Bills are pending in both houses of the Minnesota legislature to move the primary from September 14 to August 10. They are SF 2251, by Senator Terri Bonoff (DFL-Minnetonka), and HB 2552, by Representative Steve Simon (DFL-St. Louis Park). On February 8, the Senate State and Local Government Committee passed SF 2251.

The bills, if passed, would have the effect of automatically moving the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from July 20 to June 16. The bills would also automatically move the petition deadline for a group to submit a petition to become a qualified party from July to June.

The Minnesota petition to create a new ballot-qualified party is so difficult, it has never been used for a statewide party even though it has existed in the law since 1913. It is in section 200.02.7(2) of the election law. It requires the signatures of 5% of the last vote cast. Groups that have become qualified parties in the last 100 years have done it in Minnesota by first running a statewide independent candidate, and then having that candidate poll at least 5% of the vote. That is an alternate method for creating a new ballot-qualified party, but it takes longer; the group must wait until after the election to attain its “qualified” status.

In 1980, the 8th circuit ruled in McLain v Meier, 637 F 2d 1159, that a similar procedure in North Dakota to create a new ballot-qualified party was so difficult as to be unconstitutional. The North Dakota party petition required 15,000 signatures (3.3% of the number of eligible signers in North Dakota at the time), and was due in June. The 8th circuit said the relative tough petition requirement combined with a relatively early deadline was unconstitutional. If Minnesota moves the petition deadline for a new ballot-qualified party to June, and doesn’t lower the number of signatures, it is plausible that the party petition procedure would also be unconstitutional. Like Minnesota currently, North Dakota at the time also permitted independent candidates to choose a partisan label which appeared on the ballot, and if that independent candidate in North Dakota polled 5% for Governor, that was an alternate method for creating a new ballot-qualified party. So it would be tough for Minnesota to defends its law, based on the 1980 precedent. Minnesota, like North Dakota, is in the 8th circuit.

Vermont already permits two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. However, in Vermont, when a candidate is the nominee of two different parties, he or she is only listed on the ballot in one place, so a voter who votes for that fusion nominee can’t indicate a preference for either political party.

Vermont state representatives David Zuckerman (Progressive-Burlington) and John Moran (Democrat-Wardsboro) have introduced HB 621. The bill would change fusion so that candidates nominated jointly by two parties would be listed twice on the ballot, so that a voter voting for such a candidate could demonstrate a party preference. This is called “disaggregated fusion.”

Vermont had disaggregated fusion before 1977, but changed to aggregated fusion that year.

On February 8, the California Secretary of State issued this press release, announcing that a proposed initiative is now free to start circulating signatures. It would repeal the measure passed by the voters in 2008, to establish a non-partisan citizens redistricting commission.