Some people think that because U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman is now the nominee of a new party in Connecticut, that he can’t possibly still be a registered Democrat. However, he is still a registered Democrat.
Only eleven states prohibit someone from getting on the general election ballot by petition, if that person is a registered member of a qualified party: California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
On August 9, the deadline, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman turned in approximately 18,000 signatures, to qualify to be on the November ballot as the nominee of the “Connecticut for Lieberman Party”. The requirement is 7,500.
On August 9, California Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian refused to place several major party nominees on the November ballot. Sonoma County Republican Party v McPherson, 06-cs-01078, Sacramento. The candidates had each polled a substantial number of write-ins in the June 2006 primary, and no one was running against them for their own party’s nomination. But none of them got enough write-ins to fulfill California Election Code section 8605, which requires a write-in total equal to 1% of the vote for that office in the last general election. It is somewhat likely that there will be an appeal.
Judge Ohanesian said that Proposition 60, which is part of the California Constitution, and which says that parties cannot be denied the ability to have the person who got the most votes in their own primary placed on the November ballot, was never intended to apply to this situation. However, California case law is very clear, that legislative intent is irrelevant when the words of the Constitution are clear.
On August 8, a lower state court judge in West Virginia upheld the state’s early May petition deadline (for all minor party and independent candidates other than presidential candidates). McClure v Manchin, 04-c-2197, Kanawha Co. Circuit Court. The case will now be appealed to the State Supreme Court. The lower court judge said the state needs the time to check the signatures. This is not a rational statement, since the state manages presidential candidate petitions with no trouble, even though the presidential petition deadline is August 1.
On August 8, Tom DeLay announced that he is withdrawing his name from the Texas general election ballot, for U.S. House, 22nd district. It is likely that the Texas Republican Party will now launch a write-in candidate. The only names appearing on the ballot will be a Democrat and a Libertarian.
DeLay’s statement said, “Voters should be concerned. While judges are denying Texas voters a fair choice this Fall, the courts allowed the Democrat Party in New Jersey to withdraw Robert Torricelli and substitute Frank Lautenberg in a similar case just weeks before the 2002 U.S. Senate election.”
The statement is misleading. New Jersey law permitted candidates to withdraw, and permitted parties to substitute a new nominee. The only ambiguity in the New Jersey law was whether the deadline for doing that was mandatory or not. The New Jersey Supreme Court said that the deadline was not mandatory.
In the recent DeLay case, the Texas law is different. It permits withdrawal. But it does not permit the candidate’s party to substitute a new nominee, unless the withdrawn candidate was ineligible. The federal courts in Texas correctly determined that DeLay was not ineligible. The New Jersey decision does not conflict with the Texas decision.
It would be refreshing if Tom DeLay would advocate that the Texas legislature revise the law to give parties more flexibility.
