Although it had already been reported that the Libertarian Party won ten partisan elections in Pennsylvania on November 3, 2009, it had not been previously reported that two of the wins were in a contest in which the Libertarians had ballot-listed major party opponents.

Many minor party victories in partisan races in Pennsylvania occur because the minor party nominees are the only candidates on the ballot. Many small townships in Pennsylvania have trouble finding individuals willing to serve.

However, in the recent election for Borough Council in Houston, Pennsylvania, the two Libertarians who were elected had Democratic Party opponents on the November 3, 2009 ballot. Houston is in Washington County, in the southwest part of the state. It has a population of 1,314. The voters were choosing three council members. The results were: Libertarian Paula Meddings 119 votes, Libertarian Chad Roberts 118 votes, Democrat James Stubenbordt 97 votes, Democrat David Schmalz 91 votes, Libertarian Seth Fosmire 57 votes. So, two Libertarians and one Democrat were elected.

Wyoming has very difficult ballot access for both new parties and independent candidates. The only party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, that has appeared on the Wyoming ballot since 2001 has been the Libertarian Party. The Constitution Party is working on an all-volunteer petition drive to obtain the 4,988 valid signatures needed for party status in 2010, and now has 2,400 signatures.

Although 4,988 signatures may not sound difficult, Wyoming is the nation’s least populous state. The law requires 2% of the last U.S. House vote. If the Constitution Party succeeds in 2010, this will be the first new party petition to succeed in Wyoming for a mid-term year election since the Libertarians last did it in 1994 (Libertarians have not needed to petition since 1994, because the party always meets the vote test to remain on the ballot). Neither the Green Party nor the Constitution Party has ever been on the Wyoming ballot. Wyoming was one of seven states in which Ralph Nader failed to get on the ballot in 2000.

On November 25, California elections officials announced that an initiative to modify California’s legislative term limits law is cleared for circulation. It would not apply to any legislators now in office. It would provide that no future legislator could serve more than 12 years in the legislature. However, all 12 years could be served in one house of the legislature.

Under the current limits, no one may serve more than three 2-year terms in the Assembly, and no one may serve more than two 4-year terms in the State Senate. But, an individual who serves three terms in the Assembly may then serve two terms in the State Senate, for a total of 14 years of legislative service.

The new proposal has substantial financial backing and is very likely to qualify for the November 2010 ballot. Proponents will argue that under the existing term limits law, the office of Assembly speaker is always filled by someone who only has had four years of prior legislative experience, and furthermore that Speakers must leave office after just two years. Proponents argue that having inexperienced Speakers who only serve two years has injured the Assembly.

Proponents also argue that under the current law, Assembly members generally spend so much time concentrating on how they can win a seat in the State Senate when their Assembly service must stop, that they are poor legislators. Under the proposed new type of term limits, generally, the habit of an Assembly member going on to the State Senate would be mostly curtailed.