Mimi Marziani, a fellow with the Brennan Center, has this article saying that programs for public funding for candidates are worthwhile, whether they have extra public funds for publicly-funded candidates with high-spending privately-funded opponents or not.
This topic is relevant because the U.S. Supreme Court recently put a temporary hold on the part of Arizona public funding that furnishes extra public funding in those circumstances. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On June 10, the Delaware House unanimously passed HB 425. The bill says that for 2010 only, the number of registrants for a party to be ballot-qualified should be one-twentieth of 1%, not one-tenth of 1%.
Earlier this year, the legislature had increased the requirement from one-twentieth of 1% to one-tenth of 1%, effective immediately. Most of Delaware’s ballot-qualified minor parties then did a good job of complaining that it is not fair to stiffen the requirements in an election year and make it effective immediately. Both the minor parties injured by the new law, and the minor parties not injured by the new law, worked together. The Independent Party of Delaware was especially helpful. They persuaded the Election Commissioner to ask the legislature to pass HB 425. The bill now goes to the Senate. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
On June 11, the South Dakota Constitution Party filed a federal lawsuit against a South Dakota election law that requires members of small qualified parties to submit 250 signatures of party members in order to get on their own party’s primary ballot for statewide office. The case is called Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson, cv10-3011. The lawsuit also challenges the ban on out-of-state circulators. Here is the eleven-page complaint.
The Constitution Party is the only ballot-qualified party in South Dakota, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. It became a qualified party in 2008, by submitting 8,389 valid signatures. Parties that qualify in presidential years in South Dakota are also automatically on in the following gubernatorial election year. The Constitution Party only has 345 registered voters in the state. The candidates seeking a place on this year’s primary ballot for statewide office made a strong effort, and did submit petitions bearing the signatures of over 100 party members by the March deadline, but those petitions were rejected, because the law requires 250 signatures of party members.
Statewide candidates of the Libertarian Party had had a similar problem in 2000 in South Dakota, when they also couldn’t get the signatures of 250 party members in order to get on the Libertarian primary ballot. They filed a federal lawsuit in 2000, and the case won, but it was won on statutory construction grounds, not constitutional grounds. The judge interpreted the law to mean that the Libertarians in 2000 didn’t really need 250 signatures of party members. However, in 2007, the South Dakota legislature amended the law, to make it clear that the 250-signature requirement does apply.
If the Constitution Party wins its new lawsuit, that will be a useful precedent that states must make the number of signatures needed for primary ballot access proportionate to the number of voters registered in that particular party, if the state insists that only registered party members may sign. The precedent might be useful against a somewhat similar requirement in Maine. The precedent would probably have less bearing on Massachusetts, another state that doesn’t make the number of signatures proportionate to the size of the party, because Massachusetts lets independent voters sign primary petitions, and over half of Massachusetts registered voters are independents.
Alabama elects its entire legislature this year. All legislators in both houses get four-year terms. Alabama doesn’t have legislative elections in presidential election years.
This year, twelve independent candidates filed for the legislature, including one incumbent, Harri Anne Smith. Also one Constitution Party candidate filed for the legislature.
The only U.S. House petitions this year in Alabama are one from the Constitution Party in the First district, and one independent in the 7th district.
It is likely that this year, there will be a minor party or independent candidate on the November ballot for either House of Congress in all states except New Mexico and Washington state. Whether there is one in South Dakota will depend on a lawsuit that the Constitution Party is about to file. There almost certainly won’t be any candidates in Washington state because of that state’s top-two system. The problem in New Mexico is the state’s requirement of one petition for minor parties and then separate petitions for each of that party’s nominees, which is so burdensome, there are no minor party candidates in New Mexico this year above the state legislative level. However, a pending lawsuit in New Mexico could possibly put a Green Party candidate on the ballot for Congress.
National Public Radio has this clear-eyed analysis of the likely effects of California’s Proposition 14. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.
