| This issue was originally printed on pink paper. |
(See also this update.)
On April 28, 1994, the 8th circuit ruled that a public television station which sponsors a debate between candidates for a public office, cannot exclude candidates because they hold unpopular views. Forbes v Arkansas Educational TV Foundation, no. 93-1031WA.
The lawsuit was brought by Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in 1992. Independent candidate ballot access in Arkansas is difficult, and Forbes is one of only 3 independents for the U.S. House who has won a spot on the Arkansas ballot in the last twenty-five years. Nevertheless, in 1992, the state-owned TV station sponsored a debate between Forbes' Democrat and Republican opponents, and refused to include him. Forbes sued, and lost in U.S. District Court, but has now won in the 8th circuit.
The decision was made by an en banc panel of all eleven full-time judges. The vote was 6-5. The state has filed a petition for rehearing which is still pending.
The decision was written by Judge Richard Arnold, a Carter appointee, and signed by Judges Pasco Bowman, Roger Wollman, Clarence Beam (Reagan appointees) and James Loken and Morris Arnold (Bush appointees).
On the other side were Judges Theodore McMillian (a Carter appointee), John Gibson, George Fagg and Frank Magill (Reagan appointees) and David Hansen (a Bush appointee).
This is the first time independent or third party candidates have won a decision in a U.S. Court of Appeals which says that the government must treat all ballot-qualified candidates equally (except that the same good principle has been upheld by several circuits, on the matter of petition deadlines). The 11th circuit ruled in 1990 that a government-owned TV station is free to discriminate against some ballot-qualified candidates, in a case brought by the Georgia Libertarian Party.
The Forbes decision states that the particular debate program may be considered either a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum, and that regardless of what type of forum it is, the government cannot discriminate against a member of the class of speakers for whose benefit the debate was held. This decision does not pertain to privately-owned TV stations, nor to debates sponsored by other organizations which may then be broadcast on public TV.
Forbes has been identified with the Populist Party in the past, and ran for Lieutenant Governor as a Republican in 1986. The director of the Arkansas public broadcasting stated in court that he was so opposed to Forbes being in any debate, that he would not broadcast the debate if Forbes were included, saying he would instead broadcast an old episode of "St. Elsewhere".
Raised Bill 5528 passed the Connecticut legislature on May 4, the last day of the session. It lowers the number of signatures needed for statewide third party and independent candidates, from 1% of the last vote cast (over 15,000 in 1996) to a flat 7,500 signatures. It also extends the petitioning period for candidates running in the presidential primary, from 3 weeks, to 6 weeks.
Governor Lowell Weicker has until June 14 to sign or veto the bill. Assuming he signs it, it won't go into effect until the 1996 election.
On May 13, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the 1992 term limits initiative, which covers members of Congress, state legislators, and state executive positions, is invalid, because it didn't obtain enough signatures. Duggan v Beermann, no. 92-907.
In 1988, the voters of Nebraska approved a state constitutional amendment, which was on the ballot with this wording: "A Constitutional Amendment to Provide that only Registered Voters, Instead of Electors, may sign petitions for initiatives or referendums". Now the Nebraska Supreme Court has interpreted that 1988 change to mean that the number of signatures needed for an initiative is 10% of the number of registered voters, not 10% of the last vote cast for Governor. The number of signatures that everyone in 1992 thought was required for an initiative was 58,340, but under the new ruling, the initiative supposedly needed 88,511.
The ruling not only disqualifies the term limits initiative, it makes it much more difficult for the voters to place future initiatives on the ballot. There are now several initiatives on non-related subjects being circulated, and the state can't even say how many signatures they need, since the number of registered voters changes constantly.
U.S. Term Limits will attempt to do an entirely new term limits initiative this year, although the deadline is in July and the job will be difficult. The old term limits law provided an 8 year limit for the U.S. House; the new initiative will provide for a 6 year limit.
In other term limits news, the Utah legislature passed a bill providing for term limits, which was signed into law in April. However, they won't go into effect for Congress until at least 24 other states have congressional term limits. Only 23 states have the initiative, so even if all the states with initiatives eventually pass congressional term limits, the Utah law won't take effect unless at least one non-initiative state also passes them.
1. New Jersey: AB 1309 changes the date of the 1996 primary for all office from June to March. It passed the Assembly on March 28 and will be voted on in the Senate in early June.
2. New York: A9371, which changes the primary from April to March, has not passed out of committee yet.
3. Pennsylvania: legislators are considering changing the date of the 1996 presidential primary from April to March. Two election law bills already introduced, SB 28 and HB 755, may be amended to make this change.
California (1): the Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in federal court on May 13, to overturn the California ban on party endorsements in non-partisan races. California Democratic Party v Lungren, C94-1703.
The party also has a suit on this pending in the state court of appeals, but after a full year, that court still has not set a hearing date. The party wants to make an endorsement in the statewide race for Superintendent of Public Instruction this year.
The new federal lawsuit was assigned to Judge William Orrick, an 80-year-old Nixon appointee who has never before had a case involving political party rights or ballot access.
California (2): an initiative is being circulated which would switch the primary to a system termed a "blanket primary", now in use only in Washington state. Existing law provides for a "closed primary", in which only voters who are registered as members of a particular party, may vote in that party's primary. The initiative would provide for a single type of primary ballot, on which the candidates of all parties would appear. All voters would receive this ballot at the primary. Independent candidates would not appear on this primary ballot.
Under the initiative, non-members of a party would be permitted to decide whom the party should nominate. This would violate Democratic and Republican Party national bylaws relating to presidential primaries. It would also violate the First Amendment rights of political parties (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that parties have a right to decide for themselves which voters may vote in their primaries). However, the initiative is likely to appear on the November 1994 ballot, since it has wealthy supporters who are able to hire petitioners to get it on the ballot.
Virginia: on April 20, Governor George Allen vetoed HB 11. The bill would have diminished political party rights. Under existing law, parties can decide for themselves, each year, whether to nominate by convention or primary. HB 11 would have provided that an elected statewide office-holder of any party, who was running for re-election, would have the right to tell the party whether to nominate by convention or primary in his or her particular race.
See this note about tables.
| CALIFORNIA | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr. 1994 Reg. | Jan. 1994 % | Apr. 1994 % | |
| Dem. | 6,889,009 | 48.88% | 48.93% |
| Rep. | 5,223,224 | 37.17% | 37.10% |
| Am. In. | 236,285 | 1.69% | 1.68% |
| Green | 86,543 | .62% | .61% |
| Libertarian | 66,632 | .47% | .47% |
| Peace & Fr | 66,255 | .45% | .47% |
| indp, misc. | 1,510,949 | 10.72% | 10.74% |
| COLORADO | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar. 1994 Reg. | Oct. 1992 % | Mar 1994 % | |
| Dem. | 639,274 | 33.98% | 33.93% |
| Rep. | 630,712 | 33.35% | 33.48% |
| Libertarian | 1,718 | .08% | .09% |
| Populist | 62 | .00% | .00% |
| indp, misc. | 612,250 | 32.59% | 32.50% |
| NEW YORK | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr. 1994 Reg. | Oct. 1993 % | Apr. 1994 % | |
| Dem. | 4,086,367 | 47.05% | 46.95% |
| Rep. | 2,695,475 | 30.70% | 30.97% |
| Conservative | 131,445 | 1.48% | 1.51% |
| Liberal | 69,709 | .81% | .80% |
| Rt. to Life | 32,719 | .38% | .38% |
| indepndnt | 1,688,215 | 19.59% | 19.40% |
| PENNSYLVANIA | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr. 1994 Reg. | Oct. 1993 % | Apr. 1994 % | |
| Dem. | 2,946,266 | 50.81% | 50.82% |
| Rep. | 2,476,977 | 42.70% | 42.73% |
| Libertarian | 2,662 | .04% | .05% |
| Patriot | 2,288 | .03% | .04% |
| indp., misc. | 369,038 | 6.42% | 6.37% |
Judge Stephen Breyer, President Clinton's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, has only had one ballot access case, and he ruled unfavorably. In 1992 the Libertarian Party of Maine filed a lawsuit against Maine law, which makes it virtually impossible for a small, fully-qualified party, to nominate any candidates.
After the lower court judge upheld the law, the party sought injunctive relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals, but Judge Breyer and two other judges denied the request. Later another panel of the 1st Circuit upheld the law.
On May 20, there was a hearing in the 11th circuit in U.S. Taxpayers Party v Smith, 93-2835, over Florida's July 15 petition deadline for third party presidential candidates. Judges were Albert Henderson, a Carter appointee; J. L. Edmondson, a Reagan appointee; and Edward Carnes, a Bush appointee. The hearing went well. Carnes voted in another case to invalidate the Florida presidential primary ballot access law.
Ballot Access News recently learned that on July 23, 1992, a federal judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for Florida to deny non-pauper candidates the right to file signatures in lieu of a filing fee.
Florida has the highest candidate filing fees in the nation, up to 7.5% of the annual salary. Under 1972 and 1974 U.S. Supreme Court rulings, all states must have a procedure for candidates to get on the ballot without paying filing fees. Usually this is a petition.
Florida has a "petition in lieu of filing fee" procedure. A candidate who doesn't pay the fee must submit a petition signed by 3% of the registered voters. But Florida has long provided that non-paupers cannot use this procedure, unless they are Republicans or Democrats running in a partisan primary.
Federal judge Maurice Paul ruled that non-pauper candidates for judicial office must also be allowed to submit petitions in lieu of a filing fee. Grube v Florida Dept. of State, no. 92-40122, northern district.
Florida did not appeal that decision, but is still insisting that third party and independent candidates must pay the filing fee unless they are paupers. In light of the 1992 decision, this policy is obviously unconstitutional. Under another section of the election law, third party and independent candidates must submit a 3% petition, so the filing fee for them is redundant and will surely be stricken if anyone challenges the practice.
48 of the 50 states (all but Kentucky and Louisiana) have at least one partisan statewide election on the ballot in 1994.
It is possible that there will be a third party or independent candidate on the ballot, for statewide office, in 43 of those 48 states. The only states almost certain to have no third choice, for any partisan statewide office, are Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina and West Virginia. Still difficult to predict are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Washington state.
The federal government has finally responded with some interest to charges that the U.S. is in violation of the Copenhagen Meeting Document. That Document, which the United States signed in 1990, pledges all the signatory nations not to discriminate for or against any political party.
On May 18, Erika Schlager notified Bob Waldrop (head of the Democracy Project) that the congressional office on U.S. involvement in the CSCE appreciates the testimony taken in Salt Lake City in 1993 and that this testimony will be studied. Schlager is a staffer for that congressional committee. The committee is headed by Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
Georgia passed a law in 1990 mandating that all candidates for state office must be tested for illegal drugs. On May 13, Walker Chandler, Libertarian Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the law is unconstitutional. Chandler v Miller, no. 1:94-cv-1298-ODE. The case was assigned to Judge Orinda Evans, a Carter appointee.
1. Arkansas: the Patriot Party will file a lawsuit in state court the first week in June, against the Secretary of State, to insist that he recognize that the party is a qualified party. Even though the party polled over 3% of the vote in the last election, and therefore meets the definition of "political party", and even though the Attorney General ruled that it is a qualified party, the Secretary of State says a party cannot qualify unless it first submits a petition signed by 3% of the last vote cast. No third party has previously been qualified in Arkansas since 1970.
2. Florida: the state decided not to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Duke v Smith, the 11th circuit decision of February 1994 which ruled that Florida's presidential primary ballot access procedures are unconstitutional.
3. Georgia: the Libertarian Party will file a lawsuit in federal court in the first week in June, against Georgia law that forces qualified parties which polled less than 20% of the vote to obtain the signatures of 5% of all registered voters, if they wish to run candidates for congress, state legislature or county office.
4. Illinois: a state court of appeals ruled on March 3 that, although petitioners must be registered voters, if they have moved since they last re-registered, they are still eligible to circulate petitions. Whelan v County Officers Electoral Board of DuPage County, 629 NE 2d 842. Illinois state courts have handed down quite a few favorable ballot access rulings in the last year.
5. Maryland: the 4th circuit will hold an expedited hearing in mid-July in Cane v Worcester County, no. 94-1579. The lower court ordered the county to elect its county commissioners this year by cumulative voting. It is possible the 4th circuit could upset this ruling.
6. New York: the 2nd circuit ruled on February 28 that no one may be arrested for campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place, unless the government has set out markers clarifying exactly where the 100-foot zone begins. Cullen v Fliegner, 18 F 3d 96. The vote was 2-1.
On May 16, the Federal Communications Commission released an opinion, further weakening sec. 315 of the U.S. code, the famous "equal time" rule for television and radio treatment of political candidates. The FCC ruled that ABC-TV did not violate the rule when it featured Ross Perot on June 29, 1992, for an hour and forty minutes, answering questions from the audience, and then declined to make time available to Lenora Fulani, who was also running for president.
Sec. 315 states that the equal time does not apply to a bona fide newscast, a bona fide news interview, a bona fide news documentary, or on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events.
Fulani argued that Perot's appearance didn't fit any of the exceptions. However, the FCC said that the show was a bona fide news interview, even though the show's host, Peter Jennings, was not the person asking the questions. Instead, the audience asked the questions, and Jennings didn't even know what the questions would be in advance (however, ABC pointed out that the manager of the show did know what they were in advance).
The equal time law, in practice, no longer has any effect, except to handicap candidates who happen to be on-the-air employees of broadcasting firms. For instance, a TV weather reporter was fired after he became a candidate for City Council because the FCC ruled that otherwise, the station must provide free equal time to other candidates for city council, and the D.C. Circuit upheld that interpretation in 1987 in Branch v FCC, 824 F 2d 37.
Electoral Studies, volume 13 (1994) recently published a study by two political science professors, showing that ballot format makes a big impact on voter behavior. Professor R. Darcy of Oklahoma State University, and Professor Michael Marsh of Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, compared Irish ballots with ballots used in Australia and Malta.
All three countries use the single transferable vote (the system in which the voter writes the number "1" next to his or her favorite candidate, the number "2" next to the second-favored candidate, etc.). However, Irish ballots list all candidates in alphabetical order (regardless of party), whereas Australia and Malta group all candidates together by party. Parties in all three countries generally run more than one candidate in each district.
In Ireland, over 20% of the voters pick two different parties for their first and second-choice votes. However, in Australia and Malta, only 2% to 3% of the voters pick two different parties for their first and second-choice votes.
In April, the University of Chicago reported the results of a nationwide poll: 50% of Black voters said they would support a national Black political party. The same poll question in 1988 only found 26% in sup-port.
PALP (People Achieving Legislative Power), after a year of trying to get an initiative on the Michigan ballot, says that it will not succeed. 270,000 signatures were needed. The PALP Initiative would have provided for a unicameral state legislature with 16 districts, in which all candidates polling at least 5% of the vote would be elected. Members of the legislature would wield voting power proportional to their share of the popular vote.
Pennsylvania held a statewide primary on May 10, at which members of the Patriot Party were allowed to vote on party officers, even though the party is not qualified to select its candidates for public office at the primary.
This odd situation occurred because of a legislative drafting error in 1986. The law before 1986 provided that all qualified parties should nominate their candidates for public office, and elect party officers, at the primary. The 1986 amendment said that only parties with at least 15% of the voter registration, could use the primary to nominate candidates for public office. The intent was to make the primary easier to administer.
However, the 1986 law failed to eliminate the primary for parties with under 15% of the registration, for the purpose of choosing party officers, so this year the state had to hold a Patriot Party primary for that function. The Libertarian Party could also have had a primary to elect party officers, but waived it.
On March 22, 1994, the National Center for Communication Studies at George Washington University announced the results of a poll on election reforms.
One question was. "Should state ballot access laws be liberalized to make it easier for independent candidates and non-major parties to run for office?" Two choices were presented:
(a) "The discretionary authority of states to establish different ballot access standards for independent candidates and non-major parties should be preserved, so long as such procedures are reasonable and comply with current federal judicial decisions"
(b) "The states should be compelled to adopt uniform and fair ballot access laws. Standards aimed specifically at independent and non-major parties -- discriminatory petition signatures and filing fees, excessive petition signature requirements, compressed petition time periods and unrealistically early filing deadlines -- should be prohibited."
The 230 people in the poll voted for option (b) by a margin of 82% to 13%. This was an in-depth poll, in which all the participants attended forums on the issues they were later asked to react to.
For more details on the poll, contact Lawrence N. Hansen, Director, Democracy Agenda Project, at (202)-994-1598.
See this note about tables.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | GREEN | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 12,157 | 12,157 | 700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 9 | Sep 9 |
| Alaska | no procedure | 2,586 | 0 | 0 | already on | 0 | -- | Aug 22 |
| Arizona | 19,827 | (es) 7,000 | *finished | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 21 | Jun 30 |
| Arkansas | 28,520 | 10,000 | too late | already on | too late | too late | Jan 4 | May 1 |
| California | (reg) 78,992 | 151,015 | already on | too late | already on | already on | Jan 4 | Aug 12 |
| Colorado | no procedure | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 2 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 11,412 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 12 |
| Delaware | (reg.) 159 | 3,170 | already on | *136 | 5 | 75 | Aug 20 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 2,600 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 31 |
| Florida | 196,255 | 196,255 | 0 | *0 | 0 | 0 | *Jul 21 | *Jul 21 |
| Georgia | 31,771 | 31,771 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 12 | Jul 12 |
| Hawaii | 4,645 | unpredictable | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Apr 20 | Jul 19 |
| Idaho | 9,643 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | 350 | 0 | Aug 31 | Jun 24 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | *5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 8 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,909 | *40,000 | *need 4,000 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | *200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 19 |
| Kansas | 15,661 | 5,000 | already on | 500 | 0 | 0 | Jun 1 | Aug 2 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | -- | Sep 1 |
| Louisiana | (reg) 112,443 | 0 | 325 | already on | 38 | 0 | Jun 30 | Jul 29 |
| Maine | 26,139 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | *4,000 | 0 | Dec 15 | Jun 7 |
| Maryland | (es) 80,000 | (es) 70,000 | *0 | 6,000 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 1 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 33,000 | 10,000 | *2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 1 | Aug 2 |
| Michigan | 25,646 | 25,646 | already on | 0 | 0 | 500 | Jul 21 | Jul 21 |
| Minnesota | 117,790 | 2,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | May 1 | Jul 19 |
| Mississippi | just be org. | 1,000 | already on | too late | too late | already on | Apr 1 | Apr 8 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 1 |
| Montana | 9,473 | 9,473 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | Mar 17 | Jun 6 |
| Nebraska | 5,865 | 2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 30 |
| Nevada | 4,920 | 5,134 | already on | 0 | 1,200 | already on | Jul 7 | Jul 7 |
| New Hampshire | no procedure | 3,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 10 |
| New Jersey | no procedure | 800 | already on | too late | too late | too late | -- | Apr 14 |
| New Mexico | 2,850 | 17,100 | *finished | 0 | already on | 0 | Jul 12 | Jul 12 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 23 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 70,000 | 0 | 6,000 | 0 | 0 | Jul 14 | Jun 24 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 15 | Sep 9 |
| Ohio | 49,399 | 5,000 | too late | too late | too late | *already on | Jan 6 | May 3 |
| Oklahoma | 69,518 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 31 | Jul 13 |
| Oregon | 16,681 | (att.) 1,000 | already on | already on | need 2,500 | 0 | Aug 30 | Aug 30 |
| Pennsylvania | no procedure | *23,294 | *8,000 | *11,000 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | no procedure | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 21 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | 0 | already on | in doubt | Aug 1 |
| South Dakota | 6,419 | 2,568 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 5 | Aug 2 |
| Tennessee | 19,759 | 25 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | May 1 | May 19 |
| Texas | 38,900 | 38,900 | already on | *in court | *too late | *too late | May 22 | May 12 |
| Utah | 500 | 300 | already on | 0 | too late | too late | Mar 15 | Mar 17 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 22 | Sep 22 |
| Virginia | no procedure | 14,871 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jun 14 |
| Washington | no procedure | unpredictable | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 2 |
| West Virginia | no procedure | 4,044 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | May 9 |
| Wisconsin | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | *finished | Jun 1 | Jul 12 |
| Wyoming | 8,000 | 9,849 | *already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 29 |
Other nat. parties on statewide ballots: Soc. Wrkrs. in N.J., Utah; Nat. Law in Nev., N.J., Tn.; Populist in Nev.; Wrkers Wrld in Mich.; Amer. in Utah; *New Party in Wis. "FULL PARTY REQ." is a procedure by which a new party can qualify before it nominates candidates; not every state has such a procedure. Populist Party has *16,000 signatures in Georgia. * -- entry changed since May 3 B.A.N. In Virginia, both Governor Wilder and Marshall Coleman are petitioning as independents for U.S. Senate. In Maryland, Libertarian gave up petitioning for 1994. Grassroots & Natural Law are organizing in Vermont.
In April, Alaska Governor Walter Hickel changed his registration from "Alaska Independence" to "Republican". He hasn't said yet if he is running for re-election, but it is likely that if he does run for re-election, it will be as a Republican (although he could also run as an independent). If he does run in the Republican primary, he must decide by June 1.
Hickel and Alaska's Lieutenant Governor, Jack Coghill, were elected as a team in 1990 as the Alaska Independence Party candidates. Coghill is running for Governor in the Alaska Independence Party primary, against three other members of that party.
On May 3, 1994, Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders, who represents Vermont, announced that he would run for re-election as an independent. He had earlier speculated that he might run for the U.S. Senate. He was first elected to Congress in 1990.
Members of the Lyndon LaRouche movement continue running in Democratic primaries. This year, so far, none of the LaRouche supporters have won any Democratic primaries for U.S. House of Representatives. However, one LaRouche supporter, John Taylor, won 45.6% of the vote in the Indiana Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, and another, Peter Schuller, won 41.2% of the vote in the Ohio Democratic primary for Governor. Both primaries were on May 3, and both were two-person contests.
LaRouche himself has asked the FEC for $575,338.99 in primary season matching funds, from his 1992 race for the Democratic nomination for president. He didn't receive any primary matching finds in 1992 because the FEC felt that he had broken campaign laws in previous campaigns, but last year a court said the FEC had to pay the money.
The Independence Party of New York (loosely affiliated with the Patriot Party) plans a strong campaign for Governor. Its candidate may be Richard M. Rosenbaum, a former state chair of the Republican Party, who also plans to run in the Republican gubernatorial primary.
Meanwhile, Howard Stern, Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, is at 11%-12% in various professional polls.
Art Edelman, Peace & Freedom Party candidate for Congress in California's 52nd district, was endorsed by the AFL-CIO on April 13.
On May 21, the Labor-Farm Party, a qualified party in Wisconsin, formally changed its name to the New Progressive Party, and affiliated itself with the New Party.
On July 23, 1989, the National Organization for Women passed a resolution to establish a commission, which would investigate whether NOW should establish a new party. Hearings were held around the nation during 1991, and then NOW voted to launch a new party, the 21st Century Party.
The party elected provisional officers and collected dues during 1992, but since the 1992 election, it has been completely dormant. Dolores Huerta, provisional chair, had hoped to build the party during 1993, but then Cesar Chavez of the United Farmworkers Union died suddenly, and Huerta had to turn her attention to the Union.
The National Organization for Women never mentions the 21st Century Party anymore in its literature. A handful of feminist activists still cherish the idea behind the party, and are protective of the party's name, but the party itself doesn't exist any longer.