Americans Elect’s web page has this article, explaining why it is circulating a petition to qualify as a party in California, instead of using the easier registration method. California lets a new party qualify if it has registration equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, or if it submits a petition signed by a number of voters equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote. Americans Elect is using the latter method.

Courts have unanimously invalidated ballot access petition requirements for new parties and independent candidates that exceed 5% of the number of registered voters. The California 10% petition has never been invalidated, however, because it is not mandatory. Groups are free to use the 1% registration method. The 10% petition method has been in the law since 1937 and it has only been used once, in the autumn of 1947 and the spring of 1948, by the Independent Progressive Party that ran Henry Wallace for President in 1948 (Wallace was a former vice-president of the United States). By contrast, since 1937, every other party that qualified in California has used the alternate 1% registration method. The newly-qualifying parties that used the 1% registration method are the Townsend Party in 1938, the American Independent Party in 1967, the Peace & Freedom Party in 1967, the Libertarian Party in 1979, the Green Party in 1991, the Natural Law Party in 1995, and the Reform Party in 1995.

Before 1937, groups could qualify as a party in California with a 1% petition.

Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont and Alicia Garza have this article in New America Media, explaining that the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce have been carrying on a public relations campaign against Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco and Oakland. The article does not mention the lawsuit against San Francisco’s Instant Runoff Voting system, but that lawsuit is also part of the campaign against IRV. It is called Dudum v City and County of San Francisco.

The same law firm, Nielsen Merksamer, that is trying to overturn IRV in San Francisco, is the same law firm defending California’s top-two election system in the lawsuits Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link to the article.

On April 28, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina declined to provide any relief to Mark Brody, an independent candidate for the legislature in both 2008 and 2010. North Carolina has the nation’s 3rd highest petition requirement for independent candidates for the legislature, 4% of the number of registered voters. Only Georgia and South Carolina, which require 5% of the number of registered voters, are harder. Generally, 4% of the number of registered voters is more onerous than Illinois’ requirement of 5% of the last vote cast.

Brody had successfully met the 4% petition test in 2008, and he had appeared on the ballot in November 2008 and polled 30% of the vote in a two-person race. He wanted to run for the same seat in 2010, and he had sued to win an exemption from re-petitioning in 2010. He argued that independent candidates are discriminated against, relative to political parties. In virtually every state, a party that polled a certain share of the vote in the previous election is then automatically on the ballot in the next election. But neither North Carolina, or any state, gives an independent candidate credit for a high share of the vote in a past election, so as to exempt him or her from petitioning again in the next election. The only exception is that Georgia lets an independent candidate who was elected avoid the petition when that independent comes up for re-election.

The judge said that he was sympathetic, and thought the case has logic on its side, but that he would still not rule in Brody’s favor because there are no favorable precedents for this type of case. He encouraged Brody to appeal. The case is Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, western district, 3:10-cv-383. Thanks to Jordon Greene for this news.