At the November 2010 election, no Republican nominee for District of Columbia partisan office polled as many as 7,500 votes, except for the Republican nominee for “Shadow U.S. Representative.”  The District of Columbia elects “shadow” U.S. Senators and a U.S. House member.  However, those “shadow” offices don’t count for purposes of meeting the vote test.

The District of Columbia defines a party as a group that polled as much as 7,500 votes in the last election, for the offices that do count.  When it became apparent that no Republican had polled as many as 7,500 votes this year for an office that counts toward the vote test, it seemed that the party had lost its qualified status.

However, the D.C. Board of Elections has now interpreted the law to mean that a party that meets the vote test for its presidential nominee is then immune from having to meet the vote test in the following midterm year.  The law itself is worded ambiguously.  It says, “The nomination and election of any individual to the office of Delegate, Mayor, Chairman of the Council and member of the Council shall be governed by the provisions of this subchapter.  No political party shall be qualified to hold a primary election to select candidates for election to any such office in a general election unless, in the next preceding election year, at least 7,500 votes were cast in the general election for a candidate of such party for any such office or for its candidates for electors of President and Vice President.”

John McCain polled more than 7,500 votes in 2008 in the District of Columbia.  In 2010, the Republican nominee for Delegate, Missy Reilly Smith, only polled 7,401 votes.  No Republican ran for Mayor, or Chairman of the City Council, or at-large Member of the Council.  The Republican who ran for “shadow” U.S. Representative polled 10,181 votes, but as noted above, the shadow offices don’t count toward meeting the vote test.

The Statehood Green Party easily met the 2010 vote test for two offices that count.  It polled 4,119 votes for Delegate, 1,341 for Mayor, 12,055 for Chairman of the Council, and 11,799 for At-large member of the Council.

See this story.  Thanks to Mike Feinstein for this news.  In D.C., there is no method for a group to transform itself into a qualified party, except to place a nominee on the general election ballot and hope he or she polls at least 7,500 votes.  Therefore, if the Republican Party were deemed not to be entitled to its own primary, in 2012 its presidential nominee would have been required to circulate a petition to get on the November ballot.  The petition is difficult, and no one successfully circulated it in 2008 except for Ralph Nader.

On November 5, a Colorado state district court ruled that votes for write-in candidates in which the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to also fill in the oval next to the write-in line should be counted.  The 4-page decision is here.  Kathleen Curry is a write-in candidate for re-election to the Colorado state house.  The initial machine tallies show that she may have won the election, or she may not have won.  The number of ballots considered to be undervotes in her race is larger than the margin between Curry and her Democratic opponent (the Republican in the race clearly came in third, and has conceded).  An “undervote” in this context means a ballot in which the vote-counting device believes no vote was cast.  The machine, of course, can’t know if the voter cast a write-in, unless the voter filled in the oval next to the write-in line.  Only a human count can find such votes.  As a result of the ruling, there will be such a human-eye count.  It is possible the Secretary of State will appeal this decision to the State Supreme Court, however.

The ruling says, “The overall intent of the election code is to permit qualified electors to cast their votes for eligible candidates and ballot issues of their choosing, not to thwart the intent of voters by imposing technical obstacles…Refusing to count these votes would thwart the clear intention of the electorate, as well as the intent of the election code.”  The ruling says that these types of votes only need to be counted when they may affect the outcome of the race.

This ruling could have implications for the Alaska write-in tally.  Both the Colorado and Alaska code seem to say that a write-in vote is not valid if the voter didn’t fill in the oval.

See this news story for an update on the vote count for the Colorado state legislative race involving Kathleen Curry.  The race still isn’t decided.  It will probably depend on what a judge says about whether write-ins can be counted when the voter who cast the write-in vote forgot, or didn’t know, to fill in the oval next to the write-in line.