At the September 14 Massachusetts primary, no Republican appeared on that party’s primary ballot for Attorney General.  However, write-in candidate James McKenna polled 27,711 write-ins.  He needed 10,000 write-ins to be deemed nominated, and he easily overcame that hurdle.  He had printed and distributed 100,000 stickers.  Massachusetts is probably the last state in which stickers are still legal.  A voter pastes the gummed strip bearing McKenna’s name on the ballot, instead of having to write him in.

McKenna also sent out 17,300 pieces of direct mail.  It is estimated that his write-in campaign cost $40,000.  Massachusetts has approximately 480,000 registered Republicans.  Registered independents, who are far more numerous, were also free to choose a Republican primary ballot and cast a write-in for McKenna.

McKenna would have needed 10,000 signatures of registered Republicans and/or registered independents to get himself on the primary ballot.  It is not known why he didn’t qualify to have his named printed on the primary ballot.

Thomas L. Friedman has this column in the October 3 New York Times, making the case that the United States needs a new major political party.  Friedman is a renowned author, reporter, and columnist, a recipient of three Pulitizer Prizes, and the author of five bestselling books.

One hopes that Friedman will get interested in the details of legal barriers to the creation of a major new political party.  He probably lives in New York state.  New York state law is so bad, New York is one of only two states in which it is literally impossible for a group to transform itself into a qualified party during a presidential election year.  These sort of details are not widely known, but if someone with Friedman’s stature would publicize such details, that would enhance the chances for improvement.

The hearing in the First Circuit in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, which had been set for November 2, will instead be held during the week of December 6-10.  The Assistant Attorney General who is representing the state had a schedule conflict.  The issues in the case are:  (1) whether unqualified parties may use a stand-in presidential candidate on the petition and later substitute the actual nominee; (2) whether unqualified parties are entitled to protect their party name.