The Ballot Bulletin: December 2018
Welcome to The Ballot Bulletin: We track developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Each issue includes an in-depth feature, such as an interview or legislative analysis, and discussions of recent events relating to electoral and primary systems, redistricting, and voting provisions. In this month’s edition, we recap Maine’s first election using ranked-choice voting and discuss a pending ballot access lawsuit.
Have a question/feedback/or just want to say hello? Respond to this email, or drop me a line directly at Jerrick.Adams@Ballotpedia.org.
Looking ahead to 2020: ballot access lawsuits
With the 2018 election cycle having drawn to a close, all eyes are looking ahead to 2020. A series of lawsuits involving ballot access laws are progressing through federal and state courts across the country. The outcomes of these suits may help shape the field of candidates forming for 2020, as the state-level laws in question determine how the names of candidates and political parties appear on election ballots. In order to shed some light on this subject, we spoke with Richard Winger, editor and publisher of Ballot Access News, about the pending ballot access suit he finds most interesting.
Ballotpedia: Of the ballot access cases currently pending, which do you find most interesting and why?
Richard Winger: The most interesting case for me is the California case over partisan labels for candidates who are members of unqualified parties (Soltysik v .Padilla, 16-55758). Under the California top-two system, candidates are listed on the ballot with a label like this: "Party preference: (here insert the name of the party that the candidate is registered in)." But if the candidate is a registered member of an unqualified party, the label is "Party preference: none."
A registered Socialist, Emidio Soltysik, is suing California. He wants "party preference: Socialist." He says it is a lie that he has no party preference. California ballot access for new and minor parties is extremely severe. No party has persuaded enough voters to register into it, so as to become qualified, since 1995, when the Reform Party did it. It takes about 63,000 registered members. So parties like the Socialist Party can't qualify. It is very tough to go out on the streets and persuade someone to register into a particular minor party. It's much more difficult than asking them to sign a petition.
The other top-two state, Washington, lets all candidates choose any ballot label they wish if it isn't obscene and isn't more than 16 characters. Because there are no party nominees in top-two systems, the partisan label is simply a means for a candidate to tell the voters what he or she thinks. So it is not rational for California to restrict the labels to only names of qualified parties. This is an ACLU case with a good panel in the 9th Circuit, so I am optimistic. If it wins, that might influence the Cal. legislature to revise or junk the top-two system, rather than give every candidate freedom to choose a label. California legislators would be scared of that. People could run as "party preference: pro-life" or "party preference: gun rights," etc. This happens in Washington state and it is no big deal, but California would think this is a very new and controversial system.
The case lost in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. On December 3, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion [in the case]. The opinion says that the case is to be remanded back to U.S. District Court, for evidence (the U.S. District Court had originally dismissed the case before allowing any evidence to be presented).
Ballotpedia: Should the law in question be overturned on appeal, what kind of impact might that have on the 2020 election cycle in California?
Richard Winger: It is difficult to predict what impact would occur in California if the 9th Circuit reverses. I think it would lead to a repeal of top-two being put on the 2020 ballot. But the 2020 election itself would not be directly affected, because any possible repeal couldn't take effect in time for the 2020 election.
Ballotpedia: What kind of nationwide precedents are involved in this case (e.g., prior rulings on similar questions, potential ramifications of the ruling in this specific case)?
Richard Winger: There really are no precedents, because the logic of the case is confined to top-two systems. About the only on-point precedent is the North Carolina state court case that was handed down a few months ago in Anglin v. State Board of Elections, 18-cvs-9748, Wake County. The North Carolina court struck down a new law that said some candidates for judge could have a party label and others couldn't. Like California, there were no party nominees in North Carolina (judicial elections only). Yet there were party labels.
For a comprehensive primer on the laws in your state, see our series of ballot access articles. And to keep abreast of the most recent developments in ballot access law, visit Ballot Access News.
Maine becomes first state to employ ranked-choice voting in federal general elections
On Nov. 6, Maine became the first state to use ranked-choice voting in general elections for federal offices. In two of the state's three federal elections (U.S. Senate and U.S. House District 1), the winning candidates (independent Angus King and Democrat Chellie Pingree, respectively) received a majority of the vote on the first tally, eliminating the need for retabulations. In U.S. House District 2, however, no candidate won a majority of the vote on the first tally, setting up an instant runoff. The tables below detail the vote tallies in the first and second rounds of tabulation.
Round 1: In the first round of tabulation, no candidate won a majority of the vote, although Poliquin did win a plurality.
General election
General election for U.S. House Maine District 2
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Jared Golden in round 2 . The results of Round are displayed below. To see the results of other rounds, use the dropdown menu above to select a round and the table will update.
|
Total votes: 289,624 |
|||
 = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Dennis O'Connor (Independent)
- Danielle VanHelsing (Independent)
- Henry John Bear (G)
Round 2: In the second round of tabulation, after first-choice votes for Bond and Hoar were re-allocated to those voters' second-choice candidates, Golden won a majority of votes cast.
| U.S. House, Maine District 2 General first round, 2018 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
| Republican | Bruce Poliquin Incumbent | 46.33% | 134,184 | |
| Democratic | Jared Golden | 45.58% | 132,013 | |
| Independent | Tiffany Bond | 5.71% | 16,552 | |
| Independent | Will Hoar | 02.37% | 6,875 | |
| Total Votes | 289,624 | |||
| Source: Maine Secretary of State, "Tabulations for Elections held in 2018," accessed January 7, 2019 | ||||
How long did it take to tabulate the results? On Nov. 9, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) announced that, because no candidate won a majority of the vote in the first round of tabulation, a second count would be conducted. On Nov. 15, Dunlap announced the final outcome of the District 2 election. Official results were released on Nov. 26.
Aftermath: On Nov. 13, Poliquin and three Maine voters filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, requesting that the court prohibit the application of ranked-choice voting in determining the contest's winner. Instead, the plaintiffs asked the court to order election officials to apply a plurality vote standard in determining the election's winner. The plaintiffs alleged that Maine's ranked-choice voting law violated Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which they claimed requires that winners in U.S. House elections be determined by plurality vote. On Nov. 15, Judge Lance Walker, a Donald Trump (R) appointee, issued an order declining the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, allowing for votes to be tabulated under the ranked-choice system. However, Walker did not issue a decision on the merits. Consequently, the suit is still pending before the court, and a hearing before Walker is scheduled for Dec. 5.
Poliquin requested a recount. On Dec. 3, Dunlap's office announced that a recount of the results in District 2 would begin on Dec. 6 and continue for up to four weeks, with a break occurring between Dec. 24 and Jan. 3, 2019.
Legislation update: Redistricting, electoral systems, and primary systems bills
The maps below identify states in which redistricting, electoral systems, and primary systems bills are being considered in 2018. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills.
See also
- Election policy on Ballotpedia
- Electoral systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
- Primary systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
- Redistricting legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
- Federal redistricting legislation in the United States, 2017-2019 (115th Congress)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
