| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it will hear US Term Limits v Thornton, no. 93-1456, the Arkansas case over whether congressional term limits can be enacted by a state. The hearing is likely in early 1995. The Court also announced that it would not now accept the Washington term limits case. Speaker Thomas Foley had urged the Supreme Court to let that case bypass the 9th circuit, but the Supreme Court said "no".
Arkansas congressional term limits were enacted by the voters in 1992, but in March 1994 the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that states cannot create their own restrictions on who can be elected to Congress. Although Arkansas law lets anyone be a write-in candidate, the Arkansas Court shrugged off this "loophole" as meaningless.
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Arkansas congressional term limits law, which is a ballot access barrier, is unconstitutional, it will probably be much easier in the future for other restrictive ballot access laws for federal office, to be challenged in court.
On June 1, federal Judge Claudia Wilken, a Clinton appointee, enjoined officials from enforcing a California law which forbids political parties from endorsing candidates in non-partisan races. California Democratic Party v Lungren, no. C94-1703, northern district.
The ruling is temporary, pending a further hearing to be held on June 30 before Judge William Orrick. In the meantime, the ruling enabled the Democratic Party to mail out literature advocating a vote for Delaine Eastin for Superintendent of Public Instruction, a non-partisan post.
The ruling was strenuously fought by the state of California and by the Republican Party, who both argued that the federal court had no right to hear the case, since the same issue is pending in state court. However, that court has still not set a hearing date.
On June 7, Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker signed HB 5528 into law. 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.
The bill goes into effect in 1995. It is the first bill that has passed in any state this year, changing the number of signatures needed for third party or independent candidates. In 1993 bills lowering the number of signatures passed in Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada and Oregon.
On June 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th circuit, upheld the Kansas independent candidate petition deadline of August 4. Hagelin for President Committee v Graves, no. 93-3314. The case had been filed in 1992 by the Natural Law Party, which submitted enough valid signatures to qualify its presidential candidate as an independent, but filed them a week past the deadline.
The decision was written by Judge Monroe McKay, a Carter appointee, and signed by Judges Bobby Baldock, a Reagan appointee, and Wesley Brown, a Kennedy appointee. All three judges had a good record on ballot access cases, but this decision was a disappointment. The decision admitted that there is no election administration-related reason to have such an early deadline, but it said that the state has an interest in voter education, and thus the deadline is necessary.
This conclusion is not logical, because qualified political parties in Kansas need not nominate their presidential candidates until the first week in September. Although political parties nowadays typically nominate a presidential candidate who won the most presidential primaries, there is no such legal requirement, and a qualified political party is free to nominate almost anyone it pleases for president. If Kansas feels that only two months are needed for voters to educate themselves about presidential candidates of qualified parties, why do the voters need three months to educate themselves about independent presidential candidates?
The decision did not mention the fact that Kansas law doesn't require parties to nominate their presidential candidates until September, nor did it mention a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case, Dunn v Blumstein, which said "Given modern communications, and given the clear indication that campaign spending and voter education occur largely during the month before an election, the State cannot seriously maintain that it is 'necessary' to reside for three months in the county in order to be knowledgeable about elections."
No evidence was presented by the state that the petition deadline furthers voter education. The Natural Law Party may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.
This was the first time any U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld an independent presidential candidate petition deadline earlier than the date of a major party presidential convention. In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v Celebrezze that such deadlines should not be earlier than the dates the major parties choose their candidates.
On June 7, a lawsuit was filed against Georgia law which requires petitions signed by 5% of the registered voters, to place third party or independent candi-dates for district or county office on the ballot. Libertarian Party of Georgia v Cleland, northern district, no. 94-cv-1503-CC. The case was assigned to federal judge Clarence Cooper, a Clinton appointee.
Among the co-plaintiffs are 4 candidates for the U.S. House. Georgia has not had any third party candidates for the U.S. House on the ballot since before 1943, the year the 5% petition law was passed.
On June 8, the 9th circuit upheld a Nevada law which says that no one may run for Justice of the Supreme Court who is not an attorney. O'Connor v State of Nevada, no. 92-16803. The decision was not surprising. No court has ever held that the U.S. Constitution forbids a state from requiring candidates for high judicial office, to be attorneys.
On May 27, federal judge Claude Hilton, a Reagan appointee, dismissed the lawsuit Froelich v Federal Election Commission, no. 93-1610A (Eastern District, Virginia), on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs argue that the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the amendment providing for direct election of Senators) mandates that out-of-state campaign contributions to candidates for the U.S. Senate may not be permitted.
The 17th amendment says Senators shall be "elected by the people thereof". Froelich argues that if "elected" includes campaign financing, out-of-state contributions violate the 17th amendment, and that if "elected" does not include campaign financing, then Congress has no authority to regulate campaign spending, since the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to Congress in other parts of the Constitution. Froelich is appealing to the 4th circuit.
Some legal scholars have been mulling over the idea that the 14th amendment does not permit some candidates for public office to enjoy a massive advantage in campaign resources that other candidates do not enjoy. These thinkers base their opinion on Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in 1966 which outlawed the poll tax (a tax levied on voters), and two other opinions in 1972 and 1974 which out-lawed mandatory candidate filing fees.
For a more complete outline of these ideas, see the article by John Bonifaz in Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 11, no. 2, 1993. It is possible that a lawsuit, utilizing these ideas, will be launched this year by an underfunded major party nominee.
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of residents to post signs on or about their own home. City of Ladue v Gilleo, no. 92-1856.
Ladue, Missouri, had a city ordinance prohibiting any signs around residences except signs identifying the occupants, "for sale" signs, and signs warning of safety hazards. The Court invalidated the ordinance, writing that "residential signs play an important part in political campaigns" and that the measure, by "eliminating a common means of speaking, suppresses too much speech".
Also, "Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practical substitute... Even for the affluent, the added costs in money or time of taking out a newspaper advertisement, handing out leaflets on the street, or standing in front of one's house with a handheld sign may make the difference between participating and not participating in some public debate."
The decision now sets up a potential conflict, and possible new litigation, over what happens when a Louisiana resident who lives within 600 feet of a polling place, posts a sign on election day. Louisiana bars political signs within 600 feet of a polling place on election day, and the 5th Circuit upheld that law earlier this year. A similar conflict exists in Hawaii, where no political signs are allowed within 1,000 feet of a polling place.
1. Arkansas: (See also this update.) on June 14 the 8th circuit refused to grant a rehearing to Arkansas Public Television, in Forbes v Arkansas Educational TV. Now the state TV network has 3 months to decide whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the station does appeal, there is a good chance the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case, since there is a split between the 8th and 11th circuits over the question of whether TV debates sponsored by public television must include all candidates on the ballot.
2. Georgia: On June 17, a hearing was held in federal court in Chandler v Miller, no. 1:94-1298-ODE, over Georgia law which mandates that candidates for state office get themselves tested for illegal drugs, before they can qualify for the ballot. It was impossible to tell which way Judge Orinda Evans was leaning. A decision is expected quite soon.
3. Maryland: there will be a hearing in the 4th circuit on July 21, in Columbia, South Carolina, in Cane v Worcester County, the case over the county will elect county commissioners this year by cumulative voting.
4. New York: Clerks for U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Ward have hinted that a decision will be out next month in New Alliance Party v New York State Board of Elections, the case filed in 1990 over ballot arrangement of parties.
1. California (1): On June 13, the Assembly Elections Committee defeated ACA 35, which would have transformed elections for Secretary of State into non-partisan elections.
2. California (2): On June 20, the Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 1518, which would provide that the list of registered voters is no longer open to the public.
3. Hawaii: the legislature adjourned without passing any of the bills to permit write-in voting.
4. New Hampshire (1): HB 449, which converts the general election ballot format from party-circle, to office-group, was signed into law on June 8.
With an office-group ballot, the voter must make an independent decision as to whom to vote for, for each office. By contrast, with a party-circle (or party-lever) ballot, a voter may cast a vote for all partisan offices, by making a single mark for all of a particular party's nominees.
5. New Hampshire (2): HB 531, which would have made it illegal for a political party to nominate someone who was also the nominee of another party, was vetoed by Governor Stephen Merrill on June 8. On June 22, the legislature failed to override his veto.
6. New Jersey: AB 1309, which would move the 1996 primary for all office from June to March, still has not been brought up in the Senate, and passage is considered unlikely.
7. New York (1): A 9371, which would change the 1996 presidential primary from April to March, failed to advance, and cannot pass this year. However, observers expect it to pass next year.
8. New York (2): S3853a, which would have eliminated many hyper-technical requirements for petitions, failed to advance and is now dead for the year.
Most states do not permit qualified political parties to nominate non-members, for public office. However, Delaware does permit it, and a special election for the State Senate on April 16, 1994, shows how valuable this right can be for political parties.
The Republican Party nominated Margaret Henry for State Senate, 2nd district, even though she was (and still is) a registered Democrat. She won the election, despite the fact that 71% of the registered voters in the district are Democrats. The district is so overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republicans didn't even run a candidate there in 1992. The freedom of political parties to nominate the best candidate (in the party's opinion), regardless of the candidate's affiliation, is a valuable right that all political parties ought to fight for. The U.S. Supreme Court said in dicta, in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut (1986), that a party has a First Amendment right to nominate a non-member.
On June 11, the Green Party of New Mexico nominated Roberto Mondragon for Governor. Mondragon is a former Democratic Lieutenant Governor (he served from 1979 til 1983) and a well-known, popular figure.
The New Mexico election code seems to contradict itself as to whether Mondragon can be allowed to be the Green Party nominee. One general section states that no one may run as a party nominee unless he or she has been a member of that party since January of the election year; another section, referring specifically to minor parties, says that the candidate need only have been a member of the party since July. Mondragon didn't become a Green Party member until June 11. It is likely that the issue will end up in court.
The same legal controversy described in the above New Mexico article also faces several political parties this year in Nevada. The Libertarian, U.S. Taxpayers and Natural Law Parties are qualified in Nevada. They have all nominated some candidates who are now members, but whom have not been members since last year.
As in New Mexico, the issue will probably go to court. In addition to the constitutional issue, there is a problem interpreting Nevada law, since the law exempts new parties, and it's unclear whether it covers them, since they went off the ballot for not polling enough votes in 1992, but then were restored when a 1993 law took effect.
On June 7, a write-in candidate defeated a candidate whose name was printed on the ballot, in the Democratic primary for Congress, 11th district. The vote was Frank Herbert 5,976 (write-in votes); John L. Kucek 2,560. Herbert won because the Democratic Party organization mobilized behind him; Kucek is a leader of the Populist Party and was perceived as an "invader".
See this note about tables.
On June 7, the Green Party of California held a contested gubernatorial primary. Green Party results:
| None of the Above | 7,780 | 46.0% |
| John T. Selawsky | 3,529 | 20.8% |
| James Ogle | 2,824 | 16.7% |
| John Lewallen | 2,771 | 16.3% |
Since "None of the Above" is binding in the Green Party primary, the party will not run a candidate for Governor in November. Advocates of "None of the Above" in this primary favor the Democratic Party nominee, and campaigned with a mailing to all Green Party registrants who voted in the last election, urging a vote for NOTA, so that in November Greens would be more likely to vote Democratic for Governor.
The other qualified third parties in California did not have a contest in their gubernatorial primaries.
Congressional leaders are about to appoint a conference committee to work out a final draft of the campaign finance bill.
Both houses passed different bills last year. The Senate bill, S.3, provides that Democrats and Republicans should automatically receive more public funding than any other candidates, even if the other candidates have more public support (see B.A.N. of January 11, 1994, for more details).
Every organization which believes that official discrimination in favor of the Democratic and Republican Parties, is wrong, ought to be mobilized to protest S.3, the moment the conference committee is appointed. The House version of the bill, HR 3, does not contain any discriminatory formulas. Members of the conference committee should be asked to delete the Senate bill's discriminatory provisions.
To learn whether the conference committee has been appointed, and to learn which members of Congress are on it, call the congressional information office at (202)-225-1772. Ask, "Is there a conference committee yet for S.3?". If you can influence the contents of any publication, please get an article published about it. Third party publications have not yet covered this story.
The December 10, 1992 B.A.N. stated that the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) would hold hearings around the U.S., to find out what the public thinks about the election process. The commission which held the hearings was called the National Commission for the Renewal of American Democracy, sometimes called Project Democracy. The Harwood Group, of Bethesda, Maryland, took responsibility for holding the hearings.
Only three public hearings were ever held, in Dallas, Cleveland and Minneapolis. In Dallas, there was testimony from the public about ballot access problems.
The Report of the Commission was finally released in December 1993, but it attracted little press attention. Among the recommendations to legislators is, "To adopt reasonable standards to enable political parties to place their candidates on the ballot."
This is good, but vague, and there is no other mention of ballot access in the 53-page report. Anyone may obtain a free copy of the report by writing to Project Democracy, c/o National Assn. of Secretaries of State, 1225 I Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20005, (202)-682-2137.
According to Mike Simpson, an activist with United We Stand in northwest Florida, Representative James Kerrigan of Okaloosa County has promised to introduce a bill improving Florida ballot access next year (assuming he gets re-elected). Kerrigan is a Republican.
While the title suggests an imposing tome, here's a breezy initiation into the serious study of alternative parties. Political Science Professor Kruschke, of Cal State University at Chico, abstracts the third party works of others into 81 short sketches, listing after each his sources so readers can pursue more details.
Entries are alphabetical. Most ballot-qualified presidential parties are mentioned, as are some organized in single states, along with a few efforts drawing more publicity than measurable voter support. A chronological Appendix fixes the relative start of these minor parties. The combined personal name and subject Index makes this handy reference user-friendly.
Prof. Kruschke concedes this book's limits on his Preface. The "general reader and student... can (only) whet their appetites for further inquiry." His effort to gather information met with "some obvious obstacles" since he relied on an inadequate library.
Problems are clear from the start. The initial entry is the (Independent) Afro-American (Unity) Party of 1960, the first to gain ballot position for an all-Black presidential ticket. Yet just one of this entry's five paragraphs even remotely concerns details of the party.
With so many parties to review, errors were unavoidable, but some seem to defy explanation. The authors states the American Independent Party did not run a presidential candidate in 1984 despite his home state's tally of nearly 40,000 votes for an A.I.P. presidential ticket.
Published in 1991 at 223 pages, this book is priced beyond the reach of many. Prepayment of $65.00 avoids shipping costs for this hardback-only edition. Order from ABC-CLIO Press, 130 Cremona Dr., Santa Barbara, CA 93117, (800)-422-2546.
HR 1755, the Penny bill to outlaw restrictive ballot access laws in federal elections for third party and independent candidates, has been mentioned by the League of Women Voters. The National Voter, League newsletter, carries a letter to the editor in its Jan. 1994 issue, asking why the League does not support the bill. An editor's note says that the League has not taken a position on it.
Congressman Penny, who is retiring at the end of this year, still has not found a sponsor for the bill for the next session of Congress.
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 | *in court | 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 | *300 | *0 | *50 | *100 | -- | Aug 2 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 11,412 | *2,500 | 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 | *1,000 | 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 | *too late | already on | *too late | Apr 20 | Jul 19 |
| Idaho | 9,643 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | 350 | 0 | Aug 31 | Jun 24 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | *13,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 8 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,909 | *finished | *finished | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | *400 | 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 | *341 | already on | *40 | *1 | Jun 30 | Jul 29 |
| Maine | 26,139 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | *already on | 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 | *7,500 | 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 | *too late | *too late | 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 | *11,000 | *20,000 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | no procedure | 1,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | -- | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | -- | Jun 14 |
| Washington | no procedure | unpredictable | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | -- | Jul 2 |
| West Virginia | no procedure | 4,044 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | -- | May 9 |
| Wisconsin | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | *already on | Jun 1 | Jul 12 |
| Wyoming | 8,000 | 9,849 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 29 |
Other national parties on statewide ballots: Socialist Workers in N.J., Utah; Natural Law in Nev., N.J., Tn. and Iowa; Populist in Nev.; Workers World 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. * -- entry changed since May 31 B.A.N. Socialist Workers has 200 signatures in Iowa. Natural Law has 1,000 signatures in Mich. and 500 in Mo. Populist has 16,000 signatures in Georgia. Prohibition has 100 signatures in Colo.
Representative Don Gorman, one of 4 Libertarians in the New Hampshire legislature, is very likely to be re-elected this year, since no one filed in either the Democratic or Republican primaries to run against him. Republican leaders canvassed the district, seeking a candidate, but no one wanted to run as a Republican against Gorman.
Abraham Hirshfeld, an independent-minded millionaire, has formed the "United We Stand" Party and announced plans to qualify it for the ballot. Its candidates will be the same as the Republican nominees. Hirshfeld's party has no connection to either the Patriot Party or the non-partisan organization called United We Stand.
The Virginia Independent Party was organized recently, and it nominated Marshall Coleman as its candidate for the U.S. Senate. Coleman accepted the party's nomination. He had already petitioned under the independent candidate procedures to be on the November ballot. He is a former Republican Party gubernatorial candidate.
The Virginia Independent Party's officers are also activists in United We Stand, the non-partisan group formed by Ross Perot. However, the party and United We Stand are not officially linked. The Virginia Independent Party is also separate from the Patriot Party, which is also organized in Virginia.
Virginia general election ballots do not show any party labels for any candidates (except that presidential candidates get party labels), so the party's nomination won't affect the appearance of the ballot. Assuming Coleman gets 10% of the vote, the party then should meet the definition of "qualified party", but the State Board of Elections says only the Attorney General can say for sure, and he won't rule until after the election.
1. ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, has been for fair ballot access since 1940, when it resolved that petition requirements be no greater than of one-tenth of 1%. 132 W. 43rd St., New York NY 10036, (212)-944-9800.
2. CENTER FOR A NEW DEMOCRACY works to permit different parties to nominate the same candidate. 410 7th St. SE, Washington DC 20003, (202)-543-0773.
3. CENTER FOR VOTING & DEMOCRACY, for proportional representation. 6905 5th St., NW #200, Washington DC 20012, (202)-882-7378.
4. COFOE, Coalition for Free & Open Elections. Parties and other groups who lobby for better ballot access laws. Bx 20263, New York NY 10011. (212)-691-0776.
5. COALITION TO END THE PERMANENT CONGRESS, favors more competitive elections, including easier ballot access. Tel. (800)-737-0014.
6. COMMITTEE FOR PARTY RENEWAL, believes that strong parties are needed for popular control of government. Write Dr. Paul Herrnson, Dept. of Gov't., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md 20742.
7. THE DEMOCRACY PROJECT, gathers evidence that the U.S. violates an agreement it signed in 1990, pledging not to discriminate for or against political parties. Bob Waldrop, 1615 1/2 NW 20th St., Oklahoma City Ok 73106, tel. (405)-521-8831.
8. FOUNDATION FOR FREE CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS, Funds lawsuits which attack bad ballot access laws. Donations are tax-deductible. Write Richard Winger, 3201 Baker St., San Francisco Ca 94123.
9. ROSS-GREEN ASSOCIATES, initiated the Penny ballot access bill (HR 1755) and the Penny debates bill (HR 1753) and has a lobbying office at 1010 Vermont, #811, Washington, DC 20036, (202)-638-4858.