Washington State Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear “Top-Two” Case

Posted on by November 21, 2006
Reply

On November 20, several Washington state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the state’s appeal, on the validity of the “top-two” primary. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t assigned a case number yet, but the case, if accepted, would be called “State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party”.

The issue is whether the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause permits a state to hold elections with party labels on the ballot, yet give the parties no ability to nominate candidates. The 9th circuit had ruled earlier this year that if Washington wants to have an election system in which all candidates run for a particular office on the same primary ballot, and the only the top-two vote-getters are allowed onto the November ballot, party labels must be omitted.

How to Expand the 2008 General Election Presidential Debates

Posted on by November 21, 2006
10

In the opinion of Ballot Access News, the only realistic hope to expand presidential general election debates in 2008, is for people to pester the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for president, and get them to say that if they are nominated, they will agree to participate in at least one debate in the general election campaign that includes the leading minor party and independent candidates.

The only general election presidential debate in U.S. history that included the Republican nominee, the Democratic nominee, and anyone else, was in 1992. Ross Perot was included because both major party nominees wanted him included. The opinion of the debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, didn’t really matter.

Democrats and Republicans who want to be president will be spending lots of time in New Hampshire and Iowa, during the next year. If, every time they speak to a group of voters, someone asks them to agree to at least one inclusive general election debate, perhaps eventually some of them will make this commitment. A Republican or Democrat who makes such a commitment would gain certain degree of popularity, since polls consistently show that the public likes debates with more than just two participants.

North Dakota Constitution Party Turns in Its 2008 Party Petition

Posted on by November 20, 2006
5

On November 20, the North Dakota Constitution Party turned in its petition to be on the ballot as a party in 2008. The North Dakota Libertarian Party had turned in a similar position several weeks ago. The Maryland Green Party is about to submit its 2008 party petition, and the Arizona Green Party has begun its 2008 party petition. The Nebraska Libertarian is half finished with its 2008 party petition.

Which Minor Party Did Best in US House Races?

Posted on by November 19, 2006
6

Perhaps the fairest way to measure a minor party’s showing in U.S. House races, across the nation, is to calculate the median percentage for that party’s nominees.

In the 2006 election, the median percentage for Libertarian candidates for U.S. House was 2.04%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee have been eliminated. That contrasts with the same figure for the Libertarian Party in 2004 of 1.66%.

Also in the 2006 election, the median percentage for Green candidates for U.S. House was 1.41%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee have been eliminated. That contrasts with the Green 2004 figure of 2.41%.

Also in 2006, the median percentage for Constitution candidates for U.S. House was 1.43%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee are set aside. That contrasts with the Constitution 2004 figure of .90%.

And, in 2006, the median for Reform Party nominees was 2.25%.

“Median” means, when any particular party’s candidates are listed in order of what percentage of the vote they got, the median is the percentage in the middle of the list (or, if there is an even number of candidates listed, the median is the halfway point between the two candidates closed to the midpoint).

The number of races in 2006 that each party ran for US House (excluding the races with only one major party nominee) were: Libertarian 102, Green 40, Constitution 26, Reform 5.

Alaska Green Party Loses Lawsuit over Definition of "Party"

Posted on by November 18, 2006
Reply

On November 17, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s old definition of “party” is constitutional. The case is Green Party of Alaska v State, no. S-11964.

The old definition of “party” existed between 1984 and 2004. It was either a group that had registration equal to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, or which had polled 3% for Governor.

In 2004 the legislature made the definition more difficult, and a case is currently pending in lower state court against the new, more difficult, definition. The new ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court will make it more difficult to win the pending case against the new law.

The Alaska Supreme Court decision has factual errors. Footnotes 40 and 41 say that Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico and North Dakota all require a party to poll a certain vote for either Governor, or for Governor and President, to remain on the ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court got the law of those seven states wrong. Either the Court citated to an outdated law which has since been changed (North Dakota), or it didn’t understand the difference between ballot-qualification and the separate issue of whether a party gets a primary (Kansas, Colorado, Georgia), or it just misread the laws (Nebraska, New Mexico, Montana). It is hoped that the attorney for the Green Party will write a letter to the Court and ask it to correct these errors.