Tennessee Attorney General Plans to Depose State Chairs of Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties

Posted on by October 24, 2009
6

Back in January 2008, the Tennessee Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that the requirements to get a previously unqualified party on the ballot are so onerous, they are unconstitutional. No party has successfully petitioned in Tennessee since George Wallace’s American Party did so in 1968. A petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote is needed, due four months before the primary. The petition must say that the signers are members of the party whose petition they are signing. Over the decades, various minor parties have tried to complete this petition, but they have all failed. Tennessee is the only state in which the Reform Party, during the period 1995-2000, ever made a substantial attempt to complete a petition for party recognition and failed.

The lawsuit has taken longer than expected, because last year the Tennessee Attorney General, who is defending the law, asked the political party plaintiffs to answer extensive interrogatories. Now the Attorney General plans to take depositions from the three state party chairs. This is unusual behavior in a constitutional ballot access lawsuit. It is the law that is on trial, not the parties.

Study Shows Incumbents More Likely to be Re-Elected Under "Top-Two"

Posted on by October 23, 2009
9

A look at both congressional elections, and state legislative elections, in the two states that have used “top-two”, shows that when states switch to “top-two”, the ability of incumbents to be re-elected increases. Also, when a state switches away from “top-two”, the ability of incumbents to be re-elected declines.

Washington used a classic open primary in 2006, but switched to a “top-two” system in 2008. No congressional incumbent lost in either election year. For Washington state legislative races, in 2006, six incumbents were defeated (in Senate districts 6 and 44, and House districts 6-1, 23-2, 24-1, and 31-2). But in 2008, under “top-two”, five incumbents were defeated (in Senate district 2, and House districts 6-1, 6-2, 17, and 44). It is true that there isn’t much difference between six incumbents losing under one system, and five incumbents losing under another system, of course. Nevertheless, the fact that more incumbents lost under a non-top-two system than lost under the first “top-two” experience in Washington contradicts the extravagant promises made by supporters of “top-two” in California. These supporters assume that “top-two” will wash away the “extremists” in the legislature.

Louisiana’s experience is more dramatic. The first year Louisiana used “top-two” for its state legislative races, in 1975, only five incumbents were defeated, our of 144 races (Senate district 38, and House districts 45, 61, 99, and 100). Unfortunately I have not been able to get the data for 1971, the last year Louisiana used a closed primary for state legislative races, but I will continue trying.

In Lousiana Congressional races, during the years that state used “top-two”, out of 112 U.S. regularly-scheduled U.S. House races, only one incumbent was ever defeated (except that in 1992, when two incumbents were left without a district due to reapportionment and redistricting, two incumbents had to run against two other incumbents, so obviously two incumbents lost). No incumbent was defeated in the ten U.S. Senate races. But when Louisiana switched back to semi-closed primaries for Congress starting in 2008, two U.S. House incumbents (out of 7 districts) were defeated.

Study Shows Incumbents More Likely to be Re-Elected Under “Top-Two”

Posted on by October 23, 2009
9

A look at both congressional elections, and state legislative elections, in the two states that have used “top-two”, shows that when states switch to “top-two”, the ability of incumbents to be re-elected increases. Also, when a state switches away from “top-two”, the ability of incumbents to be re-elected declines.

Washington used a classic open primary in 2006, but switched to a “top-two” system in 2008. No congressional incumbent lost in either election year. For Washington state legislative races, in 2006, six incumbents were defeated (in Senate districts 6 and 44, and House districts 6-1, 23-2, 24-1, and 31-2). But in 2008, under “top-two”, five incumbents were defeated (in Senate district 2, and House districts 6-1, 6-2, 17, and 44). It is true that there isn’t much difference between six incumbents losing under one system, and five incumbents losing under another system, of course. Nevertheless, the fact that more incumbents lost under a non-top-two system than lost under the first “top-two” experience in Washington contradicts the extravagant promises made by supporters of “top-two” in California. These supporters assume that “top-two” will wash away the “extremists” in the legislature.

Louisiana’s experience is more dramatic. The first year Louisiana used “top-two” for its state legislative races, in 1975, only five incumbents were defeated, our of 144 races (Senate district 38, and House districts 45, 61, 99, and 100). Unfortunately I have not been able to get the data for 1971, the last year Louisiana used a closed primary for state legislative races, but I will continue trying.

In Lousiana Congressional races, during the years that state used “top-two”, out of 112 U.S. regularly-scheduled U.S. House races, only one incumbent was ever defeated (except that in 1992, when two incumbents were left without a district due to reapportionment and redistricting, two incumbents had to run against two other incumbents, so obviously two incumbents lost). No incumbent was defeated in the ten U.S. Senate races. But when Louisiana switched back to semi-closed primaries for Congress starting in 2008, two U.S. House incumbents (out of 7 districts) were defeated.

Pennsylvania Again Rejects Nader on 2004 Costs

Posted on by October 23, 2009
5

On October 23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court once more rejected Ralph Nader’s legal case against the $80,000 that he was ordered to pay after his petition was found insufficient in 2004. Nader had tried to get the case re-opened on the grounds that last year, the Pennsylvania Attorney General had indicted some of the people who challenged Nader’s 2004 petition, on the grounds that they were state employees on state time, using state government computers and other resources. In the challenge states, challenges are supposed to be brought by private individuals at their own expense. UPDATE: also on October 23, it was revealed that some of the state employees who were indicted by the Attorney General last year will plead guilty. See this story. Thanks to Larry Otter for the link.

In one sense, this final rejection by the state courts may benefit the federal case now pending that charges the system of charging candidates for the costs of checking their petitions, when those petitions are rejected, violates the U.S. Constitution. There is no longer the slightest doubt that the Pennsylvania state courts are unwilling to address the constitutional issue; they have failed to do so at every chance they were given.