Josh Goodman has posted this interesting analysis on whether the National Popular Vote Plan can really pass in enough states to take effect. It is dated April 11, 2008.
Reply
Filing for the June North Dakota primary closed on April 11. The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both are entitled to their own primaries, but no one filed in either party’s primary for any public office. This has no effect on the presidential part of the ballot, of course, and those parties will be on for president.
North Dakota has few minor party candidates. They are discouraged by a law that says they must poll 300 votes in the open primary. Similar laws were found unconstitutional in both Washington and Minnesota in 2004. North Dakota is the only state that still requires a party candidate whose name is on the primary ballot to not only outpoll any other candidates seeking the same nomination, but also to worry about polling a specified minimum number of votes.
The United Citizens Party of South Carolina held a convention on March 29 and nominated Barack Obama for president. South Carolina permits fusion. The last time a presidential candidate was the nominee of two parties in South Carolina was 1996, when Ross Perot was the nominee of both the Reform Party (which yielded 27,464 votes) and the Patriot Party (36,913 votes).
However, in order for the fusion to work this year between the Democratic and the United Citizens Parties, the two parties will need to agree on a common slate of candidates for presidential elector.
Of course, there is no certainty that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Presumably if he is not, he will decline the presidential nomination of the United Citizens Party. The Democratic and United Citizens Party did jointly run George McGovern for president in South Carolina in 1972.
The United Citizens Party was formed in 1970, mostly by African-American activists. It has been continuously ballot-qualified since 1972, even though there were many years when it did not actually appear on the ballot. Back then, a party that had qualified in South Carolina was qualified for life, even if it went years and years without running any nominees. The United Citizens Party nominated Walt Brown for president in 2004; he was also the Socialist Party presidential nominee. Thanks to Gregg Jocoy for this news.
On April 8, the Illinois House passed HB 5263. Currently, Illinois ballot-qualified parties nominate by primary. However, the law generously lets them nominate someone by party meeting after the primary, if no one had run in that party’s primary for that particular office.
The bill would continue to let ballot-qualified parties nominate by party meeting after the primary was over (if no one had won the primary). But it would require such nominees by party meeting to submit a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast for that office (or 25,000 signatures, whichever is less).
The bill passed the House by 97-13. The “No” votes included 9 Democrats and 4 Republicans. The Democrats are Mike Boland, John Bradley, John Fritchey, Paul Froehlich, Greg Harris, Lou Lang, David Miller, Cynthia Soto, and Wyvetter Younge. The Republicans are Elizabeth Coulson, Shane Cultra, Jim Durkin, and Keith Sommer.
It is possible that the Green Party, which is the only ballot-qualified party besides the Democratic and Republican Parties, could defeat this idea in court, if it is signed into law and if the Green Party chooses to challenge it. This year, the Green Party nominated more candidates by party meeting after the primary, then it did in the primary. Ballot access in the primary is somewhat difficult, requiring petitions of 3,000 signatures for statewide office, and typically 500 for U.S. House.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres, issued January 16, 2008, “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” The decision also says that a state “has an interest in assuring the fairness of the party’s nominating process.” It seems unlikely that Illinois could argue that the existing system, which has been in place for decades, is “unfair” to the Green Party’s rank-and-file members. Although Ballot Access News has been critical of the Lopez Torres decision, this may be an instance when the opinion can be used to good advantage.
After years of evidence-gathering in the lawsuit against the Post Office regulation against petitioning on interior post office sidewalks, the final briefs are about to be filed. The first round is due April 15, the second round on April 30, and the final round on May 15. The case is called Initiative & Referendum Institute v U.S. Postal Service, and is pending in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The case was filed in 2000.