This Washington Post article of October 4 lists twenty-four Republican members of the U.S. House who are either willing to end the government shutdown with no concessions from Democrats, or leaning that way.

Of the twenty-four Republicans, twelve are from closed primary states, four are from semi-closed primary states, seven are from open primary states, and only one is from a state that uses a top-two primary.

The U.S. House has 232 Republicans, so, as of today, 10.3% of them are willing to take the “moderate” position in the budget dispute.

Among the 232 House Republicans, 24 are from states that use a top-two primary. This includes 15 from California, 4 from Washington, and 5 from Louisiana.

The percentage of Republicans from top-two states who take the “moderate” position is only 4.2% (when an individual divides the number one by the number 24, the resulting percentage = 4.2%). But the percentage of Republicans from states who don’t use top-two, and who are supporting the “moderate” position, is 11.1%. This suggests that top-two systems do not produce more “moderate” politicians.

The only Republican from a top-two state who is taking the “moderate” position is California’s Devin Nunes. He has been in Congress since 2002. He is so popular that in 2010, no one filed to run against him, except a write-in candidate. In 2012, only one person, a Democrat, filed to run against him. The top-two system that California started using in 2012 is not in the slightest bit responsible for Nunes having been elected.

The list of 12 “moderate” Republicans from closed primary states includes 5 Republicans from Pennsylvania, 3 from New York, 3 from Florida, and one from Idaho (Idaho Republicans use a closed primary even though none of the other Idaho parties do so). The list of 7 Republicans from open primary states includes 4 from Virginia, 2 from Arkansas, and one from Minnesota. The list of 4 Republicans from semi-closed primary states includes 3 from New Jersey and one from West Virginia.

On October 4, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an eight-page opinion, keeping Nevin Mindlin off the November 5, 2013 ballot as an independent candidate for Mayor of Harrisburg. The case is In Re: Nomination Papers of Mindlin, 1392 C.D. 2013.

Mindlin had enough valid signatures, but he was still kept off the ballot because his petitions did not fill out the blanks that are provided for candidates to appoint a substitution committee. Pennsylvania election law technically does not recognize that anyone is ever an independent candidate. The law assumes that all candidates are either nominees of political parties or nominees of political bodies. The law also assumes that it is desirable for party nominees to have a substitution committee, which is a committee of people who will choose a new nominee in case the original nominee (the candidate or candidates named on the petition) die, or withdraw, or become incapacitated.

Mindlin didn’t list a substitution committee because he is a true independent candidate. His position was that if something unexpected happened to cause his candidacy to be curtailed before the election, he wouldn’t want any replacement named. He argued that Pennsylvania law violates the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Storer v Brown (a 1974 decision) that says states must have ballot access procedures for both independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties. But the Commonwealth Court said it would not discuss this argument, because Mindlin did not raise this argument in the trial court. So, the issue remains unresolved. Today’s opinion will not be published.

The Commonwealth Court took a very long time to issue this decision, considering the timing of the election. The case was argued on September 12 and the election is on November 5. Absentee ballots were printed up with Mindlin’s name on the ballot. UPDATE: here is a newspaper story about the decision.