The Libertarian Party, perhaps joined by other minor parties and possibly by Ralph Nader, is likely to sue Oklahoma over presidential ballot access. Existing law requires unqualified parties to submit a petition of 3% of the last presidential vote to place their nominees on the ballot. Independent presidential candidates face an identical hurdle.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states should be less concerned keeping presidential candidates off general election ballots, than candidates for other office. The presidential election, in a sense, belongs to the entire nation. But Oklahoma stands this on its head, by letting independent candidates for any office except president on the November ballot with no petition at all, just a fee.

Oklahoma is the only state with no procedure for the presidential candidate of an unqualified party, or an independent presidential candidate, to get on the ballot with some showing of support that is at or below 2% of the last vote cast. Furthermore, Oklahoma is one of only 5 states that ban all write-in votes. Oklahoma was the only state in 2004 in which voters either had to vote Republican for president, or Democratic for president, or they couldn’t vote.

Although Barr will depend on a lawsuit for Oklahoma, he expects to be on in all other states, and will launch a West Virginia petition drive very soon.

South Carolina held its primary (for all office other than president) on June 10. The Democratic U.S. Senate primary was won by Bob Conley. Now it has been revealed that Conley was on the Horry County Republican Committee, and that he voted in the Republican presidential primary earlier in the year. News reports say he voted for Ron Paul. See this story. South Carolina doesn’t have registration by party, so it isn’t always easy to pin down anyone’s party membership. Thanks to Jack Ross for this story.

South Carolina permits two or more parties to jointly nominate the same candidate for any particular office, including president. Many times in the past, presidential candidates (and their slates of presidential electors) have been the nominees of two South Carolina parties. However, in none of the past instances has the presidential election in South Carolina been so close that the use of fusion affected the outcome.

This year, the South Carolina Working Families Party, and the United Citizens Party, both want to cross-endorse the Democratic Party’s slate of electors, so that Barack Obama would be listed as the nominee of all three parties (with voter choice as to which party label to vote for). But the South Carolina Elections Commission refuses to say whether, if this happened, the votes on all three tickets would be added together.

On June 19, the South Carolina Elections Commission said it will not decide this matter. Instead, it said the Secretary of State will need to decide. The excuse for putting the responsibility on the Secretary of State is that the Secretary of State handles paperwork involving presidential electors. The South Carolina Elections Commission is non-partisan, but the Secretary of State, Mark Hammond, is an elected Republican. It seems only common sense that if a candidate for any office is listed on the ballot twice, under two party labels, that the vote for him or her under each label should be added together.

Instances in the past when two different parties in South Carolina jointly nominated the same candidates for presidential elector include 1940, 1972, and perhaps 1928, 1932, 1936, and 1996.