PredictionsNewsEndorsePolitical and Election NewsResultsForumPolls
My News Feeds

Election News

Political News

Election Weblogs

Political Weblogs

Election Polls

Login to Customize

Ballot Access News

Connecticut House Passes Election-Day Registration Bill (May 1, 2012, 11:13 AM)

On April 30, the Connecticut House passed HB 5024, which makes it possible for unregistered individuals to register on election day. Here is the text of the bill. The vote was 83-59. Now the bill goes to the Senate. See this story, which says the House debated for five hours on this bill.

The leading opponent of the bill in the House debate said that this bill would make it possible for “some brat from Virginia” to vote twice for President, once in Virginia and once in Connecticut. But this was already possible and not necessarily illegal. Because the Electoral College system exists, and because early voting exists in so many states, it is possible and legal for individuals to vote for President in more than one state. If a voter is domiciled in one state, he may vote in that state’s selection process for presidential electors, by using early voting. Then, in theory at least, that voter might change domicile to another state, and he or she could then legally vote in that other state’s process for choosing presidential electors. Technically, the two elections are separate elections. In each election, the true candidates are candidates for presidential elector, and the election in one particular state over whom the electors should be for that state is a separate election from the other state’s choice of presidential electors. This is one of the flaws of the Electoral College system.

Thanks to Josh Van Vranken for this news.


New York Times Interview with Gary Johnson (May 1, 2012, 09:03 AM)

The New York Times has this interview with Gary Johnson, on the eve of the Libertarian Party’s national convention, which starts May 3.


Oregon Republican Nominees for Attorney General and Treasurer Will be Determined by Write-in Votes (April 30, 2012, 08:09 PM)

No one has qualified to be on the Republican primary ballot in Oregon for Attorney General or Treasurer. So, whoever wins the most write-ins in the Republican primary will be the Republican nominees. Republican Party officials are afraid the Democratic candidates will try to persuade Republican voters to write-in in the Democratic candidates. To counter than, the Republican Party is asking registered Republicans to write in James Buchal for Attorney General and Thomas Cox for Treasurer. See this story.


Tacoma Weekly Editorializes Against Top-Two Election System (April 30, 2012, 01:47 PM)

Tacoma Weekly, a free weekly newspaper in Tacoma, Washington, has this editorial, expressing the idea that top-two election systems are a bad idea because they eviscerate minor parties. Tacoma Weekly has existed since 1987. Thanks to J. Mills for the link.


April 2012 Ballot Access News Print Edition (April 30, 2012, 01:42 PM)

Ballot Access News
April 1, 2012 – Volume 27, Number 11


This issue was printed on white paper.



Table of Contents

  1. PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT SAYS IN-DISTRICT RESIDENCY LAW FOR CIRCULATORS CAN?T BE ENFORCED
  2. UTAH MAKES IT EASIER FOR PARTIES TO REMAIN ON BALLOT
  3. TEXAS DEMOCRATS? GIFT TO GREEN PARTY
  4. THREE NEW LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST EARLY PETITION DEADLINES
  5. OKLAHOMA JUDGE DECLINES TO PUT LIBERTARIANS ON BALLOT, FOR NOW
  6. FRANCE VOTERS HAVE TEN CHOICES
  7. TEXAS PETITION DEADLINES FOR 2012 EXTENDED TO JUNE 29
  8. CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO COURT HEARING
  9. U.S. SUPREME COURT WON?T HEAR BALLOT ACCESS CASES
  10. NEBRASKA CONGRESS CANDIDATES NEED NOT BE REGISTERED VOTERS
  11. CALIFORNIA PETITIONER RESIDENCY
  12. BALLOT ACCESS BILLS
  13. OTHER BILLS
  14. LAWSUITS WHICH ENJOINED OR OVERTURNED EARLY PETITION DEADLINES
  15. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  16. PARTIES NOT ON PETITIONING CHART
  17. MAINE MAY ELECT AN INDEPENDENT U.S. SENATOR THIS YEAR
  18. FORMER OR CURRENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS RUN AS INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES
  19. MINOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
  20. AMERICANS ELECT
  21. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT SAYS IN-DISTRICT RESIDENCY LAW FOR CIRCULATORS CAN?T BE ENFORCED

On March 26, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, saying the state law that prohibits petitioners from working outside their home district can?t be enforced, at least for minor party and independent candidate petitions. In re The Nomination Petition of Carl Stevenson, 54-MAP-2010.

The Pennsylvania law restricting petitioners to their home districts had already been declared unconstitutional in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in 2002, in a case called Morrill v Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 905, eastern district. The state had not appealed. Yet, that wasn?t enough to settle the issue.

The Morrill decision had enjoined state and county election officials from enforcing the law. But, in Pennsylvania, election officials? acceptance of petitions does not mean that the candidate who submits the petition will be on the ballot. Pennsylvania is a "challenge" state. Anyone may challenge any candidate?s petition, and then state court judges hear the challenge and decide whether to leave the candidate on the ballot or not. Pennsylvania state court judges had not been following the Morrill decision. But now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision says they must follow it.

The decision is not only a victory on the issue of freedom for petitioners; it sends a signal to the lower Pennsylvania state courts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a new interest in ballot access.

It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to have dismissed the Stevenson case without ruling on the constitutional issue. It is an old case, filed in 2010. Carl Stevenson had been an independent candidate for the legislature that year.

His petition had been challenged successfully in lower state court because some of his circulators didn?t live in his district. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on October 4, 2010, had told the lower court to check all the signatures. The lower court had then done so, but had found that even if the petitions carried by out-of-district circulators were counted, the candidate still didn?t have enough valid signatures.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in its recent opinion, thus went out of its way to rule on the constitutional issue, even though it could easily have said that this case is moot, because the candidate didn?t have enough valid signatures in any event. Clearly the Supreme Court wanted to settle this issue, so it ruled, notwithstanding the mootness argument.

The decision still leaves unresolved whether out-of-district circulators may work on primary petitions. That issue will probably be in court soon. Assuming the residency requirement is invalidated for primary petitions, then California will be the only state with an in-district residency requirement for circulators.

The new decision probably means that the state courts must now also follow the 1999 federal court decision on fusion. The 1999 federal decision had said that if Pennsylvania lets the qualified parties cross-endorse each other nominees for certain offices, then the state must let minor parties enjoy the same freedom. The 3rd Circuit had ruled favorably on this issue in Reform Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305. But the state courts had refused to follow that decision as well, notably in the Zulick case in 2003.


UTAH MAKES IT EASIER FOR PARTIES TO REMAIN ON BALLOT

On March 22, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 233, which says that when a party meets the 2% vote test, it is on the ballot for four years, not just two years.

It is fairly easy for a minor party in Utah to poll 2% for a statewide race in a presidential election year, because there are always five or six statewide partisan offices on the ballot. But it is difficult in midterm years, because generally only one office is on the ballot, U.S. Senate.

Nebraska will probably soon pass a similar law. The Nebraska bill is on consent calendar for April 2. Assuming the Nebraska bill passes, the only states that will still require a party to poll a certain share of the vote every two years, in order to remain ballot-qualified, are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.


TEXAS DEMOCRATS? GIFT TO GREEN PARTY

Texas law requires a party to poll at least 5% for a statewide race (or 2% for Governor) in order to remain ballot-qualified.

This year, the Democratic Party has no nominees for five statewide positions. This is good news for the Green Party, because it has candidates for two of those five positions. With no Democrat in the race, those Greens are extremely likely to poll at least 5%. The Libertarian Party got 2% for Governor in 2010, so it is on the ballot automatically for 2012 and 2014.


THREE NEW LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST EARLY PETITION DEADLINES

Illinois: on March 30, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against the June petition deadline for minor party petitions. The Illinois petition deadline had always been in October, September, or August, until 1999, when it was moved to mid-June. The lawsuit also challenges the law that requires newly-qualifying parties to run a full slate. The case is Libertarian Party of Illinois v State Board of Elections, in U.S. District Court, northern district.

New Mexico: on March 29, the Green and Constitution Parties filed a federal lawsuit against the early April petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. That deadline had always been in October, September, or July, until 1995, when it was moved to April. The case is Constitution Party of New Mexico v Duran.

North Carolina: on March 27, the Constitution Party filed a lawsuit against the May petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. The State Board of Elections was so sure that deadline is unconstitutional, in 1988, it waived the deadline and let the New Alliance Party turn in its signatures in late July. But in recent years, it refuses to continue that policy. The case is Constitution Party of North Carolina v Bartlett, in U.S. District Court in the western district.


OKLAHOMA JUDGE DECLINES TO PUT LIBERTARIANS ON BALLOT, FOR NOW

On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy DeGiusti declined to issue an injunction putting the Libertarian Party on the Oklahoma ballot. He noted that the party submitted 57,137 signatures by the March 1 deadline, and that 51,739 are required and the petition had not yet been checked. Therefore, he wrote, the party may have enough signatures.

As of March 29, the day this newsletter is being printed, the state still hasn?t said if the Libertarian petition is valid. If it is not, the party will probably renew its request for injunctive relief. The lawsuit challenges the early deadline. The case is Libertarian Party of Oklahoma v Ziriax, U.S. District Court, western district. The party has over 8,000 more signatures that were collected after the deadline.

Oklahoma moved the petition deadline from May to March because it moved its primary from July to June, and says all parties, even newly-qualifying parties, must nominate by primary. The party said it is willing to nominate by convention, but the state says that isn?t fair to candidates who might want to run in a Libertarian primary, even though the party would happily invite them to contest for a nomination at the convention.

Although Judge DeGiusti?s order, denying injunctive relief, is fairly long (35 pages), nowhere does it discuss the precedents that say early petition deadlines for newly-qualifying parties are unconstitutional.


FRANCE VOTERS HAVE TEN CHOICES

France holds a presidential election on April 22. The filing deadline was in March, and ten candidates qualified. They each needed 500 signatures from public officials.


TEXAS PETITION DEADLINES FOR 2012 EXTENDED TO JUNE 29

On March 1, a U.S. District Court in Texas issued an order, moving the independent presidential petition deadline, the deadline for other independents, and the deadline for new parties, to June 29. The lawsuit, Perez v State, 5:11-cv-360, concerns redistricting. Because the court drew new U.S. House and legislative districts, it moved the primary from March 6 to May 29. Because it postponed the primary, it also had to set new deadlines for independent candidates for district office.

The statutory deadline for independent presidential candidates is the second Monday in May (May 14). Moving that deadline from May 14 to June 29 is a significant advantage to independent presidential candidates.

It also means that for the first time since 1984, no state has a deadline for an independent presidential candidate to get on a ballot that is earlier than June.

According to the Secretary of State, if a voter signs a petition for a minor party, and then votes in the May 29 primary, the signature is valid. If the voter votes and then signs, it is not valid. But independent candidates are not treated so well. If a voter signs for an independent candidate and then votes in the primary, the signature is not valid. This probably violates due process, because an independent candidate cannot know how many of his or her signers will later vote in the primary.


CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO COURT HEARING

The March 1 B.A.N. said that a hearing would be held in Oakland, California, on March 6, in Rubin v Bowen. However, the hearing was postponed until April 10. This is the state court lawsuit filed by several minor parties against the California top-two system last year.


U.S. SUPREME COURT WON?T HEAR BALLOT ACCESS CASES

On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Maslow v New York State Board of Elections, which challenged a law that says only party members, or Notaries Public, may circulate a petition to get someone on a primary ballot.

On February 27, the Court refused to hear Greene v N.C. State Board of Elections, which challenged the petition requirement for independent candidates for U.S. House. The law requires a petition signed by 4% of the registered voters.


NEBRASKA CONGRESS CANDIDATES NEED NOT BE REGISTERED VOTERS

On March 22, a Nebraska state court ruled that states cannot require congressional candidates to be registered voters. The decision is based on the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court opinion U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, which said states cannot add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution. The Nebraska case is Nebraska Republican Party v Gale, Lancaster County district court, 12-1102.

The Republican Party had sued to remove Bob Kerrey from the Democratic presidential primary ballot. Kerry is running for U.S. Senate. The Republican Party had charged that his voter registration is invalid, because he doesn?t live at the place where he is registered to vote.


CALIFORNIA PETITIONER RESIDENCY

On March 12, a California Superior Court in Shasta County ruled that recall petitions are valid, even if the circulator doesn?t live in the jurisdiction that is considering holding a recall election. Shasta County Citizens for Justice v City of Shasta Lake, cv-174130. The opinion says, "The statutory scheme for remedies relating to improper signature gathering is to hold the circulator accountable, not the signator."


BALLOT ACCESS BILLS

Arizona: HB 2826, which makes it more difficult for candidates to get on a presidential primary ballot, passed the House on February 20 and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5. It requires 1,000 signatures for a presidential candidate who has not qualified for Primary Season Matching funds and who cannot show that he or she is already on the presidential primary in at least 20 other states. Currently anyone may get on a presidential primary ballot just by request.

Alabama: the Senate will vote on SB 15, the ballot access improvement bill, on April 3. It lowers the number of signatures for a newly-qualifying party from 44,829 to 5,000, and also eases independent candidate requirements.

Georgia: even though the Secretary of State?s Advisory Committee recommended that the number of signatures for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, should be reduced, the legislature has killed the Secretary of State?s bill to make that change. The Chairman of the House Rules Committee, Mark Hamilton, said he deleted the ballot access improvement parts of the Secretary of State?s bill because the advocates of better ballot access had been rude to him.

Missouri: on March 8, the House passed HB 1236 by a vote of 144-1. It eliminates the requirement that the petition to create a new party (which, in general, does not require any candidates to be listed) must list candidates for presidential elector if the group expects to enter the presidential race.

Nebraska: on March 14, the Governor signed LB 759, which legalizes out-of-state petitioners.

Virginia: on March 2, the legislature passed HB 1151, which says that petitions are valid this year, whether the petitioners used the old U.S. House district boundaries or the new U.S. House district boundaries. The bill takes effect immediately.


OTHER BILLS

Arizona: on March 15, the House Judiciary Committee passed SCR 1021, which puts a ballot question on the November 2012 ballot asking voters if they wish to stop funding the public funding program (for candidates for state office). The bill had already passed the Senate.

Idaho: on March 1, Governor Butch Otter signed HB 391, which eliminates the presidential primary, starting with this year. That means that two states that held presidential primaries in 2008 will not have held such primaries in 2012. The other state is Washington.

Kentucky: on March 5, Senate President David Williams introduced SB 7, which moves the presidential primary from May to the first week in August. Last year a bill like this passed the Senate, but not the House. The bill would not take effect until 2016. There is no logical reason why early August is too late for a presidential primary. The Republican National Convention opens August 27 this year, and Democrats start on September 3.

Maine: on March 8, the legislature?s Joint Taxation Committee passed LD 1826 unanimously. It repeals the law that puts a question on the state income tax form, asking taxpayers if they wish to direct a small donation to the political party that the taxpayer chooses. The Maine Green Party usually gets half its annual income from the income tax form.

Maine (2): on March 20, the legislature passed LD 1774, which eliminates extra public funding for publicly-funded candidates who have well-financed opponents who don?t use public funding.

Utah: the legislature adjourned without passing HB 50. The bill would have eliminated the question on the state income tax form that asks taxpayers if they wish to send a small donation to the taxpayer?s favorite party. The House had passed the bill 51-20, but the Senate didn?t vote on it.


LAWSUITS WHICH ENJOINED OR OVERTURNED EARLY PETITION DEADLINES

The chart below lists the 49 known judicial decisions that either struck down early petition deadlines for newly-qualifying parties and independent candidates, or enjoined those deadlines, or suggested that such early deadlines are probably unconstitutional. The purpose of the chart is not only to serve as a reference, but to show a general reader that the case law on early deadlines is overwhelmingly favorable for ballot access. These lawsuit victories have taken place in thirty states.

State Case Name Year Court Citation Type Deadline

Ala.

New Alliance Party v Hand

1991

11th circuit

933 F.2d 1568

New party

Apr 6

Alas.

Sigler v McAlpine

1988

Superior

3AN-88-8695

New party/indp.

June 1

Alas.

Sykes v McAlpine

1990

Superior

3AN-90-7508

New party/indp.

Aug. 1

Alas.

Libertarian Party v Coghill

1992

Superior

3AN-92-8181

President new party

Aug. 5

Ariz.

Nader v Brewer

2011

9th circuit

531 F.3d 1028

President indp.

June 9

Ark.

Lendall v Bryant

1974

US District

387 F.Supp. 397

Independent

April 2

Ark.

Lendall v Jernigan

1977

US Supreme

433 U.S. 901

Independent

April 6

Ark.

American Party v Jernigan

1977

US District

424 F.Supp. 943

New party

Mar 7

Ark.

Lendall v McKuen

1988

US District

LR-C-88-311

Independent

Jan. 5

Ark.

Cit. to Est. Reform Party v Priest

1996

US District

970 F.Supp. 690

New party

Jan. 2

Ga.

Bergland v Harris

1985

11th circuit

767 F.2d 1551

President new party

July 11

Hi.

Liberrtarian Party v Waihee

1986

US District

cv-86-0439

New party

Apr 21

Id.

Populist Party v Evans

1984

9th circuit

84-4108

New party

May 30

Ill.

Lee v Keith

2006

7th circuit

463 F.3d 763

Independent

Dec 15

Ind.

Warrick v Condre

1983

US District

IP-83-810-C, s.d.

New party/indp.

Feb. 22

Ks.

Merritt v Graves I

1988

US District

87-4264-R

Independent

June 10

Ky.

Libertarian Party of Ky v Ehrler

1991

US District

776 F.Supp 1200

New party/indp.

Jan. 30

Me.

Anderson v Quinn

1980

1st circuit

634 F.2d 616

President indp.

April 1

Me.

Stoddard v Quinn

1984

US District

593 F.Supp 300

New party/indp.

April 1

Md.

Bradley v Mandel

1978

US District

449 F.Supp 983

New party/indp.

Mar 8

Md.

Anderson v Morris

1980

4th circuit

636 F.2d 55

President indp.

Mar 3

Mass

Serrette v Connolly

1985

Superior

68172, Suffolk

New party/indp.

May 8

Mo.

McCarthy v Kirkpatrick

1976

US District

420 F.Supp 366

Independent

Apr. 27

Mt.

Simonton v Boje

2010

Dawson Dist.

DV-90-058

Independent

Mar. 15

Neb.

MacBride v Exon

1977

8th circuit

558 F.2d 443

President new party

Feb. 11

Nev.

Libt. Party of Nev. v Swackhamer

1986

US District

638 F.Supp 565

New party

Apr. 1

Nev.

Fulani v Lau

1992

US District

CV-N-92-535

New party/indp.

June 10

N.J.

LaRouche v Burgio

1984

US District

594 F.Supp 614

President indp.

Apr. 26

N.J.

Council of Alt. Parties v Hooks

1997

3rd circuit

121 F.3d 876

New party/indp.

Apr. 10

N.M.

Anderson v Hooper

1980

US District

498 F.Supp 898

President indp.

Mar. 4

N.C.

Greaves v State Bd. of Elections

2009

US District

508 F.Supp 78

President indp.

Apr. 25

N.D.

McLain v Meier

1980

8th circuit

637 F.2d 1159

New party

June 1

Ohio

Williams v Rhodes

1968

US Supreme

393 U.S. 23

New party

Feb. 7

Ohio

Anderson v Celebrezze

1983

US Supreme

460 U.S. 780

President indp.

Mar.20

Ohio

Denny v Eyrich

1984

US District

C-1-84-531,s.d.

Independent

Feb 23

Ohio

Cripps v Seneca Co. Bd Election

1985

US District

629 F.Supp 1335

Independent

Feb 21

Ohio

Libt. Party of Ohio v Blackwell

2000

6th circuit

462 F.3d 579

New party

Nov 3

Pa.

Peoples Party v Tucker

1972

US District

347 F.Supp 1

New party/indp.

Mar 8

Pa.

Consumer Party v Tucker

1973

US District

364 F.Supp 594

New party/indp.

Mar 28

Pa.

Salera v Tucker

1976

US Supreme

424 U.S. 959

New party/indp.

Apr 4

Pa.

Libt. Party v Davis

1984

US District

84-0262, m.d.

New party/indp.

Apr 20

Pa.

Hall v Davis

1984

US District

84-1057, e.d.

New party/indp.

Apr 20

R.I.

McCarthy v Noel

1976

US District

420 F.Supp 799

President indp.

Aug 12

S.D.

Nader 2000 Comm. v Hazeltine

2000

US District

110 F.Sup 2 1201

President indp.

Jun 20

S.D.

Libertarian Party of SD v Kundert

1983

US District

civ-83-3071

New party

Mar 15

Tn.

Libertarian Party of Tn v Goins

2010

US District

793 FSup 2d 1064

New party

Mar 10

Tn.

Green Party of Tn. v Hargett

2012

US District

2012 WL 379774

New party

Apr 5

Ut.

LaRouche v Monson

1984

US District

599 F.Supp 621

President indp.

Apr 15

Wy.

Populist Party v Herschler

1984

10th circuit

746 F.2d 656

New party

June 1

This chart includes a few cases in which the state agreed that its deadline was too early, and signed a consent decree. It also includes one case, Bergland v Harris, in which the court suggested the deadline was too early, but remanded the case to a lower court for more fact-finding. The legislature then eased the deadline and no further proceedings were held.


2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
DEADLINES
FULL PARTY
CAND
LIB’T
GREEN
CONSTI
AM. ELE
Party
Indp.

Ala.

44,829

5,000

in court

in court

in court

finished

Mar. 13

Sep. 6

Alaska

(reg) 7,406

#3,271

already on

*2,015

*45

already on

June 1

Aug. 8

Ariz.

23,041

(est) #27,000

already on

already on

0

already on

Mar. 1

Sep. 7

Ark.

10,000

#1,000

already on

already on

0

already on

April 7

Aug. 1

Calif.

(reg) 103,004

172,859

already on

already on

negotiation

already on

Jan. 2

Aug. 10

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

already on

already on

Jan. 8

June 4

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

0

*850

0

0

- – -

Aug. 8

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

570

454

0

Aug. 21

July 15

D.C.

no procedure

(est.) #3,900

can?t start

already on

can?t start

can?t start

- – -

*Aug. 8

Florida

0

112,174

already on

already on

already on

already on

Sep. 1

July 15

Georgia

50,334

#51,845

already on

0

0

*finished

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Hawaii

691

#4,536

already on

finished

0

finished

*Feb. 23

Sep. 7

Idaho

13,102

1,000

already on

0

already on

*5,700

Aug. 30

Aug. 24

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

*0

*0

*0

*0

- – -

June 25

Indiana

no procedure

#34,195

already on

*200

0

0

- – -

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

0

*20

0

*1,800

- – -

Aug. 17

Kansas

16,776

5,000

already on

0

0

already on

June 1

Aug. 6

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

0

0

0

0

- – -

Sep. 7

La.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

0

0

May 17

Sep. 4

Maine

28,639

#4,000

0

already on

0

already on

Dec 8, 11

Aug. 8

Md.

10,000

(est.) 35,000

already on

already on

*1,150

*finished

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Mass.

(est) (reg) 40,000

#10,000

*0

already on

*0

0

Nov. 1, 11

July 31

Mich.

32,261

30,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

July 19

July 19

Minn.

105,352

#2,000

0

0

0

0

May 1

Aug. 21

Miss.

be organized

1,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

Jan. 6

Sep. 7

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already on

0

already on

finished

July 30

July 30

Mont.

5,000

#5,000

already on

0

200

*already on

Mar. 15

Aug. 15

Nebr.

4,880

2,500

already on

0

0

*already on

Aug. 1

Sep. 1

Nev.

7,013

7,013

already on

0

already on

already on

April 13

July 6

N. Hamp.

13,698

#3,000

*17,800

50

0

*21,000

Aug. 8

Aug. 8

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

- – -

July 30

N. M.

3,009

18,053

already on

*finished

*finished

already on

*Apr. 3

June 27

N.Y.

no procedure

#15,000

can?t start

already on

can?t start

can?t start

- – -

Aug. 21

No. Car.

85,379

85,379

already on

500

3,000

*already on

May 16

June 14

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

*7,100

0

*6,500

finished

Apr. 13

Sep. 7

Ohio

show support

5,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

unsettled

Aug. 8

Okla.

51,739

43,890

*finished

in court

0

*already on

March 1

July 15

Oregon

21,804

18,279

already on

9,025

already on

finished

Aug. 28

Aug. 28

Penn.

no procedure

20,601

*400

*200

*450

*0

- – -

Aug. 1

R.I.

17,115

#1,000

0

0

0

already on

June 1

Sep. 7

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

finished

May 6

July 15

So. Dak.

7,928

3,171

*already on

0

*finished

finished

Mar. 27

Aug. 7

Tenn.

40,042

275

0

already on

already on

finished

April 5

Aug. 16

Texas

49,729

80,778

already on

already on

*0

*5,000

*June 29

*June 29

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

*already on

already on

already on

Feb. 15

Aug. 15

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

0

0

already on

Jan. 1

Jun 14

Virginia

no procedure

#10,000

*500

*200

0

0

- – -

Aug. 24

Wash.

no procedure

#1,000

can?t start

can?t start

can?t start

can?t start

- – -

Aug. 28

West Va.

no procedure

#7,135

0

already on

0

*2,600

- – -

Aug. 1

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

0

0

already on

*finished

*April 1

Aug. 7

Wyo.

3,740

3,740

already on

0

*already on

*already on

June 1

Aug. 28

TOTAL STATES ON
30*
19*
14*
21*
`

#partisan label permitted (other than "independent").
"AMER ELE" = Americans Elect Party.
*change since March 1 issue.


PARTIES NOT ON PETITIONING CHART

Parties that are not included on the petitioning chart above, but which are attempting to get on the ballot, are: (1) the Justice Party has 50 signatures in Kentucky, 100 signatures in Ohio, 100 in Pennsylvania, and 200 in Texas; (2) American Third Position has 75 signatures in Mississippi, 25 in New Jersey, and 300 in West Virginia; (3) the Socialist Party has 400 in New Jersey, and is working to requalify in Florida; (4) the Party for Socialism and Liberation has finished its Vermont petition.

The Justice Party is hoping that one-state ballot-qualified parties in Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont, will nominate Rocky Anderson for President. Five of those parties nominated Ralph Nader in 2008.


MAINE MAY ELECT AN INDEPENDENT U.S. SENATOR THIS YEAR

On March 5, Angus King said that he will run for U.S. Senate this year as an independent. Polls have showed that he is likely to win. He was elected as an independent Governor in 1994, and easily re-elected in 1998.

Although Maine has had strong independent candidates for Governor in the last forty years (an independent was elected three times), no independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine has ever polled as much as 10% of the vote, in the history of popular U.S. Senate elections, which started in 1914.


FORMER OR CURRENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS RUN AS INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES

During March, several current or former public officials announced plans to run as independents. On March 22, Nancy Argenziano, a former Republican State Senator, said she will run as an independent for the Florida House. On March 11, former Democratic Congressman Donald A. Bailey said he will run for Pennsylvania Attorney General as an independent. On March 21, Jack Cunningham, the Republican County Clerk of Kane County, Illinois, said he may run for Congress as an independent.


MINOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

Arizona: Green Party primary, February 28, results are Jill Stein 385, Kent Mesplay 50, Richard Grayson 39, Michael Oatman 39, Gary Swing 30, Gerard Davis 18.

Massachusetts: Green Party primary, March 6, with these candidates on the ballot: Jill Stein, Kent Mesplay, Harley Mikkelson. Neither the Secretary of State nor the media have yet reported the results.

Missouri: Libertarian primary, Feb. 7: James Ogle 483, uncommitted 431. None of the other Libertarians seeking the party?s nomination entered this primary.


AMERICANS ELECT

Former Governor and U.S. Senator David Boren, a Democrat who is now President of the University of Oklahoma, recently became an endorser and spokesperson for Americans Elect. Also Michal Eisner, former CEO of the Disney Company, recently published an op-ed in favor of Americans Elect.

Currently there are 28 announced candidates for the Americans Elect nomination, including some presidential candidates who are also seeking the nomination of another party, or who have already received the nomination of another party. Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, Marlin Miller of American Third Position Party, David Jon Sponheim of America?s Third Party, and R. J. Harris of the Libertarian Party, also are officially seeking the Americans Elect nomination. Buddy Roemer, who is seeking it, is also seeking the Reform Party nomination.

As of March 25, Americans Elect had collected 2,484,242 signatures across the nation, according to its web page.

Americans Elect recently received a Trademark for its name.


SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com. If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.

Ballot Access News is published by and copyright by Richard Winger. Note: subscriptions are available!


Go back to the index.

Copyright © 2012 Ballot Access News


Gary Johnson Recommends that Libertarian Party Nominate Former Judge Jim Gray for Vice-President (April 30, 2012, 01:24 PM)

On April 30, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is widely expected to be the Libertarian Party presidential nominee this year, endorsed former California Superior Court Judge Jim Gray for the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential nomination. Gray was appointed to the Superior Court in 1989 by California Governor George Deukmejian, and served as a Judge until 2010. Gray had previously served as a Municipal Court Judge in Santa Ana, California. In 2004, when Gray was the party’s U.S. Senate nominee in 2004, he took a leave of absence. Gray polled 216,522 votes for U.S. Senate in 2004. His best showing was in Mendocino County, where he polled 5.2%. Here is Gray’s wiki page. He is age 67.

On other Libertarian presidential campaign news, Wes Benedict and Arthur DiBianca, two Texas Libertarians, have founded the “Libertarian Action Super PAC”, also known as LASPAC. It has already received $100,000 in contributions, and plans to make independent expenditures to promote the Libertarian presidential ticket. Donations to such committees are unlimited, as long as the committee does not coordinate with the candidate.


Ron Paul Has Potential of Enough Support to be Placed in Nomination at Republican Convention (April 29, 2012, 07:57 PM)

Republican Party national convention rules do not permit anyone to be nominated unless the candidate has plurality “support” from at least five states. Ron Paul has been gaining enough delegates in the various party meetings that actually choose delegates, to have a chance at meeting the 5-state “support” rule. See this post about Massachusetts from PolicyMic, and this and this post about certain other states from DailyPaul. Last week it was clearly established that Paul has the most delegates of any candidate in Minnesota.


Texas Voters Visit Polls Twice in May (April 29, 2012, 11:36 AM)

Texas holds non-partisan city elections on May 12, and then on May 29 holds its partisan primaries for all partisan office, including President. Having two separate kinds of election only 17 days apart has consequences that are explained in this article.


Russian Voters About to Gain Ability to Elect Governors of Regions (April 28, 2012, 09:57 AM)

The Russian Parliament has passed a bill to again let Russian voters choose Governors for the various regions of Russia. See this story. Under current law, all the Governors are appointed by the central government.


Constitution Party in Colorado Objects to Americans Elect?s Party Name (April 27, 2012, 11:14 PM)

In Colorado, the Constitution Party is named the “American Constitution Party.” According to this story, the Colorado Constitution Party has asked the Secretary of State not to permit Americans Elect to use “Americans” in its party name. However, it doesn’t seem likely that the Secretary of State will accede to that request. Thanks to Uncovered Politics for the link.


Previous Articles




Back to News Page - Login - Register

Ad: History Posters! - History of the Political Parties I


Election and History Posters from History Shots!

Note: click will open in new window if pop-ups allowed