On November 20, the North Dakota Constitution Party turned in its petition to be on the ballot as a party in 2008. The North Dakota Libertarian Party had turned in a similar position several weeks ago. The Maryland Green Party is about to submit its 2008 party petition, and the Arizona Green Party has begun its 2008 party petition. The Nebraska Libertarian is half finished with its 2008 party petition.
Perhaps the fairest way to measure a minor party’s showing in U.S. House races, across the nation, is to calculate the median percentage for that party’s nominees.
In the 2006 election, the median percentage for Libertarian candidates for U.S. House was 2.04%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee have been eliminated. That contrasts with the same figure for the Libertarian Party in 2004 of 1.66%.
Also in the 2006 election, the median percentage for Green candidates for U.S. House was 1.41%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee have been eliminated. That contrasts with the Green 2004 figure of 2.41%.
Also in 2006, the median percentage for Constitution candidates for U.S. House was 1.43%, when all the races with only a single major party nominee are set aside. That contrasts with the Constitution 2004 figure of .90%.
And, in 2006, the median for Reform Party nominees was 2.25%.
“Median” means, when any particular party’s candidates are listed in order of what percentage of the vote they got, the median is the percentage in the middle of the list (or, if there is an even number of candidates listed, the median is the halfway point between the two candidates closed to the midpoint).
The number of races in 2006 that each party ran for US House (excluding the races with only one major party nominee) were: Libertarian 102, Green 40, Constitution 26, Reform 5.
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.
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.
On November 17, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Sandra Newman announced that she is quitting the court, to enter into private practice. This means that Pennsylvania voters will elect a replacement, in an actual partisan competitive election, in November 2007. This, in turn, means that even if no helpful changes are made to Pennsylvania ballot access law during 2007, the 2008 requirement will probably be no more than 28,000 signatures or so.
If no justice were quitting either the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth Court (and if the law doesn’t improve)approximately 50,000 signatures would be needed in 2008.
Justice Newman wrote the opinion In re Nader, which said that Nader must pay approximately $80,000 in court costs for the proceedings in 2004 that ruled him off the ballot. Nader is about to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse that decision.
