On August 21, the Maine Secretary of State ruled that the Cornel West petition challenge should not prevail. See this story. The challengers said that signatures with a month and day, but no year, are not valid, but that was rejected. The challengers also said people must sign with their legal name, not a nickname, and that was defeated also.
On August 20, Alaska held its top-four primary. The only statewide race on the ballot was U.S. House, where neither of the minor party candidates placed in the top four, although the Alaskan Independence Party candidate placed fifth and could conceivably qualify once all the votes are counted. The other minor party candidate in that race was Richard Grayson, running with the “No Labels” label.
In the state legislative races, only one race had more than four candidates running, so except in that one race (the 36th House race), no one was excluded from the general election ballot.
Scott Kohlhaas, long-time Libertarian activist, running for State House, 20th district, in a two-person race against a Democrat. Kohlhaas polled 32.5%.
On August 20, Washington state finished counting the votes from the August 6 primary. In the Land Commissioner’s race, there were five Democrats and two Republicans running. The initial election night count showed that the two Republicans would be the only candidates in November. However, now the race between the second-highest Republican and the leading Democrat is separated by only 51 votes, with the Democrat in the lead. When the recount is finished, we will know whether a Democrat is on the ballot or not.
See the results here.
On August 20, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled against the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which had petitioned in Pennsylvania to get on the ballot for president. In re Nomination Petition of Claudia De la Cruz, Commonwealth Court, 380 MD 2024.
Some of the party’s candidates for presidential elector were registered Democrats, and the law requires candidates who petition for the general election under the independent procedure not be members of a qualified party. However, the party argued that even if some of its elector candidates were not eligible, there is no law that requires a presidential candidate to have a full slate of electors.
The court said Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires presidential candidates to have a full slate of electors, but that does not follow logically at all. The Commonwealth Court did not mention the evidence that in the past, Pennsylvania has permitted minor party presidential candidates to be on the ballot even though they did not have a full slate of electors. The Commonwealth Court did not mention a New York precedent from 1968, Application of Horowitz, that came to the opposite conclusion.
The Court could have taken judicial notice that there isn’t a one-in-million chance that Claudia De la Cruz would have carried Pennsylvania in November, so there is no harm done if she doesn’t have a full slate of electors. In the past, in many if not most states, it was common for parties that did not expect to win the election to have an incomplete slate of electors. In Minnesota, before the 1960’s, the state required a separate petition for each candidate for presidential elector, so even powerful minor parties typically ran only a single candidate for presidential elector, to save the bother of circulating multiple petitions.
Here is the decision. It says near the beginning that the requirement for all statewide candidates is 5,000, which is good news, because some of the objectors have been claiming that the requirement is 5,000 only for the Green, Constitution and Libertarian Parties.
This is a guest post from Richard Schwarz, who attended the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court hearing on Tuesday, August 20, on the challenge to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s petition:
The objectors spent most of the hearing arguing that since New York knocked Kennedy off the ballot, PA should do the same for the same reason. The entire transcripts of the New York case were admitted as evidence and the objectors kept harping that RFK was intentionally trying to deceive voters as to his real address.
RFK attorney Paul Rossi argued that NY state has long been Kennedy’s residence, it’s where he’s always been registered to vote, and he was making a good faith effort to provide the proper address to go on the petition papers. He also argued that other states do not require Presidential candidates to provide their home address and making this requirement goes against the constitutions qualifications for running for office. Rossi made good points but the judge refused to allow other states nomination papers into evidence.
As for the following of the 5000 signature requirement instead of election code’s 2% of previous election highest vote getter (currently around 32000), Rossi made good arguments about fair and equal elections and that the 5000 signature requirement which is a temporary number given to the Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional parties should apply to all independents and third parties.
My hunch is that Democratic Commonwealth Court judge Lori Dumas will rule in favor of adhering to the 5000 signature requirement (although Claudia de la Cruz is being challenged on the same point so I expect consistent rulings) but may indeed use the NY case as an excuse to keep RFK off the ballot. I don’t know. She’s described as being “fair” but she seemed particularly harsh on Paul Rossi and I could see he was getting frustrated a couple of times.
I imagine whatever the outcome, it will be appealed.
