On January 3, the Coalition for Instant Runoff Voting in Florida turned in 3,225 signatures to put an initiative on the Sarasota city ballot, to use IRV for city elections. Currently, the city (which has non-partisan elections) holds an “old-fashioned” run-off if no one gets 50% the first time, which usually costs about $37,000.
The initiative was used because the Sarasota City Commission refuses to vote for the idea.
On January 2, the North Dakota Secretary of State determined that the Constitution Party petition for ballot status has enough valid signatures. North Dakota now has 4 qualified parties (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Constitution).
North Dakota has an unfair election law that requires a newly-qualifying party to poll 300 votes for any of its potential nominees, in that party’s own primary. The typical North Dakota primary turnout for all parties combined is only about 2,500 votes per legislative district. No party other than the Democratic or Republican Parties has ever been able to meet this vote hurdle for a candidate for the legislature. Consequently, North Dakota is the only state in the nation that has not had any minor party candidates (with the party label) on the November ballot, during the last 50 years, for state legislature. The Libertarian and Constitution Parties may try to persuade the legislature to repeal the minimum vote test; it serves no purpose and no such test exists in any other state. Similar requirements were held unconstitutional in Minnesota and Washington state during 2004.
UPDATE: the ACLU may have its lobbyist work on the North Dakota election law problem with the 2007 session of the legislature.
Ballot Access News has just learned that a write-in candidate was elected to the Massachusetts legislature on November 7, 2006. The incumbent state representative, Deborah Blumer (D-Framingham) had died on October 13, 2006. Her name was printed on the ballot as a candidate for re-election, and no other person’s name was on the ballot. Massachusetts election law did not permit the ballots to be reprinted, so that left the voters with the name of a deceased person on the ballot, and a write-in space. The Democratic Party organization endorsed Pam Richardson as a write-in candidate, and the Republican Party organization endorsed Nicolas Sanchez as a write-in candidate.
The results were: Richardson 4,259; Sanchez 3,045; other write-ins 1,811; and Blumer, the deceased candidate, 2,306.
The National Popular Vote plan has been re-introduced into the 2007-2008 session of the California legislature. The bill is SB 37, by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). The same bill had passed the California legislature in 2006, but had been vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Law Professor James Gardner has written “Deliberation or Tabulation? The Self-Undermining Constitutional Architecture of Election Campaigns.” It will be in the Buffalo Law Review, volume 54, and likely be in print in the spring of 2007.
The article points out that there is substantial agreement, in philosophical discussions about election campaigns, that the purpose of election campaigns is partly to persuade voters to a particular point of view. On the other hand, much ballot access jurisprudence adopts the view that candidates who start out with a low level of popular support should be kept off the ballot. These two concepts are antithetical to each other. The article highlights the contradiction.
Rogers v Cortes, the Pennsylvania ballot access decision issued by the 3rd circuit in September 2006, said that states have an interest in keeping “non-viable” candidates off the ballot. The 3rd circuit didn’t explore the philosophical implications of its conclusion, nor did it cite any authority for that view. The rehearing request for Rogers v Cortes is still pending. If the rehearing request is granted, attorneys for the political party-plaintiffs in that case can make good use of Professor Gardner’s excellent article.
