On April 10, Chuck Baldwin said he will seek the presidential nomination of the Constitution Party. He lives in Florida and was the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2004. The Constitution Party national convention is April 23-26.
2008 is a historic year for suspenseful national conventions. As of today, no one knows for sure who will be nominated for president by the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party.
On April 9, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill held a scheduling hearing in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield. This is the case against the parts of the Connecticut public funding law that discriminates against independent candidates and new and minor parties. The Judge indicated that there is no need for a trial. Instead, the case will proceed with briefs and affidavits. The Green Party’s brief for summary judgment will be filed in mid-May. The Judge indicated that he is likely to hold the law unconstitutional, but that he would stay his own ruling, so that the program will be used in this year’s election.
The Saginaw News of April 8 has this editorial, praising the U.S. District Court decision last month that struck down a law that discriminates against minor parties, on the question of which parties can get a list of presidential primary voters. The editorial also criticizes, by name, the 4 Michigan Supreme Court Justices who had earlier ruled that the law is constitutional. And the editorial praises the American Civil Liberties Union for bringing the case on behalf of the Michigan Green, Libertarian and Reform Parties.
The ACLU has become the foremost defender of minor parties in court. In the last four years it has filed lawsuits on behalf of minor parties in Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Also it intervened helpfully in the pending North Carolina ballot access lawsuit.
The April 8 Olympian (daily newspaper for Washington state’s capital city) has this story about the probable effect of the “top-two” primary on minor parties. The story also covers plans by the Democratic Party to hold endorsement conventions. But, as the story notes, nothing on a Washington state primary or general election ballot will reveal which Democrat has been endorsed by the party.
One aspect of “top-two” is not covered by the story. Washington state permits write-ins in primaries and general elections. Although the state has a procedure for a write-in candidate to file a declaration of write-in candidacy, Washington state election law says that if the vote-counting equipment indicates that any write-in candidate may have outpolled someone whose name is printed on the ballot, the write-ins must be counted, whether the write-in candidate filed a write-in declaration of candidacy or not.
It is very likely that there will be federal and state offices in which the two top vote-getters will both be Democrats, or will both be Republicans. That will inevitably lead to strong write-in candidacies in the general election, on behalf of someone from the major party that otherwise won’t have anyone running. Although Washington state law says no one who was defeated in a primary may file a write-in declaration of candidacy, that doesn’t stop a primary loser from running in the general election. And write-ins for such a person will be counted if the vote-counting equipment senses they may have outpolled someone listed on the ballot.
In a race with 2 Democrats on the November ballot, a write-in Republican could win in November with as little as 34% of the vote, if the two Democrats are evenly divided. Of course, the same is true in reverse, if two Republicans are on the November ballot and Democrats sponsor a write-in candidate. Elections officials know that it costs much more work and money to count write-in votes, than votes for candidates listed on ballots. The “top-two” system may prove troublesome to elections officials, if indeed it is responsible for a raft of strong write-in campaigns.
Louisiana, the only other state that has a “top-two” system, banned write-ins in 1975 when it instituted “top-two” for state office, so Louisiana experience is not comparable.
The April 8 Olympian (daily newspaper for Washington state’s capital city) has this story about the probable effect of the “top-two” primary on minor parties. The story also covers plans by the Democratic Party to hold endorsement conventions. But, as the story notes, nothing on a Washington state primary or general election ballot will reveal which Democrat has been endorsed by the party.
One aspect of “top-two” is not covered by the story. Washington state permits write-ins in primaries and general elections. Although the state has a procedure for a write-in candidate to file a declaration of write-in candidacy, Washington state election law says that if the vote-counting equipment indicates that any write-in candidate may have outpolled someone whose name is printed on the ballot, the write-ins must be counted, whether the write-in candidate filed a write-in declaration of candidacy or not.
It is very likely that there will be federal and state offices in which the two top vote-getters will both be Democrats, or will both be Republicans. That will inevitably lead to strong write-in candidacies in the general election, on behalf of someone from the major party that otherwise won’t have anyone running. Although Washington state law says no one who was defeated in a primary may file a write-in declaration of candidacy, that doesn’t stop a primary loser from running in the general election. And write-ins for such a person will be counted if the vote-counting equipment senses they may have outpolled someone listed on the ballot.
In a race with 2 Democrats on the November ballot, a write-in Republican could win in November with as little as 34% of the vote, if the two Democrats are evenly divided. Of course, the same is true in reverse, if two Republicans are on the November ballot and Democrats sponsor a write-in candidate. Elections officials know that it costs much more work and money to count write-in votes, than votes for candidates listed on ballots. The “top-two” system may prove troublesome to elections officials, if indeed it is responsible for a raft of strong write-in campaigns.
Louisiana, the only other state that has a “top-two” system, banned write-ins in 1975 when it instituted “top-two” for state office, so Louisiana experience is not comparable.
