses on the fact that he only got eight-tenths of 1% of the total vote.

At this point no one knows how many votes were cast on the Working Families line for the Democratic Mayoral nominee, and no one knows how many votes were cast on the Conservative Party’s line for the Republican nominee. New York election officials do not release any vote totals until the results are complete and official. Therefore, all election returns on election night are from the media, and New York media never bother to get the votes cast on each party line when they do the election night report.

Therefore, it is difficult to completely analyze the Independence Party’s showing, because the election returns for some of the other ballot-qualified parties in the Mayoral race aren’t known yet. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.