Illinois has an infamous election law, sec. 10-4, which says “No person shall circulate or certify petitions for candidates of more than one political party, or for an independent candidate or candidates in addition to one political party, to be voted upon at the next primary or general election, or for such candidates and parties with respect to the same political subdivision at the next consolidated election.”

This law has long inhibited petitioning in Illinois, because it is construed to mean that if an individual circulated a petition in an Illinois primary, then that same petitioner can’t work on a general election petition.

Now the individual who is challenging the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. independent petition in Illinois, Joseph Duffy, is claiming that all Kennedy petition sheets circulated by someone who also worked on Kennedy petitions in other states are invalid, under section 10-4. This is a new twist, and is not likely to be well-received. When section 10-4 was upheld by the Seventh Circuit in John W. Moore Party v Board of Election Commissioners in 1988, the rationale that the judges accepted was that section 10-4 is a type of “sore loser” law. Obviously that makes no sense in connection with a petitioner who works for the same candidate in different states. Thanks to Sam Cahnman for sending me the copy of the objection to the Kennedy petition.

Here is a commentary written by Roy Minet, a long-time friend of mine and member of the Libertarian Party from Pennsylvania, who advocates for an electoral system change that would allow voters to cast votes of approval for up to two candidates and up to one vote of disapproval for a candidate in an election. The disapprove votes would be subtracted from the approve votes for each candidate, and the candidate with the highest net approval vote total would win. If no candidate got a net positive vote total, the election would be redone with other candidates on the ballot.

While I don’t think this article will end the debate about differing voting reforms, and Minet admits that there cannot be a “perfect” voting system, I have heard many other people express the desire to allow negative votes for political candidates. It makes for an interesting read.

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT REMOVES LEGAL MARIJUANA NOW PARTY FROM THE BALLOT

On May 10, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in Martin v Simon, A24-0216.  It immediately removes the Legal Marijuana Now Party from the ballot, even though the party has already had a government-administered presidential primary this year and was about to have a primary for Congress and partisan state offices on August 13.  The deadline for candidates to file in that primary is June 4.

The Legal Marijuana Now Party was the only ballot-qualified party in Minnesota, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.  It was on the ballot because it had polled over 5% for U.S. Senate in 2020.  The law says when a party passes the vote test, it is on the ballot for the next two elections.  Last year the legislature increased the vote test from 5% to 8%, but made that effective after November 2024, so the party was on the ballot until the Minnesota Supreme Court removed it.  Now Minnesota becomes one of only twelve states with no ballot-qualified third parties.

The lawsuit had been filed by officers of the Minnesota Democratic Party.  The basis for the decision is that the Legal Marijuana Now Party’s internal structure does not meet the requirements of state law.

Continue reading →