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 Either the Court citated to an outdated law which has since been changed (North Dakota), or it didn’t understand the difference between ballot-qualification and the separate issue of whether a party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.

The Reform Party only had six candidates for U.S. House, but they polled 51,877 votes. The total was boosted by the showing of the party’s nominee in Colorado’s 4th district, Eric Eidsness. He polled 11.33%, the best showing for any U.S. House nominee of a nationally-organized party, in a race with both a Democrat and a Republican. Eidsness was helped by the fact that so many Republicans dislike incumbent Marilyn Musgrave. However, she was re-elected, although she polled less than 50% of the vote.

The Socialist Workers Party only had three candidates for the U.S. House on ballots, but they polled 16,809. This is the highest SWP total for U.S. House since 1998. The Socialist Workers Party is the only nationally-organized minor party that polled more votes for U.S. House in 2006 than it had in 2004. Even the Democratic Party polled fewer votes in 2006 than in 2004 (despite its greater number of victories), because turnout in 2006 was only about two-thirds of 2004 turnout.

The only other nationally-organized minor party with U.S. House candidates this year, not mentioned so far during posts of the last two days, is the Socialist Equality Party. It had one candidate, who polled 1,863 votes.

On November 16, the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia, again heard Miller v Brown, 3:05cv-266. The issue is whether the First Amendment protects the Republican Party’s right to insist on a closed primary for itself. The case was originally rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson (a Bush Jr. appointee) on procedural issues, but the 4th circuit had said the case is procedurally sound, and should be heard on its merits. The state defended Virginia’s existing system by saying that if the Republican Party doesn’t like having an open primary, it is always free to hold a nominating convention instead. The state also complained that if the party wins the case, the state will be forced to institute registration by party. It was difficult to predict which way Judge Hudson will rule.