It’s official: Oregon has become the only state in the country with three major political parties.
Secretary of State Kate Brown announced Monday afternoon that the Independent Party of Oregon has enough members to be a major party, on par with the Republican and Democratic parties.
As of Feb. 2, the party had 108,742 members, just three more than the threshold requires, which is more than 5 percent of the registered voters in the 2014 gubernatorial election.
Brown noted in a statement that the party will be subject to re-verification on Aug. 17, which could potentially change the outcome if it were to lose four members.
This ruling changes Oregon’s elections in two ways.
First, it allows the Independent Party to participate in the May primary election, which is run by the state. Currently, the party runs its own elections during the summer. In the future, it will enjoy the same service from the state that Republican and Democratic parties do, with official ballots sent to members.
Second, it will require the Independent Party to nominate only its own members, rather than following its current system of nominating people who have also been nominated by the Republican or Democratic parties.
That rule goes against the party’s mission, Independent Party Secretary Sal Peralta said, which was to open the election process to people who did not want to fit into just one box. He said it was meant to expand access to the political process and has never wanted to restrict nominations to only Independent Party members.
If the legislature doesn’t change the members-only requirement in the future, the party plans to take the state to court as a violation of its First Amendment right to freedom of association, Peralta said.
It should be noted that not all states have a “major/minor party” distinction under their laws, and some of those states do already recognize parties other than just the Republicans and Democrats.
But among the states that make such a distinction, Oregon is the only one that currently has three major parties. In Colorado the American Constitution Party achieved major-party status in 2010, when their nominee for Governor Tom Tancredo recieved 36% of the vote, but they have since reverted to minor-party status. The Independence Party of Minnesota, which elected Gov. Jesse Ventura in 1998, lost its major-party status in 2014, when their nominee for Governor came up short of the 5% threshold.
“Why then did Attorney General John Kroger make a public announcement that he had decided not to prosecute?”
I would guess because he did not decide to prosecute, having decided that he had no case? Or does not prosecuting imply guilt to you?
Dan Meek wrote: “This again, Dave? You have been reposting it for about 5 years now, without noting that no violation of any law or any rule was found by any authority.”
Why then did Attorney General John Kroger make a public announcement that he had decided not to prosecute?
Why did Secretary of State (now Governor) Kate Brown, who was aware of the investigation
by the attorney general, issued a “cease-and-desist” letter ordering the party not to link nominations to donations?
This again, Dave? You have been reposting it for about 5 years now, without noting that no violation of any law or any rule was found by any authority. IPO adopted a filing fee for candidates in its non-state funded primary election, so it could administer the election and mail a 12-page tabloid size voter’s pamphlet to all of its members. There was utterly nothing wrong with doing that, and IPO did it again in 2012 and 2014. Try again, Dave.
Oregon Independent Party official says on tape that candidates must pay to get nominations
By Jeff Mapes | The Oregonian/OregonLive
on June 03, 2010 at 9:47 PM, updated June 04, 2010 at 9:37 AM
jpgSal PeraltaIn a recorded phone call, an official of the Independent Party of Oregon says candidates need to contribute money to the party if they want to participate in the party’s nominating process.
In the call, Sal Peralta, the Independent Party secretary, tells Ben Unger, a Senate Democratic campaign operative, that candidates “should kick in” to help defray the cost of an election among the party’s membership.
Unger, whose call was being taped as part of a state investigation of the Independents, asks, “if you want to participate, you have to pay?”
“Yeah,” replies Peralta.
On Thursday, Peralta said he “misspoke” in the call and later made it clear to candidates that they didn’t need to contribute to get the party’s nomination. He said no one was trying to profit personally from the growing demand by many of Oregon’s most prominent politicians for the official backing of the Independent Party.
The phone call and other material from an investigation by the state attorney general’s office were released Thursday following a public records request from The Oregonian and other news organizations.
» Files released by the Oregon Attorney General’s Office
Under state law, it is a felony to offer a political nomination in exchange for money.
Last month, Attorney General John Kroger decided not to prosecute. On Thursday, his spokesman, Tony Green, defended that decision.
“Unless the conduct has clearly crossed the line to criminal,” Green said, “you have to err on the side of not squelching political activity.”
Secretary of State Kate Brown, who was aware of the investigation by the attorney general, issued a “cease-and-desist” letter last month ordering the party not to link nominations to donations. Her spokesman, Don Hamilton, said Thursday that Brown took an “appropriate and strong response under the authority she has.”
Peralta sent Unger what he called a “clarifying e-mail” the morning after the call, making it clear that a donation wasn’t necessary to receive a nomination. The e-mail, included in the material from the attorney general’s office, says that donations, or the lack thereof, “will have no role” in determining a candidate’s eligibility for a nomination.
The Independent Party, which has rapidly grown since it was founded in early 2007, and now has about 55,000 members, has found itself with increased influence because of a new state law allowing “fusion voting.”
Candidates are now allowed to list on the ballot the cross-nomination — or endorsement — of up to two other parties besides their own. The Independent label is regarded as a particularly valuable way to appeal to voters who are alienated from the Democratic and Republican parties. On Thursday, the Independent Party released a list of 77 legislative candidates, including House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, and 35 other Democratic and Republican incumbents, seeking its endorsement.
In a separate interview with an investigator from the attorney general’s office, Unger said Democrat Dan Rayfield would give state Sen. Frank Morse, R-Corvallis, a tough race this fall, particularly if Rayfield also had the Independent nomination, which Unger said was worth an “automatic two to three points.”
But if Morse wins the Independent nomination, Unger said, “we’re screwed.”
The taped conversation between Unger and Peralta provides an intimate look at backroom politics in Oregon.
Peralta and Unger discuss how the Independent Party suggested that Oregon Senate candidates donate $750 if they were seeking a contested nomination. “That’s the minimum ask,” says Peralta, who later adds that if candidates want the party to hold a contest for the nomination in their district, “then I think they should kick in.”
Later, Unger asks what would happen if Rayfield doesn’t want to donate.
“Well, he doesn’t have to,” Peralta replies.
“But then does he not get to participate?” Unger asks.
“That’s right,” Peralta says.
“OK,” Unger says. “So I just have to tell him, ‘Look, if you want to participate, you have to pay.’”
“Yeah,” Peralta says.
Unger declined comment Thursday when contacted by The Oregonian.
State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, who also had a taped phone conversation with Peralta at the request of state investigators, said that he didn’t think the party’s fundraising tactics were appropriate. But he said he never thought, “I was being shook down by an individual or organization for profit.”
Peralta said he was struggling as a volunteer to raise money so that the party could continue an Internet-based primary open to its entire membership. “I was just exhausted and wiped out and felt beaten up” when he talked to Prozanski and Unger, he said.
Portland lawyer Dan Meek, who founded the party and remains one of the three key leaders, along with Peralta and Chairwoman Linda Williams, said, “Obviously we did not authorize Sal to make a contribution a requirement” for seeking the party’s nomination.”
.
— Jeff Mapes
I meant nationwide. Only state party in any state other than D or R, in other words, as a percentage of that state’s registered voters.
That is correct. No other “minor” party has registration in excess of the 0.82% currently maintained by the Libertarian Party.
I think there was also something at BAN about it being the only alt party with 5% voter registration right now?
It is not the first time Oregon has had a third major party, however. Because Ross Perot received more than 20% of the Oregon vote for President in 1992, the minor party that nominated him (Independent Initiative Party) became a major party in Oregon. It then changed its name to American Party of Oregon but subsequently did not maintain sufficient membership (then 3% of registered voters). It appears to have faded away by 1997.
BAN reports that this will be the first time that a party other than D or R got over 5% of registered voters in Oregon and as a result get a government-financed primary in Oregon since 1914.
As for your comment about “a price,” the price was a filing fee so that the IPO could distribute a 12-page tabloid-size voter’s information piece to all of its 100,000+ members and could administer its statewide primary election. The government in Oregon provides no assistance to any minor party’s primary election. The government charges similar filing fees for candidates to appear in its voter’s pamphlets.
Try again, Dave.
Oregon had never used the term “independent” to describe an non-affiliated voter. Before 2006, however, “independent” was the term used to describe a petitioned-for candidate on the general election ballot. Spooked by the prospect of future Naders, the Oregon Legislature in 2005 changed that term from “independent” to “non-affiliated,” so that petitioned-for candidates would not look so attractive.
This is a perfect example of “smart” political operatives taking advantage of a bureaucratic SNAFU and perpetrating a fraud on the electorate.
Traditionally in Oregon and in MOST states the term “Independent” denotes a person who registers to vote, but did not consider themselves “affiliated” with any political party, thus being
excluded from the primary elections.
For some UNFATHOMABLE reason the Oregon Legislature changed the “Independent” designation to “Unaffiliated”. Suddenly there was a large number of voters who were unfamiliar
with the term “unaffiliated.” A large number of those people innocently checked the box on the registration form that said “Independent Party of Oregon”, not realizing that the afore-mentioned political operatives had anticipated the confusion and registered the name “Independent Party of Oregon” as a bona fide POLITICAL PARTY.
These operatives were shrewd enough to offer to allow Republican and Democratic candidates the opportunity to run under the banner of the IPO as well, FOR A PRICE!
There is the exact term, different in each state, and there is the general notion that in some states there are several levels of political party recognition.
@Richard Winger.
I was wondering about that, but wasn’t sure exactly how many states did or did not use the term. I thought most did.
I figured George would be along promptly to explain the terms of art of Massachusetts law. 😉
In Wisconsin, the only major/minor distinction is that the major parties (10%+ Gov/Sen/Pres) get presidential primaries. LPWI had that from 2002-2006, I believe, after Ed Thompson’s campaign for Governor. At that time, it also came with a seat on the state Elections Board, but that’s since been replaced by a nonpartisan board. But I don’t think the categorization “major party” is actually used in the state statutes, rather the section on presidential primaries specifies which parties qualify.
Currently there are five “political parties” recognized by Wisconsin (R, D, L, G, and C), without distinction in that they all nominate for non-presidential offices by primary, submit a state of presidential electors, get automatic presidential ballot access, etc. The smaller three just don’t get a presidential primary.
The Statesman Journal article is very flawed when it makes a big deal out of the fact that the Independent Party is a “major party”, because most states don’t use that term in their election codes. So, naturally, there are very few parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties that are officially “major parties.” In most states, even the Democratic and Republican Parties are not “major parties”, because most states don’t use those terms in their election laws.
“Political Party” and “Political Designation” are the usual phrasings for the terms of art, but many other places use ‘major party’ and ‘minor party’.
And someday I will get used to the lack of a preview feature here.
“Political Party” and “Political Designation” are the suual prhasings for the terms of art, but many other places use ‘major party’ and ‘minor party’.
Massachusetts currently has four “Political Parties” (major parties), so we are not a counterexample, as well as a whole pile of “Political Designations” (minor parties), all of whose registered voters are periodically counted.
This would be a major victory for most third parties, but sounds like it will probably be the death knell for IPO operating as a fusion party, unless their lawsuit succeeds.
Even if they’re allowed to nominate non-members, the timing of the primary on the same day as the other two parties, means they’ll have to pick an IPO nominee without knowing who the D/R nominees are. So you could see Republican candidates losing their own primary but winning the IPO primary, which isn’t how IPO wants it to work.