National Vote Totals for Each Party, for Top Office

At the November 7, 2006 election, each political party received this number of votes for the top office on the ballot: Democratic 40,264,560 (49.28%); Republican 37,379,872 (45.75%), Green 949,185 (1.16%), Libertarian 778,395 (.95%), Constitution 193,063 (.24%), Reform 97,677 (.12%), other parties that had their own nominees 245,289 (.30%), Independent Candidates 1,797,050 (2.20%).

Top-most office means Governor, in the 36 states that elected a Governor. For the others, it means U.S. Senate. In the three states that didn’t elect either, it is U.S. House.

In most states, the figures are still unofficial, so these totals will eventually be somewhat different.

Using this benchmark (the vote in the nation for the top-most office), this was the best mid-term year the Green Party has ever had, and the second best mid-term year the Libertarian Party ever had (2002 was better for Libertarians than 2006, partly because the party was on the ballot in more states in 2002 than it was in 2006).

New Registration Data

Every year starting in 1992, the paper edition of Ballot Access News has carried a chart showing how many registered voters there are in each party, in each state. These charts have been prepared only in even-numbered years (usually twice). Odd-year charts have not been prepared, since some states don’t do any registration tallies in odd years.

Although registration data is still outstanding for 5 states, it appears that the October 2006 data, for the first time since before 1992, will show that the percentage of independents has declined, compared to the previous chart (the previous chart was as of June 2006, and is in the July 1 2006 BAN). The percentage of voters registered as Democrats, as Republicans, and as members of other parties, by contrast, has all increased between June and October 2006.

Constitution Party Chooses a Stand-in Presidential Candidate

Most states enable a group that is not yet a qualified party, but which wants to become a qualified party, to circulate a petition that has the sole function of qualifying that group as a party. Such petitions are commonly called “party petitions”, and do not carry the names of any candidates.

Unfortunately, eleven states don’t have such “party petitions”, or any other procedure for turning a group into a qualified party in advance of any election. These eleven “bad” states force a group to circulate a candidate petition. If the candidate polls enough votes, then the group becomes a qualified party.

In these states that require candidate petitions to be circulated, it is generally legal for a group that wishes to start before it has chosen its presidential nominee to show a stand-in presidential candidate on the petition. Then, when the party chooses its actual presidential candidate, the stand-in withdraws and the group is permitted to substitute the name of the actual candidate.

Minor parties with experience understand this, and generally choose a stand-in presidential candidate. The Constitution Party has already chosen its stand-in presidential candidate. He is Jim Clymer, the party’s national chair, and already petitions with his name are being prepared for the Constitution Party of West Virginia, which wants to begin petitioning very soon.

New Hampshire Ballot Access Case Loses

On November 21, the New Hampshire State Supreme Court upheld New Hampshire’s ballot access laws. The case is Libertarian Party v State of New Hampshire, 2005-0606. The outcome is very disappointing, since at oral argument, it had seemed that the court was leaning in favor of the plaintiffs.

New Hampshire requires a group to poll 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator before it can be recognized as a “party”. This definition, passed in 1997, has never been met by any group except the Democratic and Republican Parties. The former law, requiring 3% for Governor, had been met by the Libertarians in 1990, 1992 and 1994, but previously, had not been met by any party (other than the two major parties) since the 1910’s decade.

Since the lower court had also ruled against the plaintiffs, without even granting a hearing at which evidence could be presented, plaintiffs had felt sure that even if the Supreme Court didn’t uphold the laws, it would remand the case and permit evidence to be admitted. But, the Supreme Court denied even that. The Court depended on the unfavorable ballot access decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, and didn’t discuss the favorable decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The flaw in the New Hampshire State Supreme Court’s reasoning is this: the court said that the state is not making it more difficult for minor party members to run for office, since major party members must fight to win a party primary. However, minor party members may also need to fight to win their party’s nomination. For example, Pat Buchanan had a very difficult time winning the Reform Party nomination in 2000, since Ross Perot was fighting him. Buchanan spent over $1,000,000 on the battle for the 2000 Reform Party nomination. Another example is the New Hampshire Libertarian Party gubernatorial fight, when 3 Libertarians sought the nomination.

Since members of ALL parties must fight to win their own party’s nomination, but since only the Democratic and Republican nominee is on the November ballot automatically, it is not true that state laws are giving each candidate an “equal opportunity to be elected” (The State Constitution mandates that all candidates must be given an “equal opportunity to be elected”).