Florida holds primaries this year on August 24. In the 33rd State House district, near Orlando, there will be a Libertarian Party primary. This will be the first government-sponsored primary for any party in Florida history, other than for Democratic and Republican Party primaries. See this story. The two candidates are Franklin Perez and Ellen Paul.

Until 2007, Florida only held primaries for parties with registration greater than 5% of the state total. In 2007, the legislature changed the law and said all qualified parties should nominate by primary. However, Florida does not actually hold a primary for any party unless it has a contest. Florida doesn’t permit write-ins in partisan primaries, and even though Florida has 35 qualified parties, none of them ever had a contested nomination contest until this year, in the Libertarian Party, in that one state House district.

Government-administered primaries began in Florida in 1913. The law said only parties that had polled at least 5% of the vote in the last election could have a primary. The Progressive Party and the Socialist Party were eligible for primaries in 1914, but probably they didn’t actually have primaries because they had no contests for any nomination. In 1921 the law was changed to say that only parties that had polled 30% of the vote in the last election could have primaries. In 1939 the law was changed to eliminate the vote test, and to say primaries were only for parties that had registration of 5%, the law that was in effect until 2007.

Some South Carolina Democrats are thinking about supporting an independent candidacy in the U.S. Senate race this year. This Politico story says some Democrats want to organize an independent petition for Linda Ketner, who was the Democratic nominee for U.S. House in 2008 in the First District. The seat has been Republican for almost 30 years, but Ketner polled 48% in 2008 as a Democrat. She is South Carolina’s only openly gay politician, at least at the level of federal and state elections.

South Carolina does not have registration by party. Any person who is not a sore loser may qualify to be an independent candidate. A statewide independent petition needs 10,000 signatures, due July 15.

The recent vote in the South Carolina House on whether to sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 3746 may have been influenced by last week’s surprise outcome in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. When the bill, which makes it more difficult for independent candidates to qualify for the ballot, passed the House on June 3, the vote was 70-26 in favor. If every House member had voted the same way when the Governor’s veto was up for a vote on June 16, the veto would have been overridden. The actual vote was 60 votes to override the veto, but 43 against. Vetoes cannot be overridden without a two-thirds vote of those present and voting. Fortunately, some legislators who voted for the bill on June 3, voted against the bill on June 16. Those who changed their votes from support for the bill, to opposition, include six Democrats and five Republicans.

Generally, when legislators change their vote after a veto, it is only members of the Governor’s party who change their vote from support for a bill, to opposition. That is because many members of the Governor’s own party don’t wish to embarrass their own party’s governor. It is unusual for members of the other major party to change their votes in that situation. Probably the six Democrats who voted for the bill the first time, but against it the second time, realize that the bill, if it had been in effect this year, would have hampered any possibility for Democrats to rally behind an independent candidacy this year. The bill had a provision that requires an independent to file a declaration of candidacy before the primary votes are counted. The bill would not have actually taken effect until 2011.

On June 16, the 7th circuit upheld a Wisconsin judicial rule that forbids state judges, or candidates for state judge, from endorsing candidates in partisan elections. The vote was 2-1. The decision is Siefert v Alexander, 09-1713. The plaintiff, a Wisconsin circuit court judge in Milwaukee, wanted to endorse Barack Obama in 2008, but was not permitted to do so.

The lower court had struck down the ban. Judges John Tinder, a Bush Jr, appointee, and Joel Flaum, a Reagan appointee, voted to uphold the ban. Judge Ilana Rovner, a Bush Sr. appointee, dissented. She pointed out that Wisconsin judicial rules do not forbid judges, or candidates for state judge, from endorsing candidates in non-partisan elections.

The panel did agree unanimously with the lower court, that another Wisconsin judicial rule, barring judges or candidates for judge from being a member of a political party, is unconstitutional. Wisconsin does not have registration by party. Therefore, “membership” in a political party in Wisconsin generally means that the individual holds himself or herself out publicly as a member of the party. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about this decision.