Jay Jacobs, who will soon take up his post as state chair of the New York Democratic Party, says he tends to want to make it illegal for two political parties to jointly nominate the same candidate, according to this Newsday article.

The article does not mention that in 1912, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the State Constitution protects the right of two political parties to jointly nominate the same candidate.

Jacobs complains that the 3 qualified minor parties of New York state (Conservative, Working Families, and Independence) don’t run enough of their own members for public office. However, there are many changes in state election law that could be made, to increase the number of candidates running for office in the general election. New York state could alter its definition of “political party” so that parties like the Green, Libertarian, and Constitution Parties could enjoy that status. Those parties would tend to mostly run their own members for public office. New York state could also alter the order in which parties are listed on the ballot, so that any party appearing on the ballot has an equal random shot at appearing on the top line, as many states do. That would tend to decrease the influence of the older qualified minor parties, relative to newer ones.

J. B. Williams, a U.S. resident who blogs for the Canada Free Press blog, has posted what he says are two different versions of the certification prepared by officials of the Democratic National Convention of 2008, immediately at the close of the convention. Both versions, as shown on his website, are signed by the Chair of the National Convention, the Secretary of the National Convention, and a Colorado notary public (the convention was in Denver, Colorado). The purpose of these certifications is to send official notification to elections officials in each state, plus the District of Columbia, advising them officially of the names and addresses of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees.

One version has the language that the Democratic nominees “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”, and the other version omits this language. Williams says the second version was sent out to each state election official. However, a comment on his website says that the first version was sent to the Hawaii elections officials.

Williams posted a copy of the 2008 Republican certification, which contains language that John McCain and Sarah Palin meet the constitutional qualifications. Ballot Access News happens to have copies of the 1980 certifications of the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and the 1980 certifications do not contain any reference to the candidates being qualified under the Constitution.

These certifications are not forms prepared by any state. No state requires any particular type of form for this purpose. However, about half the states do require the qualified parties to notify them officially of whom their presidential electors are pledged to vote for in the Electoral College. In the remaining states, the law is silent, and presumably state elections officials would rely on the newspapers if they didn’t receive such certifications. It is not known when the national conventions first started the habit of preparing them and sending them to each state. Probably one of the reasons they were first prepared was so that elections officials in each state would print the name of the candidates on their ballots precisely as the candidates wished their names to appear. There are frequently ambiguities about the form of candidates’ names, such as whether the candidate wants his or her middle name to appear, or to use a middle initial. Jimmy Carter was keen that all states print “Jimmy Carter” on the ballot, not “James Earl Carter”, for example.

The only significance of the fact that two versions of the 2008 Democratic certifications were prepared, is that apparently someone in the party decided not to include the language about the candidates being qualified under the Constitution, and went to the bother of preparing a second certification the same day without that language. The certifications are prepared in great haste. The Texas certification, in particular, was late, under Texas election law, because the Texas deadline for receiving certification was the day before the convention chose its nominees. However, Texas officials excused the lateness of the filing.

Here is a link to CanadaFreePress and J. B. Williams’ blog post, showing both versions of the 2008 Democratic certification, and the 2008 Republican certification.

The California legislature’s regular session ended in the early morning hours of September 12, and SCA 16 did not receive a vote. It would have asked the voters if they wish to amend the Constitution and provide for an indirect initiative.

The California legislature is likely to be called into special session later this year, and the measure could be brought up then.