The official results in the Massachusetts Green presidential primary are:
Ralph Nader 744
Cynthia McKinney 474
Kat Swift 60
Jared Ball 42
Kent Mesplay 39
Elaine Brown 38
No Preference 194
write-ins 273
blank 77
Thanks to Michael Richardson for this news.
Matt Gonzalez, running mate with Ralph Nader this year, announced that he has changed his registration from “Green” to “Independent”. He said this was to help get on the ballot as an independent candidate for vice-president in Oregon, Idaho, and Delaware. See this story. Thanks to ThirdPartyWatch for the link. Oregon, Idaho, and Delaware have laws that say independent candidates for all partisan office cannot be members of a qualified party. Other states with similar laws don’t apply these laws to presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and even Oregon, Idaho and Delaware did not always do so in the past. The Idaho ruling is especially egregious, since the Green Party has never been a qualified party in that state, so Idaho should have no concern that Gonzalez had been a registered Green in California.
It is disappointing that Gonzalez knuckled under. Nader and Gonzalez should have fought the rulings of various state elections officials in those three states, instead of giving in. In the opinion of Ballot Access News, no state may validly tell anyone that he or she can’t be an independent presidential or vice-presidential candidate, based on that candidate’s voter registration. In Storer v Brown, a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court upheld a California law that forbade people from being independent candidates if they had been registered members of a qualified party during the last year. But that ruling concerned a candidate for U.S. House.
In presidential elections, the true candidates are candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names appear on the November ballots not in their capacity as candidates, but as labels for competing slates of presidential elector candidates.
The presidential elector candidates, if elected, have an Article II right to vote for whomever they please in the electoral college in December, if the person they vote for meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president. We know this is true, because Congress has always counted all electoral votes in January, no matter whom they were for. The only exception was in 1872, when 3 electors voted for Horace Greeley, who was dead. Congress wouldn’t count the 3 votes for Horace Greeley. But Congress has always counted the votes of all other electors, even “disobedient” electors.
States may control qualifications for candidates for presidential elector. States may presumably tell candidates for presidential elector that they must be registered some particular way. But states do not have the authority to tell presidential electors whom to vote for. Therefore, logically, the First Amendment ought to protect the right of valid candidates for presidential elector to say (through the November ballot) whom they will vote for. There can be no state interest in forcing presidential electors to lie about whom they will vote for in the electoral college. If their mindset is to vote for Gonzalez for vice-president (no matter how he is registered to vote), then they have the right to say so, via the November ballot.
Another argument is precedent. In 1980, independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson was on the ballot in all 50 states, and he was a Republican. It happens that Illinois doesn’t have registration by party, but Illinois does keep track of which primary ballot each voter chooses, and in March 1980, Anderson voted in the Illinois Republican primary, so in the eyes of Illinois, Anderson was a Republican. Also he was in Congress at the time and continued to list himself as a Republican in the Congressional Directory.
George Wallace appeared on the ballot of all 50 states in November 1968, and he was a member of the Democratic Party at the time. Again, Alabama does not have registration by party, but Wallace publicly held himself out as a Democrat. His wife was Governor at the time and she had been elected as a Democrat.
Robert La Follette was on the ballot in November 1924 in 47 of the 48 states as an independent Progressive, or as the nominee of the Farmer-Labor Party or the Socialist Party, and he held himself out as a Republican. He was in the Senate at the time and was listed in the Congressional Directory as a Republican. But again, Wisconsin doesn’t have registration by party.
Still another argument is that no state has official knowledge of how a resident of another state is registered. Some years ago, a state court in Kentucky ruled that the fact that a Republican candidate for Congress happened to have recently been a registered Democrat in Florida, could not be used to keep him off the ballot. The court said laws about partisan affiliation cannot possibly be meant to apply to registration records outside of the state. The case was Ball v Whitfield, decided May 13, 1994.
The Nader-Gonzalez team could have made a strong legal fight, if it had decided to fight the incorrect interpretation of Delaware, Idaho and Oregon elections officials, instead of giving in to them. We lose our voting rights when we fail to fight back.
Matt Gonzalez, running mate with Ralph Nader this year, announced that he has changed his registration from “Green” to “Independent”. He said this was to help get on the ballot as an independent candidate for vice-president in Oregon, Idaho, and Delaware. See this story. Thanks to ThirdPartyWatch for the link. Oregon, Idaho, and Delaware have laws that say independent candidates for all partisan office cannot be members of a qualified party. Other states with similar laws don’t apply these laws to presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and even Oregon, Idaho and Delaware did not always do so in the past. The Idaho ruling is especially egregious, since the Green Party has never been a qualified party in that state, so Idaho should have no concern that Gonzalez had been a registered Green in California.
It is disappointing that Gonzalez knuckled under. Nader and Gonzalez should have fought the rulings of various state elections officials in those three states, instead of giving in. In the opinion of Ballot Access News, no state may validly tell anyone that he or she can’t be an independent presidential or vice-presidential candidate, based on that candidate’s voter registration. In Storer v Brown, a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court upheld a California law that forbade people from being independent candidates if they had been registered members of a qualified party during the last year. But that ruling concerned a candidate for U.S. House.
In presidential elections, the true candidates are candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names appear on the November ballots not in their capacity as candidates, but as labels for competing slates of presidential elector candidates.
The presidential elector candidates, if elected, have an Article II right to vote for whomever they please in the electoral college in December, if the person they vote for meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president. We know this is true, because Congress has always counted all electoral votes in January, no matter whom they were for. The only exception was in 1872, when 3 electors voted for Horace Greeley, who was dead. Congress wouldn’t count the 3 votes for Horace Greeley. But Congress has always counted the votes of all other electors, even “disobedient” electors.
States may control qualifications for candidates for presidential elector. States may presumably tell candidates for presidential elector that they must be registered some particular way. But states do not have the authority to tell presidential electors whom to vote for. Therefore, logically, the First Amendment ought to protect the right of valid candidates for presidential elector to say (through the November ballot) whom they will vote for. There can be no state interest in forcing presidential electors to lie about whom they will vote for in the electoral college. If their mindset is to vote for Gonzalez for vice-president (no matter how he is registered to vote), then they have the right to say so, via the November ballot.
Another argument is precedent. In 1980, independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson was on the ballot in all 50 states, and he was a Republican. It happens that Illinois doesn’t have registration by party, but Illinois does keep track of which primary ballot each voter chooses, and in March 1980, Anderson voted in the Illinois Republican primary, so in the eyes of Illinois, Anderson was a Republican. Also he was in Congress at the time and continued to list himself as a Republican in the Congressional Directory.
George Wallace appeared on the ballot of all 50 states in November 1968, and he was a member of the Democratic Party at the time. Again, Alabama does not have registration by party, but Wallace publicly held himself out as a Democrat. His wife was Governor at the time and she had been elected as a Democrat.
Robert La Follette was on the ballot in November 1924 in 47 of the 48 states as an independent Progressive, or as the nominee of the Farmer-Labor Party or the Socialist Party, and he held himself out as a Republican. He was in the Senate at the time and was listed in the Congressional Directory as a Republican. But again, Wisconsin doesn’t have registration by party.
Still another argument is that no state has official knowledge of how a resident of another state is registered. Some years ago, a state court in Kentucky ruled that the fact that a Republican candidate for Congress happened to have recently been a registered Democrat in Florida, could not be used to keep him off the ballot. The court said laws about partisan affiliation cannot possibly be meant to apply to registration records outside of the state. The case was Ball v Whitfield, decided May 13, 1994.
The Nader-Gonzalez team could have made a strong legal fight, if it had decided to fight the incorrect interpretation of Delaware, Idaho and Oregon elections officials, instead of giving in to them. We lose our voting rights when we fail to fight back.
A bill has been introduced in South Carolina to set up an Instant-Runoff Voting pilot project, somewhere in the state. The city or county chosen would use IRV in elections for its own officers. The bill is HB 4409, and it is pending in the Judiciary Committee.
2008 so far is a year in which the legal status of fusion will not change in any state.
On the one hand, bills to restrict fusion (in states that already have it) seem to have made no headway. On the other hand, bills to establish fusion (in states that don’t have it) have also made no headway.
Bills to abolish fusion seem dead in South Carolina and Delaware.
In Maine, LD 1799, introduced last year by the House Majority Leader to legalize fusion, and also to ease the definition of “party”, has not made any headway. UPDATE: actually, the bill passed the House policy committee on February 27.
In Virginia, HB 70, to legalize fusion, was killed in Committee on February 12.
