A Comparison of Minor Party and Independent Candidates for State Legislatures: 2006 and 2010

In the election of November 2006, minor party and independent candidates for the lower house of state legislatures polled 1,509,058 votes across the United States. By comparison, in November 2010, minor party and independent candidates for the lower house of state legislatures polled 2,084,514 votes.

A large majority of state legislative seats had no minor party or independent candidate on the ballot in either year. In 2006, in the states with regularly-scheduled legislative elections, there were 6,159 legislative seats up (this includes both houses), but only 724 minor party and independent candidates for both houses of all the states. In 2010, there were 6,103 seats up, and 915 minor party and independent candidates for both houses. This does not include Nebraska, which has a non-partisan Senate and no lower chamber. It also doesn’t include the four states that don’t elect state legislators in mid-term even-numbered years (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia). Of course, there were some districts with more than one minor party or independent candidate in that race, so one can’t use this data to know exactly what share of seats had no “other” choice on the ballot.

In districts that elect more than one legislator, only the top vote-getter from each party, or only the top vote-getting independent, was included in the tally.

The reason there were fewer legislative seats up in 2010 than in 2006 is that North Dakota implemented a new plan in 2008, and now all of its state house members have four-year terms, and only half of them are up in any one particular election year.

The state-by-state breakdown for vote totals for lower house of the legislature of each state, by party, will appear in the printed February 1, 2011 issue of Ballot Access News. Unfortunately, the chart won’t include Democratic and Republican vote totals, just vote totals for each minor party and also the independent candidates. Calculating the Republican and Democratic national vote totals for all the nation’s state legislative districts would be worthwhile, but it would also be a huge amount of work.

Oregon Independent Party Legislative Nominee in November 2010 Set 80-Year Record

On November 2, the Oregon Independent Party nominee for State Representative, 48th district, polled 42.71% of the vote in a two-person race against the incumbent Democrat. The Independent Party nominee was Jeff Caton, a professional financial planner. Although Oregon permits fusion, Caton was not the nominee of any party other than the Independent Party.

The 48th district includes part of Clackamas County and part of Multnomah County. Caton carried the part of the district in Clackamas County.

This was the closest a minor party had come to electing anyone to federal or state office in Oregon since at least 1932. No one other than Democratic or Republican nominees has been elected to the Oregon legislature since 1920. There have been two Oregon independent state legislators in recent years, but they were not elected as independents. Instead they were elected as major party nominees and then once elected had changed their registration to “independent.” Also, U.S. Senator Wayne Morse was elected as a Republican in 1950, but then changed his registration to “Independent”, but when he had to run for re-election in 1956, he changed again, to the Democratic Party, and was re-elected as a Democrat.

The Independent Party of Oregon has existed since 2006. In 2010, it held a mail primary election for itself, at its own expense, to choose its nominees.

More Interesting West Virginia Election Law Bills

Several West Virginia election law bills, other than the public funding bill mentioned in the post just below this one, have been introduced. HB 2497 would convert the elections for the state’s executive positions into non-partisan elections, including the Governor. In the entire history of the United States, at least since 1824, no state has had non-partisan gubernatorial elections.

HB 2417 and SB 29 would require declared write-in candidates to pay filing fees, even though in 2000, a U.S. District Court in West Virginia struck down the old law that required write-in candidates to pay filing fees. That case was Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp. 2d 587, and was won by the Constitution Party for its presidential candidate. SB 29 says the write-in candidate only needs to pay one-fourth of the normal fee (the normal fee is 1% of the annual salary for most statewide offices and U.S. House, and $2,500 for President). HB 2417 requires the full filing fee for write-in candidates.

HB 2444 would change the order of party columns on the ballot. Currently, the party whose presidential candidate won the state is listed first on the ballot. The bill would change the formula so that the party with the most registered voters would be listed first. This would benefit the Democratic Party.

HB 2300 would abolish the straight-ticket device. HB 2481 would put “None of the Above” on ballots, and if NOTA received a plurality, there would be no winner and another election would be held. HB 2378 is the National Popular Vote Plan bill.

A bill is also about to be introduced on behalf of acting Governor Earl Tomblin for his plan for the special gubernatorial election. Unlike the bill on this subject already introduced by several Republicans, which requires a May primary and an August election, the Governor’s bill provides for a June 2011 gubernatorial primary. The Governor has already proclaimed that the special gubernatorial election itself will be October 4, 2011. If no bill on this subject passes, all parties will nominate gubernatorial candidates by convention, not primary.

Nondiscriminatory Public Funding Bill Introduced in West Virginia

Seven West Virginia state representatives have introduced HB 2732, which provides for public funding for candidates for the legislature. Eligibility depends on the candidate’s ability to raise a certain number of private contributions of $5. If passed, the bill would apply to the 2012 election in districts that elect a single legislator. It would not start until 2014 for districts which elect several legislators. The bill treats all candidates the same, regardless of their political affiliation or independent status.