On September 14, the faction of the Prohibition Party that doesn’t recognize Earl Dodge as national chairman nominated Gene Amondson for president and Leroy Pletten for vice-president. This is the same ticket as in 2004. Apparently 16 states sent delegates.
Many state elections officials have ruled over the past 15 years that an unqualified party may circulate a petition listing a “stand-in” presidential candidate, in advance of that party’s presidential convention. The party submits the petition. Then, after that party’s presidential convention, the “stand-in” resigns, and the state allows that party to substitute the name of the actual presidential candidate.
On September 14, the New Hampshire Secretary of State said this is not permitted in his state. This is bad news for the Libertarian Party, which has over 1,500 signatures on a petition listing George Phillies for president (3,000 signatures are required). The Libertarian Party national convention is in May 2008, so no one knows who the presidential nominee will be. The Libertarian Party started its presidential candidate petition early because past experience shows that it takes at least 4 months to complete the petition, and there is less than 3 months between the date of the Libertarian national convention and the New Hampshire petition deadline.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, issued in 1983, said that since the major parties have the flexibility to choose their presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the summer, all other groups must be permitted the same flexibility. All 50 states gave the Democratic Party flexibility in 1972, when the party’s vice-presidential candidate, Thomas Eagleton, resigned from the ticket. All 50 states accepted his withdrawal and let the party substitute R. Sargent Shriver. Also, in 1996 a federal court in Florida ruled that Florida must permit the Libertarian Party substitute Harry Browne for the stand-in listed on the party’s Florida petition.
Many state elections officials have ruled over the past 15 years that an unqualified party may circulate a petition listing a “stand-in” presidential candidate, in advance of that party’s presidential convention. The party submits the petition. Then, after that party’s presidential convention, the “stand-in” resigns, and the state allows that party to substitute the name of the actual presidential candidate.
On September 14, the New Hampshire Secretary of State said this is not permitted in his state. This is bad news for the Libertarian Party, which has over 1,500 signatures on a petition listing George Phillies for president (3,000 signatures are required). The Libertarian Party national convention is in May 2008, so no one knows who the presidential nominee will be. The Libertarian Party started its presidential candidate petition early because past experience shows that it takes at least 4 months to complete the petition, and there is less than 3 months between the date of the Libertarian national convention and the New Hampshire petition deadline.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, issued in 1983, said that since the major parties have the flexibility to choose their presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the summer, all other groups must be permitted the same flexibility. All 50 states gave the Democratic Party flexibility in 1972, when the party’s vice-presidential candidate, Thomas Eagleton, resigned from the ticket. All 50 states accepted his withdrawal and let the party substitute R. Sargent Shriver. Also, in 1996 a federal court in Florida ruled that Florida must permit the Libertarian Party substitute Harry Browne for the stand-in listed on the party’s Florida petition.
According to this Atlanta Constitution-Journal news story about Cynthia McKinney’s decision not to seek the Green Party’s presidential nomination, McKinney may have been unhappy that she would have been forced to run in the California Green presidential primary against about eight other individuals also seeking that nomination.
The last set of briefs has now been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case known as State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party. These briefs are the rebuttal briefs filed by the state of Washington and its ally, the Grange. The state’s brief is here and the Grange’s brief is here. The issue in the case is whether a state may print party labels on the ballot, when it uses a system in which every candidate runs on a single initial ballot, and then the top two vote-getters compete in a run-off.
The lower federal courts had invalidated the system, since they believed that printing party labels on such a run-off ballot implies that the label means that the named party nominated that candidate.
The Republican and Libertarian Party briefs filed earlier said that the system is unconstitutional, in part, because the ballot access threshold to get on the November (i.e., run-off) ballot is too difficult. In effect, it becomes a 30% barrier. The Grange rebuttal brief did not even discuss this point. The state’s brief did, but it asserted that there is no constitutional right to a spot on a November ballot, if there is easy access to the first round. This assertion is not true. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that George Wallace had a constitutional right to a spot on the November ballot as a third party presidential candidate, even though he could easily have got on the Ohio Democratic presidential primary ballot in 1968. He would only have needed 1,000 signatures; any voter could have signed. If Washington state’s theory were correct, all ballot access protection for independent and new and minor parties would be wiped out.
