At the November 8, 2011 in Derby, Connecticut, one of the Democratic Party nominees for a seat on the Board of Apportionment and Taxation was James R. Butler. However, whoever prepared the ballots erroneously listed him as James J. Butler. It happens that the town does have a resident by that name, and he is the son of James R. Butler. According to this news story, the Connecticut Secretary of State has ruled that James J. Butler has therefore been elected, even though he apparently doesn’t want the job.

The Connecticut Secretary of State’s ruling seems faulty. There may be other relevant facts that the news story doesn’t mention. One wonders what the Secretary of State would have said if no one by the name of James J. Butler lives in Derby, or if there were several people in the town with that name. Thanks to Randall Hayes for the link.

Howard Megdal has this article in Salon, suggesting that the Republican presidential primaries and caucuses might elect a delegate field in which no one candidate has a majority of the delegates. He also suggests that in that case, it is possible that the convention might choose someone for President who did not even run in the presidential primaries. The last major party nominee who had not run in any primaries or caucuses was Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic nominee in 1968. Thanks to both Political Wire and Rick Hasen for the link.

The major party conventions throughtout most of the nation’s history were much earlier, so it was somewhat more practical for the national conventions themselves to make the decision as to whom to nominate. For most of the 20th century, major party presidential conventions were in June. The upcoming Republican convention won’t convene until August 27, 2012.

On November 22, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion in Beaufort County v South Carolina Election Commission, 27069. The 3-judge majority interpreted the state law to mean that the counties must pay for some of the election administration costs for the Republican presidential primary. Two judges dissented. Here is the opinion.