This news story describes Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s, process for choosing a vice-presidential running mate. Mike Rowe was interviewed by Kennedy for the job, and then later he described the process to the reporter who wrote the story.
18
On March 14, three New Jersey election law professors filed this amicus brief in Kim v Hanlon, 3:24cv-1098. This is the case about the New Jersey ballot format in primary elections. Except in two counties, these ballots give the candidate who is supported by the party a far superior spot on the ballot. The law professors formally are neutral, but the information they present is strongly in favor of the plaintiff-candidates who are suing the state.
The case has an oral argument on Monday, March 18.
On March 20, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Virginia) and Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) will introduce the Fair Representation Act. The same bill has been introduced in several past sessions of Congress. It repeals the national law that requires states to elect their U.S. House members in single-member districts. It allows states to use multi-member districts and to use Ranked Choice Voting, so as to make it possible for states with at least three members of the House to use a type of proportional representation.
There have been many stories in mass media outlets recently saying Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., can’t start getting on the ballot in many states until he chooses a vice-presidential running mate. These stories are inaccurate. Almost all states that expect a vice-presidential candidate to be listed on a petition permit stand-ins. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is free to choose a stand-in vice-presidential nominee, just as George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, did in the past. Also the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties have regularly used stand-ins, not only for vice-president, but for president.
However, it is true that Kennedy is reluctant to choose a stand-in. Because he has already chosen his actual vice-presidential nominee, who will be announced later this month, he has decided he doesn’t need to bother with the stand-in process.
If states didn’t permit stand-ins, they would be in violation of Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates. It would be a violation of Equal Protection to force an independent to have chosen his actual running mate this early in the year, given that the major parties don’t formally choose their tickets until July or August. In 1980, when Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Florida denied stand-ins, Anderson sued all three states and won all three cases. Also in 1996 the Florida Libertarian Party and the Florida Reform Party jointly won a federal lawsuit that required stand-ins for president.
Bloomberg News has this article by writer Francis Wilkinson, saying the California top-two system has not achieved its goal of reducing polarization and boosting more moderate candidates. One error in the piece is the reference to Louisiana. Louisiana does not have primaries (except for presidential primaries). It only has general elections (held in November for congressional races), and in the fairly unusual event in which no one gets a majority, a run-off in December. Thanks to Eric Wong for the link.