New Oregon Voter Registration Data Released

From Ballot Access News, July 9, 2013: 

The Oregon Secretary of State has released registration data as of June 15. See here.

The percentages of voters by party are now: Democratic 39.30%, Republican 30.90%, non-affiliated 22.61%, Independent Party 4.44%, Libertarian .71%, Pacific Green .48%, Working Families .31%, Constitution .16%,, Progressive .09%, Americans Elect .01%, miscellaneous 1.00%.

As of December 15, 2012, the percentages were: Democratic 39.58%, Republican 31.04%, non-affiliated 22.39%, Independent Party 4.34%, Libertarian .70%, Pacific Green .49%, Working Families .20%, Constitution .15%, Progressive .09%, Americans Elect .003%, miscellaneous 1.02%.

The Independent Party will have its own government-administered primary if it can get its registration up to 5%. The Americans Elect Party will probably lose its qualified status in August 2014; the only thing that could keep it on for the 2014 election would be an increase in its registration to at least .5%. Thanks to Michael for the link.

14 thoughts on “New Oregon Voter Registration Data Released

  1. Deran

    I’ve read abt the likelihood of a fair number of California voters that are registered as affiliated with the American Independent Party are so registered predominantly based on the appearance of the word Independent in the party’s name. I wonder how much of the word Independent appears in this party’s name?

  2. Deran

    oops.

    “I wonder how much of the word Independent appears in this party’s name?”

    =

    I wonder how much the word Independent in this party’s name impacts voter registration for this party?

  3. Steve M

    Deran, Hard to say since the Independent Party didn’t field any candidates in Oregon.

  4. Steve M

    The Oregon Independent Party is active in that they cross-nominate candidates for office.

  5. Oregon Libertarian

    The Oregon Independent Party is a bit of a scam, and here is why:

    1. Prior to the Independent Party, non-affiliated voters and candidates where called “Independent”, after the Independent Party filed as a minor-party the Secretary designated voters who are not affiliated with a political party as “non-affiliated”

    Oregon voters mistake “Independent” as old non-affiliated when registering and actually don’t realize that Independent is a Political Party.

    Many newspapers and other media outlets researched this and found that most assumed that Independent was non-affiliated. I guess the joke is on them.

    2. The Independent Party charges a nomination fee and anyone can pay the fee and be on its nomination ballot. The Secretary of State says this is legal and it stands. It is unclear what the fee is, though I know from our own Libertarian candidates who some where looking for cross-nominations that the fee was “up there”.

    We noted that the majority of those nominated by the Independent party where Democrats and major party candidates. No actual Independent party members where nominated!

    http://www.indparty.com/2012results

    Also, they has a dismal online nomination with a very poor turnout

    http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=14286

  6. Dan Meek

    Oregon Libertarian (OL) is very wrong.

    First, non-affiliated voters in Oregon have never been identified as “independent.” They have always been identified as non-affiliated. OL’s claim that the Secretary of State somehow changed their designation from “independent” to “non-affiliated” after the Independent Party filed as a minor party is an outright fabrication.

    Second, As for the designation for petitioned-for candidates, the Oregon Legislature in 2005 changed the designation on the ballot for petitioned-for candidates from “independent” to “non-affiliated.” That change was motivated by the Ralph Nader “independent” candidacy in Oregon in 2004. The Democrats decided that, in the future, they wanted petitioned-for candidates not to have the favorable label “independent” but instead the unfavorable label “non-affiliated” on the ballot. The Legislature’s action in 2005 had utterly nothing to do with the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO), which did not even exist then. It was created by the collection of about 27,000 voter signatures in 2006 and was certified in January 2007.

    Third, As for OL’s references to “newspapers and media outlets researched this,” where are these studies? They do not exist. Voters who register in Oregon who choose no party are NAVs. Becoming a member of the IPO required affirmatively choosing “Independent Party”.

    Fourth, the IPO has never charged a “nomination fee.” It had no fees whatever in 2008 and 2010. In 2012 only it charged a filing fee for candidates filing to run in its primary, just as the State of Oregon charges such fees to all candidates who run in major party primaries. Unlike the major parties, the IPO receives zero funds from the government to run its primaries. Any candidate could also run by gathering signatures of IPO members. For example, a person could file to run for State Representative by paying a fee of $50 or submitting 5 signatures of IPO members (there are 96,000 IPO members statewide and on average 1,500 in each state representative district).

    Fifth, unlike the Libertarian Party, the IPO actually conducts primary elections and contacts all of its members to participate. And the IPO publishes its primary results, including participation rates. In 2010, there were 2,290 ballots cast in the IPO primary. In 2012, IPO used a less expensive but more cumbersome voting system, reducing participating to 1,264 ballots. I can find no turnout information for the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s 2012 primary, and before that is nominees were apparently selected by means of a few persons attending a convention.

    And the Libertarian Party of Oregon also nominates non-members. In 2012 it nominated a member of the Constitution Party for Attorney General, a member of the Oregon Progressive Party for Congressional District 1, a member of the Republican Party for Congressional District 3, and several Republicans for the State Legislature.

    Sixth, OL then offers another false statement–that “no actual Independent party members were nominated.” Another fabrication. The IPO has nominated several IPO members in every general election since its creation. It nominated 5 of tem in 2010 and 6 of them in 2012, when every IPO member who ran in an IPO primary won the nomination. The link provided by OL was to the IPO’s 2012 cross-nominated candidates only (members of other parties), not to a list of all IPO nominees.

    So Steve M’s comments above are also wrong. IPO most certainly fielded candidates–more than any other minor party in Oregon.

  7. Wes Wagner

    Dan Meek @ 7

    You just drooled on yourself in front of an audience that is more informed than you.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

    References:
    http://www.lporegon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177:2012-primary-election-results&catid=41:top-headlines
    https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cfFilings.do?cfSearchButtonName=&cfName=&cfyearActive=2012&cfElection=415&cfOffice=+&cfPartyAffiliation=IND&cfFilingFromDate=&cfFilingToDate=&cfWithDrawFromDate=&cfWithDrawToDate=
    https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cfFilings.do?cfSearchButtonName=&cfName=&cfyearActive=2012&cfElection=415&cfOffice=+&cfPartyAffiliation=LBT&cfFilingFromDate=&cfFilingToDate=&cfWithDrawFromDate=&cfWithDrawToDate=

  8. Dan Meek

    None of your links prove anything that was asserted by Oregon Libertarian or disprove anything from my earlier post.

    Your links to the Libertarians candidate listing fails to include the congressional candidates, including those who are not members of your party. The “party” listed for each candidate on the ORESTAR site is not the candidate’s party membership. That anyone on that list has “Libertarian” in the party column does not mean he or she is a member of the Libertarian Party.

    Your link to the IPO 2012 candidate listing is only for candidates for state office (statewide and Legislature) and does not include any of the IPO’s nominees for local partisan offices, such as county commissioners (3 of them being IPO members). And it does list IPO members as candidates for the Legislature (all of whom won nomination). Also, you forgot about 2010.

    Try again.

  9. Steve M

    Dan, Did the Oregon Independent Party field any candidates that weren’t also nominated by some other Party?

    I based my conclusion upon

    http://www.oregonvotes.org/doc/history/nov62012/G12_Abstract.pdf

    So taking an office such as Secretary of State Knute Buehler was nominated by both the Republican and Oregon Independent Party and in the Official returns was listed with an (R) next to his name. This is why it is difficult to figure out if Registered Oregon Independent Party voters are actually voting for the candidates of the Oregon Independent Party.

    Unlike the Libertarians where they had 15,157 Registered Voters and the Libertarian Candidate for Secretary of State received 24,273 Votes.

    Well done …. Bruce Knight you pulled over 9,000 more votes then were registered Libertarians….

  10. Dan Meek

    In that document, search for (I) and find our 2 I-only legislative candidates. That document does not list any cross-nominations.

    We also ran several I-only candidates for local partisan offices, such as county commissioner.

  11. Fred Jabin

    Dan,

    I think what Wes was trying to show you with the links is that some of your information about the Libertarian party was incorrect.
    His first link show the results from the LPO primary which was conducted by a mailer sent to every registered Libertarian in Oregon–Which directly contradicts your fifth point.
    His other two links show that the LPO nominated 4 more candidates than the Independent party–which directly contradicts your last statement.

    Personally, I don’t think that Wes’ aggressive tone was necessary–but perhaps it came out because your tone to OL was also overly aggressive.
    Your statement that his assertion was “an outright fabrication” makes it sound as if there is no factual basis for OL’s statements. However, while your statements might be more technically accurate, non-affiliated candidates used to label themselves as “independent” and the term “independent” was widely used by both the press and the general public to define non-affiliated voters.
    The exact details of what happened with the change of the designation “independent” are less important than the notion that many people who register with the IPO may be confused about what their registration means. I don’t need to give you any links to this information because you can run a search yourself and find many articles that address this very issue. I’m also sure that you are aware of it, since the dominant parties have tried to create legislation to prevent the Independent party from using that name because of the confusion.

    I have stated this before, but I think it deserves to be repeated in this forum.

    We need to not see each other as opponents–but rather as allies. While each of the grass roots parties may have a different ideology and agenda, we all agree that we want open and fair elections. We need to work together to break the stranglehold that the two dominant, corporate parties have on our elections.

  12. Dan Meek

    He started the discussion by saying that the IPO is a scam and presenting numerous outright false statements, before I wrote a single word. And I am the one who was overly agressive? I stated facts. Instead of responding with facts, Wes resonds with personal insults.

  13. paulie

    “I wonder how much the word Independent in this party’s name impacts voter registration for this party?”

    It’s far and away the main thing they have going for them.

Leave a Reply