Since the late 19th century, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has been recommending model state laws on various topics.  The group has a great deal of prestige, and it is normal for state legislatures to accept the group’s recommendations.

The group has been working on a model state election law to prevent the perceived problem of faithless electors — that some presidential electors do not vote for the presidential candidate that carried that state in the November vote.  On July 21, it released this proposed text.  The text is not completely final.  Where brackets appear in the text, that means the particular state may want to substitute different language.  For example, some states put elections under a Secretary of State, but other states put elections under an Election Board, so each state must modify the recommendation to take measure of that detail.

If this proposed law were enacted, it would require each political party to submit twice as many candidates for presidential elector as that particular state has electoral votes.  Each candidate for presidential elector would have an alternate.  If that party’s slate won, and one of its electors voted for a presidential candidate other than the presidential candidate nominated by that party, then that elector would be deemed to have resigned, and he or she would be replaced by the alternate.

The proposed law does not deal with the problem that, on rare occasions, a candidate for presidential elector is nominated by two different parties, each of whom has its own separate presidential candidate.  For example, in 1948 in Tennessee, two candidates for presidential elector were nominated by both the Democratic Party, and also the States Rights Party.  The Democratic Party was running Harry Truman for President and the States Rights Party was running Strom Thurmond for President.  Both of these dually-nominated candidates for presidential elector were elected.  One of them voted for Truman in the electoral college, and one voted for Thurmond in the electoral college (prior to  the November election, both had publicly said they would vote for Thurmond).

If the proposed law were enacted in each state, unchanged from this text, it seems that states would no longer require independent presidential candidates to list their candidates for presidential elector on the petition to get the presidential candidate on the ballot.  That would be a big improvement for presidential candidates who must petition to get on the November ballot.  It would simplify the petition, and also solve the problem that sometimes candidates for presidential elector listed on a petition later decide they don’t want to serve in that capacity, which can create big problems for the petition.  Or, the need to list candidates for presidential elector delays the start of the petition, while the independent presidential candidate rounds up candidates for elector.  For example, in 1992, Ross Perot’s petition to get on the California ballot couldn’t start for a month after Perot announced, because it was not easy for the Perot campaign to choose who should have the honor of being listed on the petition as one of Perot’s electors.

The text says an independent presidential candidate should tell the state elections office the names of his or her presidential elector candidates.   The signers of the petition would not themselves be nominating the candidates for presidential elector, so logically their names would not be on the petition.

On July 21, a Circuit Court in Cook County ruled that Kenneth Williams should remain on the November ballot as a candidate for State Representative, 29th district.  Williams was nominated by the Green Party after the February 2010 primary.  No one had run for the office in the Green Party primary.  Illinois law lets qualified parties make nominations after the primary, by party meeting, if no one was nominated in the primary.

Williams used the new procedure by which candidates nominated in the party meeting of a qualified party must then submit a petition.  His filing was accepted by the Election Board, but someone challenged.  The challenge was based on procedure for the party meeting, and also on the fact that Williams had first filed to run for that seat in the Democratic primary, but then he had withdrawn from the Democratic primary.  In the February 2010 primary itself, Williams chose a Green Party primary ballot.  The court decision agrees with the election board that the objections, on both points, should be set aside.  It is possible the challenger will now appeal to the State Appeals Court.  Thanks to Phil Huckelberry for this news.  The case is Hogans v County Officers Electoral Board, 10 CoEl 2, Cook County.  Here is the ten- page decision.

Filing for the Hawaii primaries closed on July 20.  The Libertarian Party will have candidates for US Senate, US House 2nd district, and state house 5th district.  The Green Party has a candidate for US Senate.  The Free Energy Party has candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

The Free Energy Party also appeared on the Hawaii ballot in 2002, when it ran Daniel Cunningham for Governor.  Cunningham is also the Free Energy Party’s gubernatorial candidate this year.

Also, independent candidates filed for U.S. Senate, U.S. House 2nd district, Governor-Lieutenant Governor, and state house districts 4 and 5.