J. Andrew Sinclair, a PhD student at CalTech, has this eleven-page paper analyzing California’s top-two primary experience. The paper was completed shortly before the November 2012 election. Thanks to Election Updates for the link.
7
The North Carolina State Board of Elections has finished counting votes for candidates who were on the ballot, although it still hasn’t completed the write-in canvass for President. It appears that in 2014 (and also 2016) the state will require 89,379 valid signatures, both for a new party and an independent statewide candidate. This is the highest number in all 50 states for a statewide independent candidate in 2014. Thanks to Kevin Hayes for the number. Activists in North Carolina will again try to pass a bill in 2013 to ease the requirement.
Colorado law lets a qualified party remain ballot-qualified if it has at least 1,000 registered members, even if it didn’t run any statewide candidates. Americans Elect registration in Colorado, although small, has been growing very fast, so that the party will automatically be on the ballot in 2014, assuming it keeps its registrants.
At the October 1, 2012 tally, Americans Elect first crossed the 1,000-member threshold, and had 1,197 registered voters. At the October 19 tally, it had 2,443 registrants. At the November 1 tally, it had 3,017. The party’s registration is highest in the First U.S. House district, which is centered on Denver.
Last year, a U.S. District Court in Virginia struck down Virgina’s ban on out-of-state circulators. The state is appealing. On November 16, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed this amicus curiae brief, on the side of the Libertarian Party. The Jefferson Center is 21 years old and is non-partisan; here is a description of the organization.
The amicus argues that the plaintiffs in the case, Libertarian Party of Virginia v Judd, do have standing. The state has been trying to persuade the 4th circuit that the plaintiffs don’t have standing.
The Nevada Republican Party has entered the pending federal case that argues that “None of these candidates” should not appear on the ballot in future Nevada elections, unless the law is amended to provide that if “None of these candidates” gets the most votes, that result has a binding effect (in other words, no one is nominated or elected, and a vacancy is created). The case is Townley v Miller, 9th circuit, 12-16881 and 12-16882.
The Republican Party seeks the join the case because it argues that having “None of these candidates” on the ballot, especially in general elections, harms the Republican Party and its nominees. On November 7, the 9th circuit granted the party’s motion to be added as a plaintiff. The case had originally been filed by some Nevada voters and some Republican Party nominees for presidential elector.
The Nevada law, putting “None of these candidates” on the ballot, only applies to statewide office, not district or local office.