On April 25, Public Policy Polling released a presidential general election poll from New Mexico, in which the listed choices are President Obama, Mitt Romney, and likely Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson. The results: Obama 48%, Romney 35%, Johnson 15%, other or undecided 2%.

The poll shows that 10% of Democrats, 20% of Republicans, and 23% of independents and members of other parties choose Johnson. If Johnson, as the Libertarian nominee, polls as much as 5%, the Libertarians would become entitled to their own primary in New Mexico, assuming that the party during the following year after the election is able to increase its registration up to one-third of 1% of the state registration total. If the party were entitled to a primary, it would no longer be plagued with the election law that requires convention parties to submit separate petitions for each of their nominees other than president. These separate nominee petitions are unique in the nation, and require the signatures of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link.

Lawrence Lessig has this essay in The Atlantic. Lessig has written several books, explaining that the greatest political problem facing the United States is our campaign finance system, which puts undue power in the hands of the wealthy. Lessig believes that Americans Elect may nominate a presidential candidate who would speak about the urgent need to reform campaign finance. Lessig also believes that candidate might possibly get into the general election presidential debate, and that might put the campaign finance issue at the forefront of public awareness.

Lessig is not well informed when he says that no one but the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees have been on the ballot in all 50 states in “the modern era.” Libertarian presidential nominees were on the ballot in all states in 1980, 1992, and 1996. Ross Perot was on in all states in 1992 and 1996. Lenora Fulani was on in all states in 1988. Thanks to Alex Hammer for the link.

On April 25, the Virginia State Board of Elections told the Libertarian Party that its presidential petition, which already has 2,000 signatures, is invalid. Virginia law requires petitions for president to include a list of presidential elector candidates, and says one elector must reside in each U.S. House district. However, Virginia law does not require the presidential elector candidates of qualified parties to observe any residency requirement.

When the Libertarian Party drew up its list of presidential elector candidates, it chose one elector from each U.S. House district as those districts existed at the beginning of the year. The legislature did not draw new boundaries until February, and the U.S. Justice Department did not approve the new districts until March. The Libertarian Party felt confident that it could be circulating its presidential petition using the old districts, because the legislature had unanimously approved a bill saying old district boundaries are valid in years when the redistricting does not occur until the election year itself. That bill, HB 1151, passed March 2, and as written, was to take effect immediately. The bill was important to the party’s planning, because when the new district lines were revealed, it turned out that one Libertarian presidential elector, David Switzer, had been placed into a different U.S. House district.

However, in April, the Governor, on the last possible day, asked the legislature to amend the bill so that it doesn’t take effect this year, and the legislature complied on April 18. On that day, the legislature altered the bill so that it doesn’t take effect until 2013, and furthermore, even in future presidential years, it doesn’t apply to presidential petitions.

Virginia law lets unqualified parties use stand-in candidates, for all office. That section of the law is in section 24.2-540. However, there is a special section involving presidential candidates, 24.2-543. Although it says presidential and vice-presidential stand-ins are permitted on the petition, technically it doesn’t say that presidential elector candidates can be stand-ins. The State Board of Elections says even though this gap in the law is inadvertent, that the Board cannot approve substitution of a new elector candidate. This appears to defy case law, because in 1989 a U.S. District Court ruled in El-Amin v State Board of Elections, 721 F.Supp 770 (eastern district) that the U.S. Constitution requires states to permit stand-in candidates. The Board’s hostile decision also violates precedent, because in 2008 the Board let the Green Party substitute a new candidate for presidential elector after the petition had been submitted. It is believed that in 2008, the Board also allowed Ralph Nader to substitute a new candidate for presidential elector.