Libertarian Party National Registration Up 8% Since 2008; All Other Nationally-Organized Parties Decline

Posted on by May 26, 2010
10

New voter registration data for the 29 states (plus D.C.) that have registration by party shows that Libertarian registration has risen 8% since October 2008. UPDATE: the original post said Libertarian registration was up 11%. At the time I wrote it, I had current official data for all but two states, Massachusetts and Florida. For those two states I had used unofficial data. Now I have received the official data, and it turns out my unofficial data for Florida had included inactive voters, and the unofficial data for Massachusetts had been wrong for another reason.

All other nationally-organized parties lost registrants. The number of registered voters in the 29 states (plus D.C.) that have registration by party declined since October 2008, because states purge their lists in between elections.

The June 1, 2010 printed Ballot Access News will have a table showing the number of registered voters in each state, in each party. More voters are registered Libertarians now than ever before. Between October 2008 and this spring, Libertarian registration rose in 19 of the 23 states that tally Libertarians. It declined in four states, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota. The decline in South Dakota isn’t surprising because the party has not been on the ballot there since 2006.

Kentucky Libertarian Party May Attempt to Run U.S. Senate Candidate

Posted on by May 26, 2010
10

The Kentucky Libertarian Party has never placed a statewide nominee on the ballot in any year, except in presidential years. To do so requires 5,000 signatures, due in early August. The only Libertarian Party nominees for U.S. Senate in Kentucky history have been in presidential years, when the presidential petition can include a U.S. Senate candidate as well.

Now, however, the party is considering running someone for U.S. Senate in 2010. See this story. The party disagrees with Republican nominee Rand Paul on the issue of same-sex marriage, and foreign policy, and other issues. The party is irked that the media assumes that Paul’s views match Libertarian Party views, and if the party ran its own nominee, the press would stop making that mistake.

Federal Court in New York Hears Case on Whether State Must Hold Special U.S. House Election

Posted on by May 26, 2010
Reply

The New York U.S. House seat for the 29th district has been vacant since early March 2010. On May 25, a U.S. District Court heard arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution requires the state to call a special election this summer to fill the seat. See this story. The story does not include any quotes from Judge David Larimer to indicate which way he may be leaning. It merely says that the hearing was held and that a written decision will be issued very soon. The case is Fox v Paterson, 10-cv-6240, western district.

New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Case on Whether Members of Congress Can be Recalled

Posted on by May 25, 2010
8

New Jersey has procedures for recall of elected officials. Those procedures do not exclude members of Congress. On May 25, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution blocks New Jersey from permitting recall of members of Congress. See this story. The case is Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v Wells, A86-09.

The lower court had ducked the issue. It failed to decide that big issue, but said at least the state should let the circulators have blank petition forms. The procedure is so difficult, requiring approximately 1,300,000 valid signatures for U.S. Senate or any statewide race, that it is fundamentally unfair for the judicial system to not say whether such a petition would be honored if it were completed.

No other court has ever ruled on this interesting question, except for a lower state court in Idaho in 1967 that said the U.S. Constitution does not permit the states to have procedures for recall of members of Congress.

U.S. Supreme Court Shows Some Interest in Arizona Public Funding Case

Posted on by May 25, 2010
Reply

The plaintiffs in McComish v Bennett, the Arizona case over public funding of candidates for state office, have filed this brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose is to obtain an injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court, stopping payment of public funding this year in Arizona. Justice Anthony Kennedy has already asked the state to respond. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link to the brief. UPDATE: here is the state’s response, filed May 27.