With approximately 98% of the votes counted, the Green Party gubernatorial candidates polled 854,474 votes across the nation. This is the highest vote total for the gubernatorial candidates of any party (other than the Democratic and Republican Parties) since the Reform Party’s 1998 showing of 1,355,731.
The Libertarian gubernatorial total this year so far is 421,910.
Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party polled 2,205,542 votes for its candidates for US House in 1912, and 1,117,939 votes for that office in 1914.
But after that, no party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties had ever polled as much as 1,000,000 votes for its candidates for US House, until the Libertarians did it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The totals were: 2000 1,727,181; 2002 1,204,248; 2004 1,026,668.
But in 2006, the Libertarians have fallen short of that benchmark. With approximately 98% of the national vote now counted, the Libertarian total (not including the special election in the Texas 22nd district) stands at 608,308. The lower total is a consequence of fewer Libertarian candidates this year (for that office) than in any year since 1994.
The US Senate Libertarian total this year so far is 602,436.
This year, the 2nd highest total for US House was achieved by the Green Party, whose total now stands at 273,071. The Green US Senate total so far is 358,067.
At the November 7 election, there was one U.S. House race in which an independent candidate outpolled a major party nominee. Tennessee’s 9th district voted: Democrat Steve Cohen 59.9%; independent Jake Ford 22.2%; Republican Mark White 18.0%. Jake Ford was the younger brother of the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate this year, Harold Ford Jr. Jake Ford ran as an independent because he felt he had a better chance. The district is majority African-American, and Cohen is white.
As a result of the November 7 election, Democrats control both houses of the legislature in 23 states, whereas Republicans control both houses in 15 states (the remainder are split between the two major parties, or are non-partisan).
The National Popular Vote Plan, the proposal for a compact of states to appoint only presidential electors who are pledged to the national popular vote winner, will probably get a boost from Democratic gains in state legislatures. Although proponents of the National Popular Vote Plan have worked very hard to present a non-partisan appeal, during 2006 it became very clear that Democratic state legislators virtually unanimously support the idea, whereas few Republican state legislators support it.
On November 3, the three judges in the 3rd circuit who had upheld Pennsylvania ballot access law on August 23 admitted that their opinion contained a factual error. The three judges therefore granted a rehearing, but then re-issued their original unfavorable decision with the error deleted.
If the plaintiff political parties want a rehearing en banc, they must file a new petition for rehearing en banc by Friday, November 17. The 3rd circuit has 10 full-time judges, and only they will vote on whether to grant a further rehearing. The original panel of 3 judges in this case includes two part-time judges and only one full-time judge, so any vote among the 10 full-time judges would start out with zero favorable votes, but only one unfavorable vote.
The basic holding of the 3rd circuit is that ballot access can be denied to a party, even if it polled enough votes in the last election to meet the definition of “party”. Astonishingly, the 3rd circuit said that votes almost two years ago are not necessarily relevant to whether a party currently has support. Although there is logic in that point, the foundation of ballot access laws concerning qualified parties is dependent on the assumption that past vote returns do matter. The entire reason the Democratic and Republican Parties are automatically on the ballot in 39 of the 50 states is solely that they polled a large vote in the previous election. The 3rd circuit’s main holding is completely outside the mainstream of U.S. election law jurisprudence concerning political parties.
