| This issue was originally printed on gray paper. |
The threat that Congress will enact a campaign spending bill which discriminates against third party and independent candidates, has greatly lessened.
The only independent member of Congress, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, attacked the discriminatory aspects of S.3 in the Congressional Record of July 26. This prompted Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, one of the five Senators in charge of S.3, to send a hand-written note to Sanders, promising to work to delete the discriminatory portion of the bill.
Sanders also attacked the provisions in the July 25 issue of Roll Call, the daily newspaper for employees of Congress. Both the Congressional Record and Roll Call articles cited the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting, which the U.S. signed in 1990. That document pledges all signing nations not to discriminate for or against any candidates or political parties.
It is significant that no one has rebutted either of the Sanders articles. The articles attack Sec. 503(b)(2) of S.3, which provides subsidies to Democratic and Republican Party candidates for the U.S. Senate which are potentially 20 times greater than subsidies to other U.S. Senate candidates, regardless of the voter support for any particular candidate.
S.3 passed the Senate last year, but has never passed the House. The House passed another campaign bill which does not discriminate. It had been expected that a conference committee would resolve the differences between the two bills, and that a bill would be signed into law this year. Now, however, most observers feel that no bill will pass this year. And if one does pass, it is now less likely to contain sec. 503(b)(2).
For a copy of Sanders' Congressional Record remarks, send a SASE to Ballot Access News.
On August 5, federal judge William Orrick enjoined enforcement of the California law which prohibits parties from endorsing candidates in non-partisan elections. California Democratic Party v Lungren, no. C94-1703WHO, Northern Dist.
Orrick issued a 24-page ruling, rebutting all the fierce procedural arguments made by the California Attorney General in defense of the law. It is likely that Judge Orrick will soon hold the speech ban un-constitutional. The case will proceed, and probably addi-tional political party plaintiffs will join. The Democratic Party had won a temporary injunction on June 1, 1994, but this new injunction is permanent, until the declaratory judgment is issued, or unless the state successfully ap-peals.
On August 11, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Roberto Mondragon should be on the November 1994 ballot as the Green Party candidate for Governor. He will be the first third party or independent candidate for Governor on the New Mexico ballot since 1974.
Although the Secretary of State had already decided to put Mondragon's name on the ballot, she had been sued last month by supporters of the Democratic Party nominee, to force her to remove Mondragon. Patricia Madrid v Stephanie Gonzels, Secretary of State, no. 22,278. The vote in the New Mexico Supreme Court was 4-1.
The opinion is very short, merely indicating that the Court finds the election law "ambiguous" and stating that the ambiguity is resolved best by the legal arguments presented by the Green Party and by the Secretary of State. The dissenting judge did not file any opinion.
The issue was whether a qualified minor party is free to nominate someone who hadn't been a member of the party before July of the election year. The law forbids major parties from nominating anyone who has not been a member since January of the election year. The Green Party brief pointed out that in 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court had said it would violate the First Amendment for any state to tell a political party that it could not nominate a non-member.
The Green Party across the U.S. has won every ballot access/party rights case that it has ever filed: a 1990 victory against the August 1 petition deadline in Alaska; a 1992 victory against California over the right of a party to control its own primary; and this case. However, the California case is still under appeal.
On August 8, the Oklahoma State Elections Board confirmed that an unqualified political party may circulate a petition to place its presidential candidate on the ballot, before it has chosen its nominee. The petition may merely carry the name of the political party, with no candidate shown. On April 12, the Board had informally approved this policy, but now it is formal.
The ruling had been requested by the Libertarian Party, which won't know who its 1996 presidential candidate will be until July 7, 1996. The party is still waiting a ruling on the same subject from the Kentucky Attorney General, which could come at any time.
Florida, West Virginia and Maine are also problems for any third party which doesn't choose its presidential candidate before summer of the election year.
1. California: On August 10, the Senate Elections Committee passed AB 2218, which would provide that write-ins in primaries will no longer be tallied, unless the vote-counting computer shows that at least 1.5% of the voters cast a write-in vote.
2. Nebraska: LD 76, a re-codification of the election laws which was signed into law this year, was not supposed to make substantive changes. However, at least two changes were made, one helpful, the other not. Petitions for new political parties and independent candidate petitions can now be circulated anywhere in the state, if the circulator is a registered voter in the state. Formerly, no one could circulate a petition outside his or her home county.
However, write-in candidates must now pay the filing fee, or their write-ins won't be counted. Nebraska filing fees are 1% of the annual salary of the office.
3. New Mexico: A bill was recently signed into law which relieves major party candidates from circulating petitions to get on the primary ballot, if they are endorsed at a party convention. It goes into effect in 1996. Formerly, all primary candidates had to obtain the signatures of 1% of the party's last vote, just to be considered for endorsement. Now, no petitions will be required before the convention, and convention-endorsed candidates will be on the primary automatically.
The Mountaineer Party is not a qualified party, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled on July 21. Write-In Pritt Campaign v Hechler, no. 22394. The vote was 5-0.
West Virginia law provides that any group which polls at least 1% for governor, is a qualified party, and need not petition to place its nominees on the November bal-lot.
In November 1992, a write-in candidate for Governor, Charlotte Pritt, polled 7% of the vote. She had lost the Democratic primary but some of her die-hard sup-porters organized a write-in campaign for her. The or-ganization heading up the write-in drive was a PAC, "Write-in Pritt Campaign". After the election, the PAC maintained that it was now a qualified party, based on the write-ins. The PAC re-named itself the Mountaineer Party.
The Court said that there was no intent on the part of the voters who cast a write-in vote for Charlotte Pritt, to create a new party. It suggested that any group which wishes to qualify as a party, must create an organizational framework, such as by-laws or specific statements of principles, before an election. It also said that the candidate's affiliation and attitude matters. In this case, Pritt remained a Democrat and disavowed the Mountaineer Party.
If the Mountaineer Party had won the case, it would have been the first qualified third party in West Virginia since 1924-1926. For 1994, the Mountaineer Party had two candidates for the state legislature, but no candidates for statewide office or Congress.
On August 9, federal judge Jackson Kiser, a Reagan appointee, dismissed the case Wood v Brown, no. 94-cv-47 (Western Dist., Danville) without making a decision on the merits. The issue was the constitutionality of the June 14 petition deadline for third party and independent non-presidential candidates.
The candidate-plaintiff, George Wood, is not an attorney but was representing himself. He didn't counter the state's evidence, so the judge had to assume that it was all valid and had to rule in favor of the state.
The state asserted that the June 14 deadline was necessary in order to give itself enough time to check the signatures. This is absurd, since the Virginia presidential petition deadline is in late August, and Virginia always has three or four presidential petitions to check, and it manages to check them in time for the November election.
By contrast, Virginia hasn't had more than two statewide third party or independent petitions to check, in a non-presidential election year, in the entire history of the existing law, which dates from 1969. Thus, it is clear that the so-called state interest is not a genuine state interest.
On July 29, the Florida Court of Appeals upheld the July 14 deadline to file as a declared write-in candidate for president in the November election. Fulani v Smith, no. 93-96. Fulani will appeal.
Florida permits write-ins, because in 1979 the Florida Supreme Court said the State Constitution requires that they be permitted. However, write-in candidates who don't file a declaration of write-in candidacy by July, cannot have their write-in votes tallied. The July deadline to file as a write-in candidate defeats the whole purpose of write-in voting; generally, voters only wish to cast a write-in vote if they are dissatisfied with the candidates whose names are on the ballot. By July 14, voters don't know who those candidates will be; the national conventions of the two major parties have not been held; also, for other office, the Florida primary is in September.
The State Court of Appeals said that all the precedents cited by Fulani were off the subject. That isn't surprising, since Florida is the only state that ever had a write-in filing deadline that was five months before the general election. This is a case of first impression.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, in Anderson v Celebrezze, lower courts are suppose to evaluate deadlines by evaluating the "precise state interests" served by the deadline, weighed against the harm done to voting rights when voters cannot vote freely. In this case, the state court didn't devote even one word to the state interest in the July deadline. The judges merely said it was a "de minimis" restriction.
The decision is five pages long. Anyone may receive a copy of it by sending a SASE to B.A.N.
On July 29, a 3-judge federal court in Shreveport, Louisiana, invalidated the new Louisiana congressional districts, and drew up a third set of districts to be used for this year's election. Hays v State of Louisiana, no. 92-1522, Western District.
However, on August 11, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the action of the District Court, and restoring the second set of districts. The action was unusual, since the Supreme Court is in summer recess. The vote was 8-1; Justice Scalia was the only dissenter. There is no text from the Supreme Court.
The issue is whether a state may take race into account, when it draws congressional district boundaries. The 3-judge district court, composed of Judges Jacques Wiener (a Bush appointee), Donald E. Walter (Reagan) and John M. Shaw (Carter), said that it may not. Judge Shaw wrote that Louisiana has not discriminated against Black voters in election procedures, for over twenty years, and therefore there is no justification to discriminate in favor of Black voters now. The districts drawn by the legislature this year were clearly drawn to create two Black-majority districts, but they were not odd-shaped.
The U.S. Supreme Court action was good news for Congressman Cleo Fields, who is Black and now finds himself with a district in which 55% of the registered voters are Black. Under the 3-judge District Court plan, it was only 28% Black.
Louisiana extended the filing period for candidates for Congress twice. After the July 29 court ruling, the period was extended to August 10-12, and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it was extended again to August 15-16. In Louisiana, all candidates, regardless of party (even independent candidates), qualify by paying a filing fee. No petition is required.
On August 5, the 4th circuit issued an order, indefinitely postponing the election for Worcester County Commissioner. The election was to have been on November 8, 1994, and was to have been conducted using cumulative voting. Cane v Worcester County, 94-1579.
Worcester County elects its five commissioners at large, and even though 21% of the population is Black, no Black has ever been elected to the county commission. The U.S. District Court ruled that the county was violat-ing the Voting Rights Act, and gave the county a choice of dividing itself into districts, or using cumulative voting.
The county refused to make a choice, so on April 4, 1994, the judge picked cumulative voting. On appeal, the county attorney is arguing that the county does not want to use cumulative voting. The 4th circuit obviously feels it cannot decide the issue quickly, so postponed the election. Some of the County Commissioners had been looking forward to retirement, and are disgruntled that their own opposition to cumulative voting is forcing them to remain in office against their wishes.
On August 1, a 3-judge federal Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, upheld that state's congressional district boundaries by a 2-1 vote. The districts had been drawn to produce two Black-majority districts. Shaw v Hunt, no. 92-202-civ-5-BR.
The North Carolina boundaries are far less compact than the Louisiana districts. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had threatened the North Carolina districts (the case was then called Shaw v Reno), and had ordered the lower court to consider whether there is a com-pelling state need for them. The lower court ruled that there is: to overcome the effect of past discrimination. The lower court decision, signed by Judges Dixon Phillips and Earl Britt (Carter appointees) is 150 pages. The dissent by Judge Richard Voorhees, a Reagan appointee, is 48 pages.
It is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case again, or perhaps it will hear one of the other "racial gerrymandering" cases, such as the Louisiana case, or cases now pending in Florida, Georgia and Texas.
The August 1 decision did not discuss cumulative voting, even though many people have proposed it to solve the controversy. If North Carolina were divided into 3 extra-large districts, and each district were to elect 3 or 4 Congressmembers, cumulative voting would let substantial minorities (racial or political) elect a member.
On August 2, Justice Harold Hughes of the New York Supreme Court, Albany, refused to issue an in-junction against the State Ethics Commission, to prevent it from fining Howard Stern if he doesn't reveal his assets and salary. Stern v State Ethics Commission, no. 3868-94.
The ruling is three pages long, and merely says that many states require candidates to reveal information about their finances. It doesn't deal with Stern's point that the New York form is far more obtrusive and detailed than similar forms in other states. Stern argues that his em-ployer requires him not to reveal his salary. The decision has a somewhat sardonic tone, stating "The plaintiff al-leges that he is a celebrity radio talk show host and the candidate of the Libertarian Party for Governor."
Stern will pursue the case, but dropped out of the race on August 4. Fortunately for the party, the law provides for a "vacancy committee" to re-place candidates named on the petition who withdraw. The party need not choose a replacement until September.
On August 11, federal judge Constance Motley ruled that the New Alliance Party doesn't have standing to sue the FBI for investigating it, even if the FBI has no reason to believe that the party has engaged in criminal activity. She also said the FBI is free to disseminate negative opinions about the party to outsiders. New Alliance Party v FBI, no. 93-cv-3490, Sou. Dist., New York. The party plans to appeal.
1. federal law (1): on June 30, Green Party congres-sional candidate Joni Whitmore filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, alleging that it is unconstitutional for out-of-state residents to contribute to congressional races. Whitmore v FEC and Congressman Don Young, no. A94-289-cv.
2. federal law (2): On July 13, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y., alleging that the 14th amendment requires that candidates for Congress have relatively equal campaign resources. Albanese v FEC, cv-94-3299.
3. Ballot order: On August 11, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against Colorado law which mandates that candidates of qualified parties always get a more prominent spot on the ballot, than other candidates. Conte v Meyer, no. 94S-1877. The plaintiff is an independent candidate for the legislature.
4. Ballot access (1): On August 1, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against the New Mexico petition requirement for independent candidates, 3% of the last vote cast. Lobato v Gonzales, no. cv-94-863-JC. The lawsuit alleges that it is unconstitutional to force independent candidates to collect more signatures than new party candidates must collect.
5. Ballot Access (2): On July 20, the Independent Party of Virginia filed in state circuit court, alleging that the party did organize in time to be considered a "party" for the 1994 election. Virginia Independent Party v Attorney General, no. HE-773-1, Richmond, Div. 1. The party nominee for U.S. Senate, Marshall Coleman, is on the November ballot; the only question is whether he should be considered the party's nominee or not.
6. Ballot Access (3): On July 21, Lenora Fulani filed a lawsuit in federal court against New York petition technical requirements, which affect candidates running in major party primaries as well as third party and independent candidates. Fulani v Berman, no. 94-cv-0899, Nor. Dist. The case was assigned to Judge Con Cholakis, who once won a Bar Association poll as the state's best judge.
Since the case was filed, the challenge to Fulani's petition (to be on the Democratic primary for Governor) was withdrawn, but other primary candidates whose petitions were challenged, are in the process of joining the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs.
7. Polling place jobs: On August 5, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against a New Hampshire law which reserves certain polling place jobs to Democrats and Republicans. The lawsuit was filed by a registered Libertarian. Werme v Governor of N.H., no. 94-414-JD.
8. Dual nominations: On August 10, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Minnesota, over the constitutionality of a law which forbides any party from nominating a candidate who is also the nominee of another party. Twin Cities Area New Party v McKenna, no. 3-94-953.
The State Supreme Courts of Illinois and Oklahoma recently came to opposite conclusions, as to whether a term limits initiative should be on the ballot. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the Illinois State Constitutional provision on initiatives, was never intended to let people vote on this particular subject. Chicago Bar Assn. v. State Bd. of Elections, no. 77405, decided August 10. Therefore, the initiative to limit state legislative terms cannot be placed on the ballot.
However, on July 19, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a congressional term limits initiative should be on the ballot. In re Initiative Petition No. 360, no. 82,648. The Court rejected the idea that term limits are so clearly unconstitutional that the election should be canceled.
1. Georgia: An appeal has been filed in the 11th circuit in Libertarian Party of Georgia v Cleland, the case over 5% petitions for district and county office. No. 94-8803.
2. New York: The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to reverse the 2nd circuit, on whether elections officials must post a sign at the 100 foot boundary to a polling place, if they want to enforce a law against campaigning within 100 feet of the polls. The 2nd circuit said that such a sign is needed, or the law can't be enforced. Tuxedo Union School District v Cullen, 93-1906. A school board is in the case because the election was a school board election.
3. Pennsylvania: Briefs have been filed in Patriot Party v Allegheny County, no. 93-1884, in federal court in Pittsburgh. The issue is whether Pennsylvania can forbid the Patriot Party from cross-endorsing a Democratic Party nominee for School Board, when it permits major parties to cross-endorse each others' nominees.
4. Washington (1): On July 28, the Libertarian Party filed a petition for rehearing in Libertarian Party of Washington v Munro with the 9th circuit, no. 92-36620. The issue is whether a state can set one deadline for minor party candidates to qualify for the September primary, and then set a deadline that is almost a month later for major party candidates to file for that same primary.
5. Washington (2): The 9th circuit is refusing to delay Thorstad v Gregoire, 94-35222, a term limits lawsuit. U.S. Term Limits had asked the court to delay briefing until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the same issue in an Arkansas case, but the 9th circuit wants briefs filed now.
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 | *too late | *too late | already on | *too late | -- | Aug 23 |
| Arizona | 19,827 | 7,692 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | 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 | *finished | *too late | *already on | *already on | -- | Aug 2 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 11,412 | *finished | *too late | *too late | *too late | -- | Aug 10 |
| Delaware | (reg.) 159 | 3,170 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | Aug 20 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 2,600 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 31 |
| Florida | 196,255 | 196,255 | too late | too late | too late | too late | Jul 22 | Jul 22 |
| Georgia | 31,771 | 31,771 | already on | too late | too late | too late | 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 | *already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | -- | Aug 8 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,909 | already on | already on | *too late | *too late | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | *finished | *too late | *too late | *too late | -- | Aug 19 |
| Kansas | 15,661 | 5,000 | already on | too late | too late | too late | Jun 1 | Aug 1 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | -- | Sep 1 |
| Louisiana | (reg) 112,443 | 0 | *too late | already on | *too late | *too late | Jun 30 | *Aug 16 |
| Maine | 26,139 | 4,000 | *too late | *too late | already on | *too late | Dec 15 | Jun 7 |
| Maryland | 79,183 | 69,183 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | Aug 1 | Aug 1 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) *31,745 | 10,000 | *finished | *too late | *too late | *too late | Jul 1 | Aug 2 |
| Michigan | 25,646 | 25,646 | already on | too late | too late | too late | Jul 21 | Jul 21 |
| Minnesota | 117,790 | 2,000 | *already on | *already on | too late | too late | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | 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 | *too late | *too late | *too late | -- | Aug 10 |
| New Jersey | no procedure | 800 | already on | too late | too late | too late | -- | Apr 14 |
| New Mexico | 2,850 | 17,100 | already on | *too late | already on | *too late | Jul 12 | Jul 12 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | *finished | *finished | *too late | *too late | -- | Aug 23 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | *70,882 | too late | too late | too late | too late | 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 | too late | too late | too late | too late | May 31 | Jul 13 |
| Oregon | 16,681 | (att.) 1,000 | already on | already on | *finished | 0 | Aug 30 | Aug 30 |
| Pennsylvania | no procedure | 23,294 | *already on | *already on | *too late | *too late | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | *22,669 | 1,000 | *too late | *too late | *already on | *too late | Aug 1 | Jul 15 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | *too late | already on | in doubt | Aug 1 |
| South Dakota | 6,419 | 2,568 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | 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 | too late | 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 | too late | in primary | too late | too late | -- | 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 | too late | too late | 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: Soc Wrkrs in Mn, N.J., Ut; Natural Law in Mi, Mn, Nv, NJ, Ok, Tn, Vt; Pop. in Nev.; Wrkrs Wrld in Mi.; Amer. in Utah; New Party in Wis. "FULL PARTY REQ." is a procedure by which a new party can qualify be-fore it nominates candidates; not every state has such a procedure. * -- entry changed since July 26 B.A.N. Soc Wrkrs is finished in DC, Iowa, New York and is in the Wash. primary. Natural Law is finished in Iowa. Prohibition is on in Colo. Grassroots is on in Mn & Vt.
The United Independents Party of Illinois, loosely affiliated with the Patriot Party, was 10 minutes late with its petition, and therefore is off the ballot.
The state requires 25,000 signatures, but the party collected 60,000. The gubernatorial candidate planned to fly from Chicago to Springfield, the state capital, to turn in the signatures on the last day, August 8. His commercial flight was canceled. Because there were no other commercial alternatives, he quickly arranged to rent a private plane and a pilot to get him to Springfield, but by the time he got to the State Board of Elections, it was 5:10 p.m. and the door was locked.
Conservative groups completed petitions to place independent gubernatorial candidates on the ballots of Connecticut, Illinois and Pennsylvania this year. In all three states, the candidates are likely to poll enough votes to create new qualified parties, assuming they get on the ballot.
In Illinois, the Term Limits & Tax Limits Party turned in 42,000 signatures to meet the requirement of 25,000. Republicans are scrutinizing every signature to see if the number of valid signatures is as high as 25,000.
In Pennsylvania, anti-abortion activist Peg Luksik turned in over 50,000 signatures to qualify as an independent for Governor (her label is "Constitutional"). A challenge to her candidacy was heard in state court on August 17, but will probably fail. In re Petition of Luksik.
In Connecticut, talk show host Tom Scott probably qualified for the ballot, under the label "Independence Party". His campaign is not associated with the national party which formerly was called the Independence Party. He will probably poll over 1% and create minor party status.
Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska said on August 16 that he will not run for re-election. He was elected in 1990 as the Alaska Independence Party candidate. He changed his registration earlier this year to "Independent".
The AIP also lost its only state legislator, Carl Moses. He is running for re-election, but as a Democrat.
In 1992, the Federal Election Commission announced that it would eventually issue regulations on debates involving candidates for federal office. FEC staff has written a proposed regulation, which provides that organizations which sponsor candidate debates, must use objective criteria for determining whom to invite into the debates. The Commissioners have not voted on the proposal yet.
The Long Term View, journal of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, devoted its Spring 1994 issue to "Does America Need a Third Political Party?".
The Spring 1994 issue is 58 pages long and can be purchased for $3.95 from The Long Term View, Mass. Sch. of Law, 500 Federal St., Andover Ma 01810.
The Spring/Summer 1994 issue of the Bulletin of the CSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (which sponsored the Copenhagen Meeting agreement) contains three recommendations relevant to the U.S.: "(1) It is not up to an election law to determine how political parties should choose their candidates; (2) Individuals of all party affiliation (emphasis in original) should have the opportunity to serve on the central and local electoral commissions; (3) Clear and reasonable guidelines are needed for the registration of potential candidates to avoid de-regulation on grounds of minor errors."