On September 30, the Republican, Constitution, and Libertarian Party nominees for Governor of Colorado debated each other. See this story. The Democratic nominee did not participate.
Reply
Since 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been the only group that has held general election presidential debates in which the major party nominees have been willing to participate. The Commission receives support from large for-profit corporations, and these corporations are permitted to deduct deductions from federal income taxes.
On September 30, Congress unanimously passed S.3196, which will apparently be the first law to mention the Commission on Presidential Debates. The bill provides certain presidential candidates with office space and equipment and security clearances, before the general election. Specifically, nominees of parties that polled at least 25% of the presidential vote in the last election receive this assistance within three days after they are formally nominated. Other presidential candidates are also potentially eligible, if they are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election, and if the Administrator of the General Services Administration believes the other candidate “has demonstrated a significant level of public support in national public opinion polls, so as to be realistically considered among the principle contenders for President.” To help the Administrator decide, the bill says he or she should “consider whether other national organizations have recognized the candidate as being among the principle contenders for the general election, including whether the Commission on Presidential Debates has determined that the candideate is eligible to participate in the candidate debates for the general election.”
It does not follow logically that the Commission on Presidential Debates shall forever into the future limit its debates to candidates who have a realistic chance of being elected. But because the Commission will now be mentioned in federal law, with a legal presumption that it will stick to that policy, it will be even more difficult than ever to persuade the Commission to liberalize its criteria. The Commission in recent presidential years has required a candidate to be at 15% in polls in order to be invited into the debates. Thanks to Dan Tokaji for this news.
The bill had been introduced by Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware. When he introduced the bill, he said on the floor of Congress, “Third party candidates will be eligible if they meet the same criteria used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to participate in general election debates.”
On October 1, Paul Loscocco, the Lieutenant Governor running mate of Tim Cahill, independent candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, said he is withdrawing and that he urges voters to vote for the Republican ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. But, it is too late to remove Loscocco’s name from the ballot, and he will still appear on the ballot as an independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Massachusetts is a state in which Governor and Lieutenant Governor are elected as a team.
Last week, a New York state court removed Steven Cohn from the New York ballot. He had filed to be on the November ballot as the gubernatorial candidate of the Tea Party.
As a result, there are seven candidates for Governor on the ballot, listed here in the order in which they appear on the ballot: Andrew Cuomo (Democrat, Independence, Working Families); Carl Paladino (Republican, Conservative, Taxpayers); Howie Hawkins (Green); Jimmy McMillan (Rent is 2 Damn High); Warren Redlich (Libertarian); Kristin Davis (Anti-Prohibition) and Charles Barron (Freedom). Carl Paladino’s Taxpayer Party line is at the bottom of the ballot. Thanks to Mark Dunlea for the order of candidates on the ballot. The earlier version of this post was incorrect about the ballot order.
On September 30, the Maryland State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest state court, voted 5-2 to put a referendum on the Montgomery County ballot even though election officials had said it doesn’t have enough valid signatures. The case is Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Association v Montgomery County Board of Elections, no. 86.
In 2008 the same court had ruled that petitions on ballot measures must be an exact match with the name as shown on the voter registration form. That had meant the invalidation of all signatures if the signer used a middle initial on the voter registration form but not on the petition, or vice versa. It had meant invalidation if the signer put an abbreviation of a first name in one place but not the other, such as “Wm.” or “Rich” instead of “William” or “Richard.”
The Court did not release an explanation for its decision, but it will do so. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Court now realizes it erred in its 2008 decision and has changed its mind. Thanks to Doug McNeil for this news. The ballot question at stake in the recent case would have asked the voters if they wish to impose fees on people picked up by ambulances. The county government had imposed such fees, but then people opposed to the fee circulated a petition to require a referendum.