Suffolk University Polls has released results for the special Massachusetts U.S. Senate election set for June 25. Suffolk University Polls, unlike other pollsters, included all three ballot-listed candidates. See the results here. The poll also shows that 74% of the voters have never heard of the Twelve Visions Party candidate, Richard Heos. Thanks to Michael for this news.
Immediately after the November 2012 election, this blog and the written newsletter both said that the Wisconsin Libertarian Party had re-gained qualified party status in Wisconsin. In the November 2012 election, the Libertarian Party polled 2.07% for U.S. Senator. Generally, in Wisconsin, whenever a group polls 1% for any statewide race, it retains or gains qualified status.
Unfortunately for the Libertarian Party, the law is worded in such a way as to exclude U.S. Senate for the vote test, if the U.S. Senate election was in a presidential election year. Whereas U.S. Senate, and all statewide posts, count in midterm years, in presidential years only the presidential vote counts.
Because the Constitution Party polled 1.08% for U.S. Senate in 2010, it was on the ballot automatically in 2012 and it continues to be on in 2014. Yet, although the Libertarian Party polled double that percentage for the same office, but in a more recent year (2012), it is not ballot-qualified. The law, section 5.62(b), says, “Every recognized political party listed on the official ballot at the last gubernatorial election whose candidate for any statewide office received at least 1% of the total votes cast for that office, and, if the last general election was also a presidential election, every recognized political party listed on the ballot at that election whose candidate for president received at least 1% of the total vote cast for that office” is recognized. The law also says that newly-qualifying parties can qualify the same way.
The Wisconsin Libertarian Party can recover its qualified status in 2014 if it runs a candidate for statewide office who polls 1%. The party would use the independent candidate procedure for such candidates, but they would have the “Libertarian” label on the ballot if the candidates desire that label.
On June 18, Fairvote issued this analysis of California’s top-two system. The analysis says, “In the vast majority of cases (from 2012 in California), Top Two fails to have any meaningful impact on the race, retaining uncompetitive races dominated by incumbents and major party insiders – yet it comes at the expense of near complete elimination of minor parties and independents from a general election voice.”
The analysis recommends these changes: (1) let the top four vote-getters advance; (2) use ranked-choice voting in the general election; (3) restore write-in space to the November ballot; (4) when candidates have been endorsed by a qualified party, the ballot should mention the endorsement; (5) the time between the primary and the general election should be shortened.
The report finds that in the June 2012 primary, the median second-ranked candidate received 25.1% of the vote, and the median fourth-ranked candidate (in elections that had at least five candidates in the primary) received 5.8%. Consequently, letting the top four candidates advance to the general election would make it considerably easier for candidates to advance.
One problem with this approach is that there are invariably far more candidates when there is no incumbent running. In practice, letting four candidates advance would make it possible for candidates with little voter support to advance in races against incumbents, but in races without incumbents, even some candidates with substantial support would likely fail to advance. Also, there are always considerably more candidates in statewide races than in legislative races. So, again, there would be disparity, in which candidates with substantial support would be more likely to be excluded in statewide races than in legislative races. U.S. House races fall in-between. Using a candidate’s rank to decide whether that candidate advances is inherently arbitrary, compared to a system in which a candidate who polls a specified percentage of the vote advances, regardless of rank.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue its opinion in Shelby County, Alabama, v Holder, 12-96, on Monday, June 24. More decisions will be released on Tuesday, June 25, and still more on either June 26 or June 27. This is the case on the constitutionality of the federal Voting Rights Act.
On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Nader v Serody, 12-1294. Nader had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the District of Columbia courts, on whether the 2004 Pennsylvania challengers to his petition should be blocked from seizing Nader’s funds from his bank account in Washington, D.C. Nader had lost on this issue earlier, but then it had been revealed that the challengers to his petition had illegally used state employees and state computers to work on their challenge. Although certain figures in the group of challengers were criminally punished, neither the Pennsylvania state courts nor the D.C. courts would re-open the matter.
The U.S. Supreme Court order for this case says that Justice Alito did not participate in the decision on the Nader matter. Presumably that is because he had some personal connection to some Pennsylvania figures involved in the controversy.
A constitutional case is pending in the 3rd circuit over whether the Pennsylvania challenge system, which puts petitioning groups at risk of paying as much as $100,000 in costs when their petitions are found insufficient, violates the U.S. Constitution. That case is Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, 13-1952.
