Fewer Voters Voted for President in Oklahoma in 2008 than in 2004

Oklahoma appears to be one of only two states in which fewer votes were cast for president in 2008 than in 2004. Oklahoma has finished its vote-counting, and the number of votes cast for president was 1,462,661. In 2004, the number had been 1,463,758. The other state is West Virginia.

Oklahoma did not permit voters to vote for president, unless they voted for Barack Obama or John McCain. Write-ins are not allowed, and Oklahoma was the only state with only those two candidates on the ballot.

The Oklahoma State Election Board says it does not know how many people cast ballots. Most states do calculate how many people actually voted, but Oklahoma is not one of those states. Because this data is missing, no one knows how many Oklahomans went to the polls and failed to vote for anyone for president.

Why it Takes to So Long to Get All Votes Counted

Most states are still two weeks from having official vote totals announced. Many provisional ballots still haven’t been counted. In the most suspenseful U.S. House race in the nation, Ohio’s 15th district, the 27,000 provisional ballots haven’t been counted yet because there is a legal dispute over which ones are valid. The issue is whether provisional ballots are valid if the voter signed the outer envelope, but failed to print his or her name next to the signature. There are 1,000 ballots with a signature but no printed name. U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley says he will rule by 5 p.m. Thursday (November 20), and then the ballots can be counted. The case is State ex rel Skaggs v Brunner, 2:08cv-1077, s.d. The Secretary of State says those ballots are valid, but two voters who support the Republican nominee say they are not.

Without the provisionals, Republican nominee Steve Stivers leads Democratic nominee Mary Jo Kilroy by 393 votes.

Other U.S. House races that are very close, and in which not all the ballots have yet been counted, are the California 4th district, and the Virginia 5th district. In the California 4th district, Republican nominee Tom McClintock leads Democratic nominee Charlie Brown by 622 votes, with tens of thousands of ballots still not counted. In the Virginia 5th district, Democratic nominee Tom Perriello leads Republican nominee Virgil Goode by 745 votes, but there is a controversy over whether to count foreign absentee and military ballots that arrived late.

Arizona Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Nader v Brewer

On November 13, Arizona filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Nader v Brewer (which is now called Brewer v Nader). The Court hasn’t assigned the case number yet. The issues are (1) whether early June is too early for independent presidential candidate petitions to be due; (2) whether states may make it illegal for out-of-state residents to circulate an independent presidential petition.

Georgia Libertarian Endorses Democrat in Public Service Commissioner Run-Off

Georgia voters vote on December 2 in two partisan run-off elections, for U.S. Senate and for Public Service Commission. In the Public Service Commission race, neither the Democrat nor the Republican had polled 50% because of the presence of the Libertarian nominee, Brandon Givens. On November 17, Givens endorsed Jim Powell, the Democrat. Givens’ press release says, “After speaking with Powell, I’ve discovered that he too has the vision for a new system that would allow for both a free market in energy and a growth in green technology. He also shares my strong opposition to ex-parte communications, the behind-closed-doors dealings between PSC members and the industries they are charged with regulating. He will stand up for transparency in government. I strongly encourage all voters, Libertarian and fiscally conservative to vote for Jim Powell.”

As far as is known, the Libertarian in the other run-off partisan race, Allen Buckley for U.S. Senate, has not made any run-off endorsement. The run-off for U.S. Senate is between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of November 17 has this op-ed by Mathematics Professor James Wiseman, urging Georgia to use Instant-Runoff to avoid December run-offs in the future.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Ohio’s Appeal on Paying Circulators per Signature

On November 17, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Ohio v Citizens for Tax Reform, 08-151. In the 40 years that the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in ballot access, this is only the eighth time that the Court has refused to hear a ballot access appeal brought by a state.

The Court generally treats state governments better than it treats ordinary litigants. The Court only takes 2% of the cases presented to it. However, states have a 50% success rate when they ask the Court to take a ballot access case.

Other states that have asked the Court to hear a ballot access appeal, and been turned down, are California and Colorado (on the issue of whether a congressional candidate must be a registered voter); Nebraska (on the procedural issue of whether the 11th Amendment bars ballot access cases); Illinois (on whether a modified, moderate county distribution requirement for a statewide petition violates Equal Protection); New York (also on the county distribution requirement for statewide petitions); Arkansas and Pennsylvania (on the issue of early petition deadlines for non-presidential petitions).

Instances when the minor party or independent candidate won in the lower court, and the state asked for U.S. Supreme Court review, and the U.S. Court accepted the case, are from California in 1972, from Colorado in both 1988 and 1999, from Illinois in 1979, from Maryland in 1977, from Ohio in 1972, from Texas in 1992, and Washington in 1986. Fortunately, in all those cases except the Washington case, the U.S. Supreme Court then went on to agree with the lower court, and the state in question lost again. In the Maryland instance the U.S. Supreme Court merely remanded the case, but did so in a way that the case was ultimately won. In the Ohio 1972 case, the legislature vastly improved the law while the case was pending in the US Supreme Court so no decision was actually issued, except on a peripheral issue.