Presidential candidates seeking matching funds must raise at least $5,000 from each of 20 states. The Jill Stein campaign reports that she has now met the threshold in ten states, and is redoubling efforts to meet the requirement in another ten states. She must finish that work before she is nominated on July 15.
Tennessee has filed this brief in the 6th circuit, in Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 12-5271. This is the ballot access case filed by the Green Party and the Constitution Party in July 2011. The parties won in U.S. District Court on February 3, 2012, and the state is appealing. The hearing in the 6th circuit will be July 25 at 9 a.m.
The state’s brief doesn’t seem to explain why the state is asking that the two parties be removed from the November 2012 ballot. One would have expected the brief to make specific points to bolster its argument that the two parties don’t enjoy a modicum of support. The U.S. District Court had not only held the Tennessee law unconstitutional, it had ordered the state to place the two parties on the November 2012 ballot.
When a ballot access law is held unconstitutional, judges sometimes then determine whether the plaintiff parties or candidates enjoy a modicum of support, and if they do, order the plaintiffs onto the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court itself has placed, or retained, certain candidates and parties on the ballot six times: (1) the American Independent Party in Ohio in 1968; (2) the National Democratic Party of Alabama in certain Alabama counties in 1968; (3) the Socialist Workers and Socialist Labor Parties in New York in 1970; (4) Eugene McCarthy in Texas in 1976; (5) John B. Anderson in Ohio in 1980; (6) the Harold Washington Party in Cook County, Illinois, in 1990.
Another peculiarity of Tennessee’s brief is that it argues the deadline issue is moot, because recently the legislature moved the deadline for a party to submit its signatures from April to August. It is the state that is appealing, not the parties, so when the state says part of the case is moot, the state appears to be arguing against itself.
On June 11, five candidates who were excluded from the South Carolina major party primaries filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, asking for an injunction to stop the major party primaries. The primary date is June 12. See this story. The lawsuit is based on the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs include three Republicans and two Democrats. The case is Smith v State of South Carolina Election Commission, 3:12-1543.
Filing for the Florida primary closed on June 8. The ballot-qualified Tea Party, which had eighteen candidates on the ballot in 2010 for federal and state office, has no candidates for partisan office this year.
In this year’s U.S. House races, there are 27 races. Republicans have a candidate in 24 races; Democrats also have a candidate in 24 races. The only minor party candidate for a U.S. House seat is Calen Fretts, a Libertarian, running in the First district. There will be independent candidates on the November ballot in 13 of the 27 races.
This patten is similar to 2010, when there were 25 districts. In 2010, Republicans ran in 24 districts, Democrats ran in 21 districts, and independents ran in nine districts. The only minor party candidates for U.S. House in 2010 were three Tea Party candidates and one Florida Whig Party candidate.
This year, for legislature, there are three Libertarians, one Green, and two members of the Independent Party. One of the Independent Party nominees is Nancy Argenziano, who is a former Democratic member of the legislature. She is running for State Representative, 34th district, and she will have a Democratic opponent and a Republican opponent.
In the U.S. Senate race this year, there are three independent candidates, but no minor party candidates.
Daily Kos has this interesting and fair article about California’s election system. Equally interesting are the comments.
