A neutral poll released on September 4 for Governor of Illinois shows these results: Democratic 47%, Republican 39%, Green 2%, undecided 12%. This is the first poll to include the Green Party candidate, Richard Whitney.

If Whitney does receive 2% in November, it is reasonable to assume that some of the other statewide Green Party nominees will receive 5%. If one of the statewide Green Party nominees polls 5%, the Green Party will then be qualified in 2008 for automatic ballot status, and a primary, for statewide offices (but not district offices). That would also include a presidential primary.

In 2002, the Libertarian Party was the only minor party on the Illinois ballot, just as this year the Greens are the only one. In 2002, the Libertarians polled 1.65% for Governor, and higher amounts for all the other statewide offices, including 4.23% for Controller.

The last time a minor party polled 5% for a statewide race in Illinois was in 1996, when the Reform Party did it.

If the Greens could poll 5% for Governor this year, then they would be a qualified party in 2008 for all partisan offices, not just statewide offices.

The California legislature passed AB 2948 on August 30. This is the “National Popular Vote Plan”, which would provide for an interstate pact. The pact would go into effect when states containing a majority of the electoral college had passed it. States participating in the pact would agree to appoint presidential electors pledged to the presidential candidate who got the most popular votes nationwide.

Suspense is building, as to whether California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign the bill. He has given no hints so far. He need not decide until September 30.

For anyone who wishes to communicate with the Governor’s office, www.govmail.ca.gov, or fax 916-445-4633, or phone 916-445-2841.

On September 1, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear Colorado Libertarian Party v Doty. This action by the Supreme Court is shameful. Colorado law permits qualified major parties to nominate people who have not been members of that party for an entire year. But Colorado law denies this right to qualified minor parties. There is no principle of law, and no principle of political philosophy or political science, that justifies such discrimination.

The lower state court had upheld the discriminatory treatment, based on a Colorado Supreme Court decision in 1991, but that case involved an unqualified political party, not a qualified party (even the 1991 precedent is unsupported by any philosophical or theoretical foundation).

This is the second court action recently (the first was from Pennsylvania) that says qualified minor parties are subject to ballot access burdens that qualified major parties are not subject to. Both lawsuits need to be placed before the U.S. Supreme Court. Once a state has recognized that a party has enough voter support to meet the state’s own definition of “party”, then all such parties should enjoy the same right of association.