[EL] Reps got more popular votes for US House in 1996 than Dems

[Lillie Coney]

Allowing candidates who are not successful in primaries or 
caucuses on the General election ballot may have a silver lining 
if they have stronger electability prospects. In any case, this approach
could limit competition and encourage third party efforts. For some 
time the thought of successful Independent Federal candidate seemed 
far fetched, but now there are Independents in the Senate.

The other thought is this approach might shift the focus of dollars and 
energy to the primary level. The primary caucus process is where
candidates with little in resources may find an opportunity to enter
competition for elected office. The question about primary and caucus
elections are managed by each political party. The parties will need 
to think about how they would like to manage the issue of unsuccessful
primary or caucus candidates joining the ballot in the general elections
as independents.

I do not see how one party can ban someone from a general election
ballot who meets the requirements established by a state. Even
if a state passes a law that bans a candidate that ran in an unsuccessful 
political party primary or caucus election I do not see how they could do
this without a legal challenge being a huge chance of being successful.  
The person running would not be running under the party standard that 
is challenging their presence on the ballot. Would a challenge be seen as 
limiting political speech? Is there a right to run for elected office--has this 
been established by previous court decision? 

Lillie

On Nov 12, 2012, at 4:01 PM, David A. Holtzman wrote:

> So Richard,
> 
> What’s your position now on holding just *part* of an election before November?
> 
> Say, a primary in September?  Constitutional?  Legal?
> 
> Say, a primary in June?  Constitutional?  Legal?
> 
> With primary losers barred from the ballot (even as write-ins) in November?    Constitutional?  Legal?
> 
> With write-ins allowed only in the primary, not in November?    Constitutional?  Legal?
> 
>   - dah
> 
> 
> On 11/12/2012 12:30 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
>> The Clerk of the US House of Representatives data for 1996 doesn't include the September 21, 1996 election results for US House in Louisiana.  That is why the Clerk's chart shows Democrats got more popular votes than the Republicans nationwide, because the Clerk's data only has the Louisiana returns that took place in November, which was only 2 districts.
>> 
>> The US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 in Foster v Love that Louisiana was breaking the federal law by holding its congressional elections in September.  So, the US Supreme Court agreed with my approach, that the Louisiana election in September was an election, and therefore it is rational for me to have included the September results in those 5 districts.
>> 
>> Rhodes Cook agrees with me.  See America Votes 1996 (vol. 22), page 4.  His compilation of the national US House vote for 1996 by party is:  Republican 43,902,303; Democratic 43,626,470.
>> 
>> Richard Winger
>> 415-922-9779
>> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121112/2a65078c/attachment.html>