North Dakota Libertarians Nominate 8 Candidates

On April 3, the North Dakota Libertarian Party state convention endorsed eight candidates, each of whom will run unopposed in the party’s primary on June 8, assuming the state approves the party’s ballot access petition. North Dakota requires 7,000 signatures to recognize a new party, and the party is in the process of turning in 8,400 raw signatures. North Dakota does not have voter registration, so there is no list of registered voters to check the petition against. The Secretary of State, when presented with a petition, randomly samples some names from the petition and sends a piece of postal mail. If the post office doesn’t return more than a handful as undeliverable, the petition is approved.

The Libertarian Party is the first party in North Dakota history to submit a party petition in a midterm year. The party petition procedure has only existed since 1939. It required 15,000 signatures until 1980, when the 8th circuit ruled that the number was too high. In 1981 the legislature lowered it to 7,000.

If the party’s candidate for Secretary of State this year polls 5%, the party’s ballot status will be extended into 2012. The party has candidates for six statewide offices, one for State House, and one for Sheriff of Grand Forks County.

North Dakota is the only state that says that a candidate is not necessarily deemed nominated in a party’s primary, just because the candidate outpolls all his or her opponents in that primary. Additionally, a candidate must poll a minimum number of votes in the primary. Any statewide candidate who does not get at least 300 votes in the primary will not be allowed to be on the November ballot. Legislative and county candidates face an even more severe primary ballot hurdle. The candidate for the legislature, Anthony Stewart in the 17th district, will need 131 primary votes. While that sounds low, there were only approximately 1,250 voters who voted in the primary in that district in 2006. For Stewart to persuade over 10% of all the primary voters to abstain from voting in the Democratic and Republican primaries, and instead choose a Libertarian primary ballot, will be very difficult. A somewhat similar Minnesota law, requiring candidates in a party primary to poll a minimum number of votes, was declared unconstitutional in 2004 by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision called Candidacy of Independence Party Candidates v Kiffmeyer, 688 NW 2d 854.

Green Party Has Candidate on Ballot for Tennessee Governor

The Tennessee Green Party has placed Howard Switzer on the November 2010 ballot as an independent candidate for Governor. Tennessee has no other statewide races this year.

If the pending ballot access lawsuit wins, it is very likely the court will order that Switzer be put on the ballot as the Green Party nominee, instead of being labeled as an independent. The lawsuit was filed on January 23, 2008, in U.S. District Court. It has moved slowly, but all the evidence and the briefs have been submitted. The other two parties in the lawsuit, the Constitution and Libertarian Parties, have nominees for various district office this year on the ballot as independents, but they aren’t running anyone for Governor.

Pia Varma Appeals Residency Requirement for Circulators to Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Pia Varma, the only Republican trying to get on the May 18 Republican primary ballot for Pennsylvania’s U.S. House seat, First District, has appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. She was removed from the ballot by the lower court because some of her signatures were gathered by a Republican who didn’t live in the First District. For earlier coverage, see here.

Starting in 2001, there have been at least 12 reported decisions striking down residency requirements for petition circulators, and none upholding them. One of the precedents is from the Eastern District, U.S. District Court, Pennsylvania. It struck down the in-district residency requirement for independent candidate petitions.

Dan Quayle Writes Anti-Minor Party, Anti-Independent Candidate Op-ed for Washington Post

Dan Quayle has this op-ed in the Sunday, April 4, Washington Post. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.

Quayle repeats the cliche that a minor party or independent candidate always injures the major party closest (ideologically) to that minor party or independent candidate. Social science and historical research substantially rebuts that idea.

Dan Ariely’s best-selling book “Predictably Irrational” describes the findings of research that describes how individuals choose, when there are three choices. “Predictably Irrational” says that if two of the three choices are markedly similar in some way, but one of those two choices is obviously superior to the other similar choice, that superior choice then gains a significant advantage over the third choice, that is, over the choice that is not similar to either of the other two.

A real-world example is the 1948 presidential election. Pollster Samuel Lubell, who later became a political scientist, learned that Henry Wallace actually helped Harry Truman. Conventional wisdom, including the Quayle op-ed, would predict just the opposite. Lubell’s book “The Future of American Politics” explains how Wallace helped Truman by running against him.

The Communist Party understood this, and in 1936 ran its own presidential candidate, Earl Browder, even though the party in 1936 was very much in favor of Roosevelt’s re-election. The Communist Party’s campaign was run to boost Roosevelt, even though superficially the party was “taking votes away” from Roosevelt.