In the 2010 election, Tea Party candidates appeared on the general election ballot under the “Tea Party” label, for federal or state office, in Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York. Even though there were 18 Tea Party nominees in races with both a Democrat and a Republican also in the race, there is no instance at which the Tea Party nominee seems to have altered the outcome of the winner.

It is not necessarily true that every voter who voted for a Tea Party nominee would have voted for a Republican, if the Tea Party nominee had not been on the ballot. But assuming that it is true that every vote for a Tea Party nominee meant a lost vote for a Republican, nevertheless, no election outcome changed. In all the races with a Tea Party nominee, one of the major party nominees polled an absolute majority of all the votes cast in that race anyway. The only exception is the Florida U.S. House race, 12th district. But even there, the Republican nominee won, although with only a plurality.

The ballot-listed Tea Party had four candidates for U.S. House (three in Florida, and one in New Jersey), one for U.S. Senate (in Nevada), and 16 for state office (all in Florida, except for one in New York). Three of these races had only one major party nominee. The most impressive showing by a ballot-listed Tea Party nominee in a congressional race with two major party opponents was in Florida’s 12th U.S. House district, where Randy Wilkinson polled 10.71%. The 12th district is centered on Polk County, in the middle of the state. The 12th district has been represented by Republicans ever since it was created in 2001.

The most impressive showing by a ballot-listed Tea Party nominee for state office in a race with both major parties was in New York, where David J. DePietro polled 10.77% in the 59th State Senate district. The Republican nominee won with an absolute majority of the vote cast. This post was updated on February 13, 2011, to include the New York reference.

Here is the text of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would abolish presidential public funding. The chief sponsor is Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. Thanks to Jeff Patch for the link. UPDATE: the bill is HR 359.

Also, here is a link to Politico’s “The Arena” of January 21. “The Arena” is a place for policymakers to discuss issues, and this issue devotes the first half to the proposal to abolish presidential public funding. The second half is on what President Obama should discuss in the next State of the Union address. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link to “The Arena.”

On January 20 and January 21, two pending cases in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia were transferred to a brand-new U.S. District Court Judge. The new judge is Beryl A. Howell, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 23, 2010. Before she was a Judge, she had been a federal prosecutor and also had been General Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

The two cases are: (1) Libertarian Party v D.C. Board of Elections, which challenges the policy of the District of Columbia Board of Elections over counting write-in votes for presidential candidates who filed a declaration of write-in candidacy; (2) Nader v Federal Election Commission, which challenges the FEC’s failure to take any action at all over Ralph Nader’s complaint that the Democratic Party in 2004 had spent a great deal of money trying to keep him off the ballot and had not reported these expenses.

The write-in case had been filed on August 7, 2009, and the only action so far (besides filing briefs) was that the judge who formerly had the case had asked the U.S. Justice Department to express an opinion. The Department had declined to do so. The Nader case had been filed on June 11, 2010. Generally, when a new judge is confirmed, cases are re-assigned to the new judge, to relieve the workload on the judges who have been there a while, and to give the new judge something to work on immediately.