On March 31, Hawaii Elections officials ruled that the Constitution Party petition for party status has enough valid signatures, so the party is on the ballot. The party is now on for president in 18 states. The Constitution Party had failed to get on the Hawaii ballot in 2004, although it was on in 1996 and 2000.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a full opinion on March 31, but it did not issue the Indiana photo ID case for voters at the polls. There will be no more U.S. Supreme Court decisions until April 14 at the earliest.
Kansas is one of the states that didn’t hold a presidential primary this year, and used caucuses instead. On March 28, the Kansas House passed HB 2683, which sets up a presidential primary starting in 2012. It would be the first Saturday in February.
It is possible to predict that 2008 will be another presidential election in which only six general election presidential candidates will theoretically be able to be elected.
It is quite likely that the presidential nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties, as well as independent candidate Ralph Nader, will be the only presidential candidates on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral vote. This will be a repeat of the situation in 2004.
The July 1, 2007 Ballot Access News paper issue listed such presidential candidates from all presidential elections 1856 through 2004. The number of electable presidential candidates has varied between two and seven, in all those elections.
RocktheDebates was founded to work for at least one general election presidential debate in which all the candidates who could potentially be elected, are invited. The fact that there almost surely will be six such candidates in 2008 should give renewed strength for the RocktheDebates goal. This year, if the Commission on Presidential Debates again claims that the 15% poll rule must be enforced or there would be “hundreds” of candidates on the stage, let that claim be countered with the facts. Also remember the large number of Democratic and Republican presidential debates held this season which were quite successful, even though there were often 6, 7, 8 or 9 candidates in those debates.
On March 28, the Washington Republican Party asked the U.S. District Court that first heard the case against the “top-two” system, to let the party file an amended complaint in that same case.
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 18 had ruled that the “top-two” system does not violate the associational rights of political parties on its face, but had left the door open to new lawsuits against the system on other grounds, and also left the door open to a renewal of the associational argument “as applied.”
The Republican Party seeks to revise its original complaint, to make two new points: (1) the advertising in favor of the “Top-Two” initiative was false; (2) that in practice, the system will confuse voters into thinking that candidates listed on the ballot as preferring the Republican Party are actually representing the Republican Party.
The first point depends on the fact that the Washington Supreme Court recently invalidated another initiative that had passed, on the grounds that the advertising for it was false and misleading.
The amended Republican Party complaint about false advertising for the initiative specifically targets the pro-“top-two” advertising that claimed that the initiative would not affect the ability of minor parties to place nominees on the November ballot. There was a great deal of confusion about this during the campaign for “top-two” in 2004. In fact, even the text of the initiative itself contradicted itself on this point. Thanks to Richard Shepard for this news.
