On June 27, the California legislature passed SB 437. It requires qualified parties to notify the Secretary of State of the names of their presidential and vice-presidential nominees, no later than 75 days before the general election.
Two Democratic Assemblymembers, Lori Wilson and Rick Zbur, voted “no.”
It is odd that many states, including California under current law, have no deadline in their election laws for qualified parties to submit the names.
An editorial in the July 5, 2023 edition of The Wall Street Journal defends the No Labels party movement.
The editorial criticizes “the left” for its dumping on No Labels. But, it’s not just “the left.” I listen frequently to The Bulwark podcasts, which state that they are trying to appeal to “the Center Right, as well as the Center Left.” Regular host Charlie Sykes and guest commentator Mona Charen are frequently critical of the No Labels movement and seem confident that it is only going to help Donald Trump win the next Presidential election. I’m not so sure about that.
But what they fail to explain is: What is so new and different about New Labels? In 11 of the 12 presidential elections since 1976, there have been at least two non-R, non-D presidential tickets capable of winning the Electoral College (the exception: 1984, only David Bergland/Jim Lewis, Libertarian Party).
On July 5, the Ohio Secretary of State received initiative petitions for an abortion rights measure and a marijuana measure. The abortion initiative needs 413,487 valid signatures; organizers submitted approximatly 700,000.
The marijuana initiative, which is not a constitutional amendment but a statutory change, needs 124,046 valid signatures and proponents submitted approximately 220,000. The marijuana proponents already submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures earlier. There was a dispute about timing which was settled. The settlement meant the initiative didn’t need to start over, but just needed to submit an amount smaller than the normal requirement.
The No Labels Party submitted 100,000 signatures to Ohio months ago, for party status, and election officials still have not finished verifying that petition.
On August 8, Ohio voters will vote on whether to raise the vote threshold for constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%, but no matter whether that is defeated or not, it will not affect the marijuana initiative. It is ironic that 50% of the voters can vote to change the constitutional threshold to 60%, yet the matter of whether to raise the test to 60% can pass with 50% support.
On June 28, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas law barring “electioneering” inside or within 100 feet of an entrance to a polling place, whether it is on Election Day or for early voting, and whether or not the “electioneering” involves an issue, candidate or party that is on the ballot at that time and place.
The case was Ostrewich v. Tatum, et al. Here is a link to the decision:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20577-CV0.pdf
According to Sue Edward, Secretary of the Missouri Green Party, the MGP is now circulating a party petition for ballot access in The Show Me state for the 2024 General Election.
She estimates that about 2,500 signatures have been gathered to date. 10,000 valid signatures will be needed by July 31, 2024, and the MGP’s goal is to turn in 15,000 total signatures. If the petition succeeds, it would qualify the MGP’s nominated candidates for all partisan elections in Missouri in November 2024.
The MGP would retain ballot access after 2024 if one of its candidates polls 2%+ for a statewide office in November 2024.
The MGP is going to hold an online ballot access drive coordination meeting on Wed, July 12, 7-8PM Central Time. Anyone interested in attending should contact Ms. Edward at secretary [at] missourigreenparty.org.
