UPDATED AND REVISED.
Here are the vote percentages, by state, that each of the alternative parties has to have in order to have the same ease of nominating candidates as the Democrats and Republicans do. The final column represents the last time such a requirement has been successfully met by a party other than Democratic or Republican. Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for the research.
| Ala | Any statewide office | 20% | 17-16-2 | 2000 |
| Alas | Governor or US Senator | 3% (or 2% of total Regis.) | 15.60.010 | 2006 |
| Az | President or Governor | 5% (or .67% of total Regis.) | 16-804A | 2006 |
| Ark | President or Governor | 3% | 7-1-101(1) | 1996 |
| Cal | Any statewide, gubernatorial years | 2% (or Reg. 1% last vote) | 5100a | 2006 |
| Colo | Any statewide | 1% (or have 1,000 reg.) | 1-4-1303 | 2006 |
| Ct | Any (each office separate) | 1% | 9-372(f) | 2006 |
| Del | Party’s vote irrelevant | .05% | 3001 | 2006 |
| Fla | Party’s vote irrelevant | File list of officers | 97.021(14) | 2006 |
| Ga | Any statewide | 1% | 21-2-180(2) | 2006 |
| Hi | Party’s vote irrelevant | Be on last 3 elections | 11-62(d) | 2006 |
| Id | Party’s vote irrelevant | Must have run 3 candidates | 34-501(1)a | 2006 |
| Il | Any statewide | 5% | 10-2 | 2006 |
| In | Secretary of State | 2% | 3-8-7-25 | 2006 |
| Io | President or Governor | 2% | 43.2 | 2000 |
| Kan | Any statewide | 1% | 25-302(b) | 2006 |
| Ky | President | 2% | 118.325 | 1996 |
| La | Party’s vote irrelevant | Must have 1,000 registrants | 441 | 2006 |
| Me | President or Governor | 5% at either of last 2 elec. | 321.1 | 2006 |
| Md | President or Governor | 1% | lawsuit | 2000 |
| Ma | Any statewide | 3% (or 1% registration) | 50-1 | 2006 |
| Mi | Any statewide | 1% Sec State winner’s vote | 168.685(3) | 2006 |
| Mn | Any statewide | 5% at either of last 2 elec. | 200.02.7 | 2006 |
| Ms | Party’s vote irrelevant | Must be organized | 23-1-81(c) | 2006 |
| Mo | Any statewide | 2% at either of last 2 elec. | 115.013(10) | 2006 |
| Mt | Any statewide, either of last 2 elec. | 5% of gub. winner’s vote | 13-10-601 | 2006 |
| Neb | Any statewide | 5% | 32-521 | 2006 |
| Nev | Any statewide | 1% of U.S. House vote | 293.1715 | 2006 |
| N H | Governor or U.S. Senator | 4% | 652:11 | 1996 |
| N J | Lower house of legislature | 10% of statewide vote | 19:1-1 | 1913 |
| N M | President or Governor | 5% | 1-1-9 | 2002 |
| N Y | Governor | Must poll 50,000 (about 1%) | 1-104.3 | 2006 |
| N C | President or Governor | 2% | 163-96(1) | 1996 |
| N D | Pres., Gov., Sec. Of State, Att. Gen. | 5% | 16.1-11-30 | 1996 |
| Oh | President or Governor | 5% | 3517.01 | 1996 |
| Ok | President or Governor | 10% | 1-109 | 1996 |
| Ore | Any statewide | 1% of U.S. House vote | 248.008(2) | 2006 |
| Pa | Party’s vote irrelevant | 15% registration membership | 2872.2(a) | never |
| R I | President or Governor | 5%, either of last 2 elec. | 17-1-2(f) | 2000 |
| S C | Party’s vote irrelevant | Must have run 1 candidate | 7-9-10 | 2006 |
| S D | Governor | 2.5% | 12-1-3(3) | 1994 |
| Tn | Any statewide | 5% | 2-104(27a) | 1968 |
| Tx | Any statewide | 5% (or, 2% for Governor) | 181.005(b) | 2006 |
| Ut | Any statewide | 2% of U.S. House vote | 20-3-2(g) | 2006 |
| Vt | Party’s vote irrelevant | Be organized in 10 towns | 2103(23) | 2006 |
| Va | Any statewide | 10%, either of last 2 elec. | 24.2-101 | 1994 |
| Wa | Any statewide | 5% | 29.01.090 | 2000 |
| W V | Governor | 1% | 3-1-8 | 2004 |
| Wis | Any statewide | 1%, either of last two elec. | 5.62(1b) | 2006 |
| Wy | U.S. House, Governor or Sec. State | 2% | 22-1-102(18) | 2006 |
NOTES: polling the vote shown in Georgia and Illinois only gets a party status for the statewide races. If a party wants to status for district and county offices as well, in Georgia it must get 20% for president or Governor, and in Illinois it must get 5% for Governor (instead of just any statewide race).
In Massachusetts, a major party’s candidates still have to petition to get on the party’s primary ballot with a large signature requirement, and the signatures (unlike with a minor party) can only come from voters who are not enrolled (registered) with a different party; thus, from a practical standpoint, meeting the 3% requirement can actually be viewed as a disadvantage in that state.
If the requirements changed at some time in the past, for the purpose of the “history” column, that column refers to who would have qualified if the current requirement had been in existence in the past. If the current 2% N.C. requirement had been in existence always, the last time it was used was in 1996, when the Reform Party exceeded 2% for president.
Regarding Massachusetts, the other state I have personal history in …
It may be that way now, George, but there was a time (1972 – 1988, IIRC) when the only way the LPM(A) could get on the ballot was by a major petitioning effort (1980 leaps instantly to mind). Once done, it gave all candidates running under our endorsement the ability to do so under that designation, but only for that election. Then in the late 80s (I think it was 88, coulda been 86), the LPM combined with the Rainbow Coalition, the then-fledgling Greens and the Socialists (maybe others as well) to push a referendum through to change all that, allowing ANY candidate for statewide office to get 3% of the vote, and maintain ballot status for the party, without further petitioning.
Carla Howell made it happen once for Auditor; others did similar duty for minor offices. I forget the names in the mist of memory.
Oddly enough, at some point in the 90s the LPM[A] managed to NOT RUN anyone for such office, and lost it status and had to petition all over again. Carla may even have helped to keep the slot open with one of her Guvnor runs, I’ve forgotten …
I can speak for Tennessee, which is absurdly easy to get on as an Independent (about 300 sigs, which is why I can be a BTP elector, thanks mostly to Pauly and Andy), but ridiculous for a party label.
It says 5%; what it doesn’t say is, there are ONLY three offices up for statewide election: President, Governor and US Senate. And even if you pull the 5% (after a rather large petition effort to get on AS, say a Libertarian or Green), it is only good for two years … until the next election in which you again need 5% of the vote for whatever office is up for grabs.
The only time it has seemed feasible since I have been here was 1998, when the possibility of Harry Browne for Governor — in Sundquist’s (patooie!) second term, and with only the ubiquitous (and irrelevant) John Jay Hooker running on the Dem side … if we couldn’t muster 5% in that race, we did not deserve to be a party … but Harry declined the offer, just as he declined to show up even in 2000 for the tax protests. (Note: The political acumen of him and his handlers became extremely suspect in both cases; until Bob Barr refused to stand with Ron Paul this summer, I thought it was the dumbest thing an LP candidate or potential one had done.)
Bottom line: Unless there is someone willing to do the years of constituency-building it would take to create a 5% sh0wing at that level … fighting the court-battle is far more promising.
George, I changed the language in the post. Is it still wrong?
In Massachusetts, no _Party_ ever has to petition. In fact, opposite to New Hampshire, where petitioning to be recognized as a party is an alternative to petitioning for candidates, in Massachusetts there is no petitioning for a _party_. You can petition to be recognized as a “political designation”, which has as a result that the Secretary of the Commonwealth will automatically count your party registrations. You do not have to be a political designation or political party to run with a party name under your name on the ballot.
No federal court has ever declared a vote test for party retention to be unconstitutional. But the Arkansas Green Party may be in a good position to win the first such case, in 2009. Chances are they will go off the ballot because they will fail to get 3% for Cynthia McKinney. But they will probably elect a state legislator, and they will probably poll 20% for US Senate (but US Senate doesn’t count). Kicking a party off the ballot that elected a state legislator and got 20% for US Senate, and probably also about 15% of the entire vote in the state for US House (which they will probably also do) is just idiotic.
The first state on the list, Alabama, looks like a real hard case. I’d no idea it could be so difficult to qualify. With that high a hurdle, I would expect the GOP or the DNC to have difficulty some years. Wow. (I detect the whiff of a lawsuit in there somewhere.)
No, all they have to get is 20% in ANY statewide race to not have to petition for the next election. That includes things like Public Service Commission and State Supreme Court, where even the LP can get right at around 20%.
This is different from the petitioning requirement, which is 3% of the last top of the ticket vote cast here.
The first state on the list, Alabama, looks like a real hard case. I’d no idea it could be so difficult to qualify. With that high a hurdle, I would expect the GOP or the DNC to have difficulty some years. Wow. (I detect the whiff of a lawsuit in there somewhere.)
I was involved with the LP in Wyoming in December 2006 and they had just qualified as a “major” party in the state. Exciting times.
Florida seems like an easy place to qualify for the ballot. Seems a shame there weren’t more LP candidates for the BTP to endorse from Florida this year.
Change the “history” column to “2006” for Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Also add a note that polling the vote shown in Georgia and Illinois only gets a party status for the statewide races. If a party wants to status for district and county offices as well, in Georgia it must get 20% for president or Governor, and in Illinois it must get 5% for Governor (instead of just any statewide race).
Looks like I got some surgery to do on the post.
How many of those should be 2006s? Anything else I should add/change besides that and the notes regarding comments 10 and 5?
As to Chris Cole’s comment about North Carolina, another note that should go along with the chart is that if the requirements changed at some time in the past, for the purpose of the “history” column, that column refers to who would have qualified if the current requirement had been in existence in the past. If the current 2% N.C. requirement had been in existence always, the last time it was used was in 1996, when the Reform Party exceeded 2% for president.
This is a 2005 chart I furnished, so it doesn’t take account of the 2006 election. So certain entries above are out-of-date. For instance, Illinois should say “2006” since the Green Party met the vote test in 2006.
The chart shows what a party must do to have the same ease of nominating candidates, as the Democrats and Republicans do. So the Massachusetts entry is correct. I can understand George’s complaint, because that explanation of the chart hadn’t been provided along with the chart.
I’ve been compiling this chart for two decades, but I’ve never run it in Ballot Access News because it takes a lot of explanation. But the printed Ballot Access News had a better chart on this same subject in the April 1 2005 issue.
Re: comment 6, see comment 4. The top paragraph is mine.
George,
Actually, if the fault there is anyone’s, it is mine, not Richard’s. What it actually says is that the LP would be recognized as a real party in Mass if Barr or Underwood gets 3% or if the party gets 1% of voters. Therefore, the party would not have to petition for the general election.
You are correct, however: the candidates still would have to petition, and you’ve made a good case that it is easier to do so as minor party candidates than as major party candidates – for one, because you can get signatures from voters registered with other parties.
So, Mass. is an exception to how the major/minor party status works out in most states, where major party candidates either don’t have to petition at all, or have much less onerous petition requirements than minor party candidates.
You also report “The final column represents the last time such a requirement has been successfully met by a party other than Democratic or Republican.”
The requirement you quote does do something, just not what your source claimed, but the assertion that the requirement was last satisfied in Massachusetts in 2002 by a party other than the Democratic or Republican is also wrong.
The requirement was satisfied in 2006 by the Green-Rainbow (not to be confused with ‘Green’; they are a political designation) and Working Families Parties.
You write “Here are the vote percentages, by state, that each of the alternative parties has to get in order to retain a place on the ballot for the next election, without having to petition to get back on.”
Paulie, I am not faulting you, but with respect to Massachusetts your source is complete and total nonsense. To run for any partisan office in Massachusetts, there must either be nominating papers filed with enough signatures, or you must run a sticker campaign in your party primary (and get enough votes). You collected for Bob Underwood for Senate, and Senator Kerry had to do exactly the same thing. For President, if you are a candidate of a political designation, you need the 10,000 signatures you helped collect of the Libertarians; if you are a political party candidate, the signatures were collected to elect the State Committee: No state committee, no path to ballot access.
However, to run as a Libertarian — to have the word “Libertarian” under your name on the ballot –there is no vote requirement. You simply need to place the word “Libertarian” on your nominating paper, and satisfy the party enrollment rules requirement as a registered voter.
The claim that you have in good faith forwarded that 3% of the vote lets our people get on the ballot without petitioning is completely untrue.
I’ll have to check when Richard sent me the file – the 2006 numbers may not have been available yet, so some of those years perhaps should be 2006s.
In Kansas the presidential race has not counted.
“at least 1% of the total vote cast for any such office in this state at any general election,”
The key here are the words “office in this state”. This has been used as the people that represent Kansas only. (US Senate this year is our only race that counts)
The last line should be 2006 for Kansas as both Patrick Wilbur and myself received enough votes to keep our ballot access then.
We do have it pretty easy to maintain “minor” party status here – major party status is a bit more of a challenge. (5% in the Governor race only – every 4 years) we are working to that goal and Patrick received 3.6% statewide in 06 and we shall see how we fare in 08 statewide soon.
There’s an error in the North Carolina line. No party has met the retention threshhold since at least 1981, when the more-restrictive requirements were enacted. Until this year, the threshhold was ten percent. This is the first election under the new 2% threshhold. The LP is fortunate to have qualified this year, because the expected turnout this year will make the petition requirement (based on a percentage of the gubernatorial vote) much higher in the next election cycle. The LPNC has a statement on ballot access on its website (http://tinyurl.com/6jleje).
Very useful post. IPR seems to be getting better and better.
I respectfully encourage and have encouraged the parties to work together even more than they are recently for a ballot fairness law as we did in Florida. In particular, a focus on creating an initiative process as done there would be a powerful move on many levels. Among other things it means opening the door for direct citizen legislation campaigns (like a real political party) instead of an over- focus on elections.
This continued exercise in ballot drives wastes resources, invites petitioner coruption and is in general a chump’s game after a certain point.
Should the LP or others consider not running a presidential candidate, or one appointed for 2 elections so they can focus on speaking to more campus and other audiences than ever, all to better focus for 8 years on a ‘ballot-law’ killer/initiative law/PR electoral college creation strategy?