New York Bill to Double Vote Requirement for "Party" Status

New York Assemblymember J. Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced A2681, to change the definition of “political party” from a group that polled 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that polled 100,000 votes for Governor. Assemblymember Pretlow has been in the legislature since 1992 and is a member of the Puerto Rican and Black Caucus.

The New York definition of “political party” is already constitutionally suspect. New York and Indiana are the only states in which it is impossible for a group to attain status as a “political party” during presidential election years. Also, New York is one of eleven states in which it is impossible for a group to transform itself into a qualified party in advance of any particular election.

New York Bill to Double Vote Requirement for “Party” Status

New York Assemblymember J. Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced A2681, to change the definition of “political party” from a group that polled 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that polled 100,000 votes for Governor. Assemblymember Pretlow has been in the legislature since 1992 and is a member of the Puerto Rican and Black Caucus.

The New York definition of “political party” is already constitutionally suspect. New York and Indiana are the only states in which it is impossible for a group to attain status as a “political party” during presidential election years. Also, New York is one of eleven states in which it is impossible for a group to transform itself into a qualified party in advance of any particular election.

Bloomberg Likely to Run for Re-Election as an Independent Candidate

This interesting article in the Queens Village Independent of February 4 analyzes how New York city Mayor Mike Bloomberg will run for re-election in November 2009. It seems unlikely he can be the nominee of any of the qualified parties, because of political differences between the leaders of the qualified parties and the Mayor. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

Nader Files Brief with U.S. Supreme Court, in Arizona Case

On February 5, Ralph Nader filed his response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Arizona ballot access case. The purpose of his brief is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court that it shouldn’t bother to hear Arizona’s appeal. The issues are whether the U.S. Constitution protects out-of-state circulators, and whether early June is too early for an independent presidential petition deadline. Here is the brief; it’s good reading, although unfortunately the attorneys who wrote it erroneously said that Nevada and Utah have even earlier deadlines than Arizona. Actually the Nevada deadline is in July and the Utah deadline is in September.