The United States has been electing U.S. Senators by popular vote starting in 1914.  In almost a century of U.S. Senate elections, there are only two instances in the Deep South when any minor party ever polled as much as 5% for U.S. Senate.  Both of them were recent showings by the Green Party:  the 9.21% showing by Tom Clement in South Carolina in 2010, and the 20.47% showing by Rebekah Kennedy in Arkansas in 2008.

However, there are equivalent minor party showings from the past from Southern states that aren’t considered “Deep South”, Florida, Oklahoma and Virginia.  In Florida in 1974, the American Party polled 15.70% for U.S. Senate.  In Virginia in 1994, the Reform Party polled 11.45% for Senate.  In Oklahoma in 1914, the Socialist Party polled 20.99% for Senate.  And in Virginia in 1952, the Socialist Party polled 12.57% for Senate.

On December 15, the California Supreme Court declined to hear Field v Bowen, the case that challenges the new California law that says some candidates, but not others, may have a party label on the ballot.  The case has not yet received any ruling from the State Court of Appeals, and the next round of briefs in the case will be in the Appeals Court.  In the appeals court, another issue (which was not before the Supreme Court) is whether write-in votes should be counted in November for Congress and state office.  The new law says that write-ins should not be counted, but leaves write-in space on the ballot and also leaves in place procedures for candidates to file as declared write-in candidates.  See this story in the Sacramento Bee.

The Iowa Constitution says that judges “shall at such judicial election stand for retention for office on a separate ballot which shall submit the question of whether such judges shall be retained in office for the tenure prescribed for such office…”.  Iowa held its normal judicial retention election on November 2, 2010, and the voters voted not to retain the three State Supreme Court justices whose names were on the ballot.

On December 13, three attorneys filed a lawsuit in lower state court, alleging that the judicial retention election was illegal, because the judicial retention question was not on a separate ballot.  Instead, it was on the same ballot that every other office was on.  The November 2010 Iowa ballot listed U.S. Senate, U.S. House, the statewide state offices, the legislative contests, the county partisan contests, on the front.  On the back it had non-partisan offices and the judicial retention section, and then a statewide question on amending the state Constitution.  The case is George v Mauro, Polk Co. dist. ct., ce67313.  A hearing is set for December 20.  Here is the paperwork filed with the court.

The Supreme Court justices had been defeated for retention after an election campaign which criticized them for being part of the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex marriages.