Dede Scozzafava Endorses Bill Owens

Posted on by November 1, 2009
26

On Sunday, November 1, Republican congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava endorsed her Democratic opponent, Bill Owens. She had previously indicated she would be neutral between Owens and Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee. See this story. Thanks to Sam Harley for the link.

New stories that say Scozzafava has withdrawn are misleading. Scozzafava remains on the ballot and every voter is free to vote for her. “Withdraw” generally means a process by which a candidate removes himself or herself from the ballot, but Scozzafava has not done that.

George F. Will Column Argues in Favor of Keeping Names and Addresses on Petitions Private

Posted on by November 1, 2009
4

George F. Will, well-known Washington Post columnist, has this column November 1, arguing in favor of keeping names and addresses on initiative and referendum petitions private. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.

Also, the New York Times of October 31 had this news article about the issue. The more that these important newspapers discuss the issue, the more likely it is that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to review this issue and the lawsuit concerning this issue, called John Doe v Sam Reed. It is likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will say whether it will hear the case by the end of 2009, or early in January 2010.

Quimby, Iowa, Holds Mayor and City Council Election with No Names on Ballot

Posted on by November 1, 2009
2

Quimby, Iowa, is holding its city election on November 3, 2009. Voters will be choosing a Mayor and three city councilmembers. However, no names are printed on the ballots. The winners will be determined by write-in votes. Iowa is one of the few states that permits write-ins but does not have a write-in declaration of candidacy procedure, so there is no such thing as a declared write-in candidate. Thus anyone might win, even if the person who wins didn’t want the job. See this story. UPDATE: the same is true of Spencer Mountain, North Carolina, which is also electing a Mayor and three City Councilmembers this week, and which also has no candidates printed on the ballot. See this story. Thanks to Christopher Cole for the North Carolina link. North Carolina does have a write-in declaration of candidacy law, but it doesn’t apply to non-partisan elections or to municipal elections.

New Jersey Newspaper Continues Publicizing New Jersey's Bad Ballot Design and its Restrictive Definition of "Political Party"

Posted on by November 1, 2009
Reply

The Newark, New Jersey Star-Ledger has this column in its November 1 edition. It lambasts New Jersey election law on two points: (1) the design of the ballot for candidates who are not the nominees of qualified parties; (2) the restrictive definition of qualified political party in New Jersey.

The column contrasts New Jersey with New York, where parties that poll approximately 1% of the vote for Governor meet the definition of “qualified party”. The story mentions that the Conservative Party, having enjoyed qualified status in New York ever since 1962, was well-positioned to run a competitive race in this week’s special U.S. House race in that state. By contrast, the article says that New Jersey defines “political party” to be a group that polled 10% of the total vote cast for all votes cast for the lower house of the legislature at the last election. This definition is so restrictive, no party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties has ever met it. That definition was created in 1920. Before 1920, the definition was 2% of the Assembly vote, and it is believed that both the Progressive Party of 1912-1916 met that earlier definition, as well as the Socialist Party in 1917 and perhaps 1912-1914. Therefore, the column is not strictly accurate when it says no third party has been ballot-qualified in New Jersey in the 20th century, but it is accurate to say that no third party has ever met the existing 10% requirement. The article is also slightly in error when it says the Liberal Party is still ballot-qualified; that party failed to poll as much as 50,000 votes for Governor in 2002, so has not returned to the New York ballot. Thanks to Scott Lieberman for the link.

New Jersey Newspaper Continues Publicizing New Jersey’s Bad Ballot Design and its Restrictive Definition of “Political Party”

Posted on by November 1, 2009
Reply

The Newark, New Jersey Star-Ledger has this column in its November 1 edition. It lambasts New Jersey election law on two points: (1) the design of the ballot for candidates who are not the nominees of qualified parties; (2) the restrictive definition of qualified political party in New Jersey.

The column contrasts New Jersey with New York, where parties that poll approximately 1% of the vote for Governor meet the definition of “qualified party”. The story mentions that the Conservative Party, having enjoyed qualified status in New York ever since 1962, was well-positioned to run a competitive race in this week’s special U.S. House race in that state. By contrast, the article says that New Jersey defines “political party” to be a group that polled 10% of the total vote cast for all votes cast for the lower house of the legislature at the last election. This definition is so restrictive, no party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties has ever met it. That definition was created in 1920. Before 1920, the definition was 2% of the Assembly vote, and it is believed that both the Progressive Party of 1912-1916 met that earlier definition, as well as the Socialist Party in 1917 and perhaps 1912-1914. Therefore, the column is not strictly accurate when it says no third party has been ballot-qualified in New Jersey in the 20th century, but it is accurate to say that no third party has ever met the existing 10% requirement. The article is also slightly in error when it says the Liberal Party is still ballot-qualified; that party failed to poll as much as 50,000 votes for Governor in 2002, so has not returned to the New York ballot. Thanks to Scott Lieberman for the link.