Maine defines a qualified party as a group with at least 5,000 registrants. Earlier this year No Labels had 6,953 registrants, but on May 11 the Maine Secretary of State sent them all a letter, asking if they really wanted to be members of the No Labels Party.
But four months later, the party still has 6,155 registrants, so it seems No Labels is a qualified party in Maine. See this story.
The Colorado Center Party has achieved qualified party status by having registered 1,000 members. Colorado now has nine qualified parties, the most of any state in the west and the most in its history. Small qualified parties in Colorado generally nominate by convention, not primary.
No other state in the west has ever had that many qualified parties. The definition of a qualified party in Colorado was eased in 1998. Before then, a qualified party was one that had polled 10% for Governor, but Colorado’s minor parties lobbied successfully for the easier definition.
Here is a link to the latest tally of registered voters in Colorado, showing the Colorado Center Party with 1,062 members.
On September 9, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold appeared on MSNBC and said that the 14th amendment, section 3, likely gives her the authority to bar former President Donald Trump from the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot. See this story.
The 14th amendment, section 3, does not give any government official the authority to block voters from voting for whom they wish. It provides that certain persons may not “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state”, but it does not say that the government has the power to block voters from voting for such a person.
When the 14th amendment was written, voters had complete ability to vote for anyone they wished, because voters were permitted to prepare their own ballots.
The 14th amendment, section 3, also says Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove the restriction on an individual. It does not set time limits for Congress to do this. It is feasible that if the candidate were elected, congress could hold such a vote after the election but before inauguration day. But if state officials could block individuals from competing in an election, that would short-circuit that process.
Voters in the 19th century had more freedom than voters of the 21st century. This shrinkage in the power of voters has occurred almost without anyone noticing. There are very few scholarly articles that discuss how voters have lost the fundamental right of free choice. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 in Burdick v Takushi that there is no unlimited right for a voter to vote for anyone, there was very little criticism of the decision.
On September 5, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Alabama struck down the state’s new U.S. House redistricting plan. The state then asked for a stay. Now the voter-plaintiffs who won the case have filed a brief explaining why the court should not stay its own opinion. Singleton v Allen, n.d., 2:21cv-1291.
The brief argues that the map proposed by the voter-plaintiffs is not a “racial gerrymander” because it conforms to the traditional characteristics of an acceptable plan, plus having the virtue of promoting fair representation for Black voters.
It is extremely likely that the U.S. District Court will not stay its own decision. At that point the state will ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay.
On August 8, an elected California public official filed a federal lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump’s name off 2024 ballots. Schaefer v USA and Donald Trump, s.d., 3:23cv-1451. The plaintiff is a member of the California Board of Equalization, elected as a Democrat to the four-member board in November 2022. In the past, however, he has been a registered Republican.
So far, no action has been taken in the case. Here is the Complaint.
