| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
In the 1994 general elections for federal, state and local office, 16.7% of the voters will not have any third party or independent candidates, for any office, on their ballots.
These voters include all residents of Arkansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, and West Virginia; almost all residents of Florida and Maryland; most of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Washington; and some in Louisiana.
This is in contrast to the 1992 general election, when every U.S. voter had at least four choices for at least one office on the ballot.
However, the share of U.S. voters with a third choice on their ballots, for at least one office, is better this year, than in any mid-term congressional election since 1982. In 1982, only 15.5% of the voters had no options other than Democrats or Republicans, for any office.
The share for each nationally-organized party is:
1. Democratic: all voters will be able to vote Democratic.
2. Republican: 99.8% of voters may vote for at least one Republican (everywhere except in the 3rd Louisiana congressional district).
3. Libertarian: 59.6% of voters may vote Libertarian (Az, Ca, Co, De, Ga, Hi, Il, In, Ia, Ks, Ma, Mi, Mn, Mo, Mt, Nv, NH, NJ, Or, Pa, SC, SD, Tx, Wi, Wy, and parts of Al, Ak, Ct, Fl, Id, Md, NM, Oh, Tn, Ut, Va, Wa).
4. U.S. Taxpayers: 21.3% of voters (all of Ca, Co, Nv, Oh, SC, Wi, and small parts of Ky & Ms).
5. Patriot/Independence: 20.6% (all of In, Mn, NY, Or, Pa, SC, almost half of Il, and small parts of Al).
(not included are one-state parties in Ct, De & Ut which share the ideas of the Patriot/Independence Party and which have candidates, but which do not have any affiliation with the national Patriot/Independence Party).
6. Natural Law: 16.6% (all of Ia, Mi, Mn, Nv, NH, NJ, Ok, Tn, Vt, and parts of Co, Ct, Ma, Mo, Wa).
7. Socialist Workers: 14.8% (all of DC, Ia, Mn, NJ, NY, Ut, and small parts of Al & Mi).
8. Workers World: 14.8% (all of Mi, and all of Ca, by virtue of Workers World's former presidential candidate Gloria LaRiva appearing on the Nov. ballot for Gov., by having won the Peace & Freedom Party primary).
9. Green: 14.6% (all of Ak, Ca, Co, Hi, Me, NM, RI, and small parts of NY and Wi).
10. Grassroots: 3.0% (all of Mn & Vt, part of Ia).
11. Populist: 2.5% (half of Nv, almost half of Il, and small parts of CO, NJ, Pa & Wa).
12. New: 2.4% (all of Wi).
13. Prohibition: 1.5% (all of Co, small part of Ma).
14. Workers League: 1.0% (parts of Mi & Pa).
15. American: .7% (all of Utah).
16. Socialist: .4% (part of NJ & Wi).
17. Communist: .1% (part of Il).
Last-minute changes could occur in a few states. In Colorado, the Secretary of State has had the Libertarian and U.S. Taxpayers petitions for 7 weeks, yet she still refuses to say whether they are valid or not. In Arkansas and Illinois, the Patriot/Independence Party is in court, seeking a place on the ballot; and in New York, the Libertarian Party is also in court. In Washington, it is very unlikely that any statewide third party or independent will receive the needed 1% vote in the September 20 primary, to qualify for the general election ballot, but it is conceivable. The Patriot and Socialist Workers Parties and one independent candidate are trying.
One-State Parties
Parties which are only organized in one state, and which have candidates in that state this year, are the Alaska Independence Party, the Peace & Freedom Party (Ca), the Independence Party (Ct.), Concerned Citizens Party (Ct.), A Connecticut Party, A Delaware Party, Statehood Party (D.C.), Best Party (Hi.), Right-to-Life (NY), Liberal (NY), Conservative (NY), Constitutional (Pa), Indp. American (Ut.), Independent (Ut.), Liberty Union (Vt.), Virginia Independent.
One-state parties which are qualified parties, but which have no candidates this year, are United We Stand (Ma), Prudence Action Results (La), and Pacific (Or).
On September 6, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that several U.S. Taxpayers and Libertarian candidates should be on the November ballot, even though they weren't registered members of those parties as of the legal deadline, Sep. 1, 1993. Independent American Party v Lau, no. 25822
The vote was 5-0. The court said it would issue an opinion later, explaining its reasoning.
Plaintiffs made two distinct arguments: (1) the statute doesn't apply to parties which nominate by convention; (2) the statute violates the First Amendment. It will be interesting to see which argument the Nevada Supreme Court felt to be persuasive, when the opinion is released.
This year, the Republican Party took legal action to keep third party or independent candidates off the statewide ballot in four states: Idaho, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. The Republicans enjoyed partial success in New York and Idaho, and complete success in Illinois.
Idaho: the Republican Party challenged all three independent candidates who petitioned for a place on the statewide ballot. Donald Hawkins, for Supt. of Public Instruction, and Gary Crider, for Governor, were removed from the ballot after the Republicans won a court order in the State Supreme Court against the Secretary of State, who had certified them. However, Ronald Rankin, another independent for Governor, survived the challenge. The Supreme Court order was Sullivan v Cenarrusa, no. 21490.
Idaho law says that any independent who submits a number of signatures 20% greater than the legal requirement, is "deemed" to have enough valid signatures. All independents in Idaho submitted more than 20% above the legal requirement, but the Idaho Supreme Court still permitted the petition verification process to go ahead. The Court did not give any explanation for its decision.
Illinois: the Republican Party challenged the Term Limits/Tax Limits Party and forced it off the ballot, even though the State Board of Elections found that the party's petition had been signed by 28,000 registered voters (25,000 were required). However, any Illinois petition circulated by an out-of-state voter is invalid. Although all the Term Limits/Tax Limits circulators were registered voters in Illinois, Republicans charged that some of them had no intent to remain in Illinois after the petition was over. The party had already spent $100,000 on lawyers' fees, defending its petition, and couldn't afford to pay for more hearings on the "state of mind" (as to residency) of some of its petitioners.
New York: the Republican Party challenged the Libertarian Party and the Independence Party (which, in New York, is now called the Independence Fusion Party). The Independence Party survived the challenge, although the Republicans now say they will continue the fight in court. The State Board of Elections removed the Libertarian Party from the ballot, although the party is fighting this in court. The Libertarians argue that the challengers never properly served Howard Stern, and the law required him to be served, even though he had withdrawn. A technicality such as this saved Paul Tsongas from being eliminated from the 1992 New York Democratic presidential primary. The Libertarian Party is also filing a lawsuit in federal court, against the requirement that precinct numbers and legislative district numbers be shown for every voter on the petition.
The Liberal Party of New York also challenged two statewide parties, the Freedom Party and the Pro-Choice Party, and these parties were also removed from the ballot. The United We Stand America New York Party never turned in any petitions.
Pennsylvania: the Republican Party went to court to eliminate Margaret Luksik, Constitutional candidate for Governor. However, the Commonwealth Court upheld her ballot position, ruling that she had changed her registration to "Independent" in time. Luksik v Martino, no. 339MD 1994, Aug. 18, 1994. Luksik does not hold herself out as the nominee of a new party, merely an independent candidate with the label "Constitutional". However, the effect of her candidacy will be to create a new party by that name, assuming she polls 2% of the winning candidate's vote, which she is expected to do.
On August 9, the 8th circuit upheld the Arkansas petition deadline of May 1, for independent candidates running for office other than president. Langguth v McCuen, no. 93-3413.
The vote was 3-0. Judges on the case were George Fagg, Roger Wollman and Morris S. Arnold. The judges acknowledged that no statewide independent candidate has successfully petitioned since 1978 (in Arkansas, candidates for president need not petition, so presidential elections play no part in the analysis).
But the judges failed to mention the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Mandel v Bradley, a 1977 opinion which said that early petition deadlines are probably unconstitutional if the historical record shows that independents rarely succeed in getting on the ballot.
The judges mentioned Anderson v Celebrezze, the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court opinion which said that independent candidate petition deadlines (at least for president) must not be earlier that the day major parties choose their nominees. But the 8th circuit panel only mentioned Anderson to discuss what that case said about the level of scrutiny to apply; the 8th circuit ignored the substantive holding of Anderson.
The judges also failed to mention New Alliance Party v Hand, an 11th circuit opinion which said that mid-April deadlines for non-presidential independent and third party candidates is unconstitutionally early. They also failed to mention other court decisions which struck down May or June deadlines for non-presidential independent or third party candidates in Alaska, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
Because the 8th circuit judges did such a faulty job, this opinion should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the independent candidate who brought the case cannot afford the estimated $1,200 printing for a petition for certiorari. His brief is due the first week in November 1994, if he files it. Anyone who wishes to contribute toward this appeal is encouraged to do so. COFOE may help pay for the printing. If you wish to help, make out a check to COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections), and annotate it "Arkansas". If the appeal does not go forward, your contribution will be returned. Write COFOE either at PO Bx 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147, or PO Bx 20263, New York NY 10011.
On Sept. 6, the Hawaii Circuit Court in Kauai ruled that the Green Party has a right to exclude candidates from its primary, based on the party's belief that the candidate is not a member in good standing. Cayetano v Goodwin, civ 94-0256. A few days later, a circuit court in Honolulu made a similar ruling. Cayetano v Wong, 94-3149-08.
Party rules say that all candidates must support the platform. Both Edwina Wong and Gregory Goodwin wanted to run for Governor in the Green Party primary, but neither was willing to appear at party meet-ings to explain their views, and both were known to sup-port ideas which conflict with the platform. Hawaii officials supported the party's right to exclude them. Both candidates sued, but neither prevailed.
On Sep. 2, the Richmond Circuit Court ruled that the Virginia Independent Party has not been in existence since December 1993, and therefore its candidate for U.S. Senate, Marshall Coleman, cannot be considered the nominee of this party. Va. Indp. Party v Board of Elections, HE-773-1, Div. 1.
Virginia doesn't print party labels on the ballot for any candidates (except for presidential candidates), so the decision does not affect Coleman's ballot label. It does mean that he gets an inferior spot on the ballot. It also means that even if he gets 10% or more of the vote, the party won't get credit for the votes and won't become a fully-qualified party.
The party did not argue that the law is unconstitutional, but it is free to do so in a new lawsuit, especially if Coleman does indeed get 10%. The Virginia law says that a party can't be on the ballot unless it was organized six months before the petition deadline. This is an irrational requirement, which has only existed in Virginia since 1969 and has never existed in any other state.
On August 17, federal judge John Conway, a Reagan appointee, upheld New Mexico law that an independent candidate needs a petition signed by 3% of the last vote, even though a new party only needs two petitions of .5% each. Lobato v Gonzales, no. civ 94-863.
The plaintiff-candidate, Francesca Lobato, hoped to run for the U.S. Senate. She does not plan to appeal, but has filed for write-in status. U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat running for re-election, intervened in the case and filed a brief in support of the New Mexico law.
Two other courts which heard the same issue, in Alabama in 1992 and Florida in 1974, ruled that it is unconstitutional to force an independent candidate to collect more signatures than a new party must collect.
Judge Conway only wrote one paragraph, stating that the independent petition "is not inherently more onerous than the burden placed upon a minority party candidate", without explaining further.
On September 2, the Solicitor General, Drew S. Days, filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to let him argue against congressional term limits, when the case is heard in that court sometime early next year. The case is U.S. Term Limits v Hill, no. 93-1240.
Days said in his motion, "Arkansas Amendment 73 poses a particular threat to the federal system in that it makes membership in the Congress dependent on regulation by the States." He did not expand that argument in his brief, which has not yet been filed.
Since 1910, third party and independent candidates for Congress have been elected in California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. If the U.S. Justice Department believes that "membership in the Congress" should not be regulated by the states, then it should support HR 1755, the Penny bill to set up federal standards for ballot access for congressional candidates.
1. New York: On August 30, federal judge Robert Ward, a Nixon appointee, upheld New York law on the order in which political parties are printed on the general election ballot. New Alliance Party v State Bd. of Elections, no. 90-civ-6226. The case had been pending since 1990.
New York puts the qualified parties on the ballot in the order of how well they did for Governor in the previous election. Unqualified parties are put on the ballot by random drawing. The New Alliance Party argued that one rule should apply to both types of party.
Judge Ward based his decision on the fact that plaintiffs couldn't prove that ballot position makes any difference in how people vote.
2. Oklahoma: On Aug. 25, a Republican legislator in Oklahoma filed a lawsuit in federal court against an Oklahoma law which names the Democratic Party and says it should always get the top line on the ballot. Graves v State Election Bd., no. 94-cv-1420.
3. Rhode Island: On Sep. 12, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court against a law which provides for a random drawing to determine which major party gets the top spot on the ballot, but which excludes other parties from that drawing. Healey v State of Rhode Island, no. 94-0484-B. It was assigned to Judge Francis Boyle (Carter appointee).
On Sep. 6, the 2nd circuit ruled that Lenora Fulani does not have standing to challenge the tax-exempt status of the League of Women Voters Educational Fund. Fulani was excluded from a League de-bate in January 1992. Since the League Educational Fund, which sponsored the debate jointly with CNN, has tax-exempt status, and since tax-exempt organizations must be non-partisan, Fulani tried to force the IRS to re-voke the League's tax-exempt status. The 2nd circuit ruled that since the debate had a co-sponsor, the exclusion-ary debate theoretically would have been held even if the League hadn't been involved, and therefore Fulani's injury from IRS policy was speculative. Fulani v Bentsen, no. 93-6205.
1. On August 31, the Libertarian Party of Florida filed a lawsuit in state court against the 3% petition requirement, which all third party and independent candidates must comply with (except for presidential candidates, who need a 1% petition). Libertarian Party of Fla. v Smith, no. 94-4143, Leon County Circuit Court.
Although various plaintiffs have challenged the 3% petition in federal court many times in Florida, no one has ever tried persuading state courts that the State Constitution bars the 3% requirement. The State Supreme Court has been very good in the past on related election issues.
2. On August 24, federal judge Lacey Collier, a Bush appointee, upheld the same 3% petition. Simpson v Smith, 94-30184. The decision is three pages long and ignores the evidence presented by the plaintiff-candidate, Mike Simpson, a candidate for Congress. No statewide independent candidate has ever met the 3% law, and only one independent candidate for U.S. House has ever complied with it. The independent petition was set at 3% in 1975.
A term limits initiative was removed from the ballot by the North Dakota Secretary of State, after he received an Attorney General's Opinion of Sep. 1, which defines "circulator" to be the person who physically carries a petition around from person to person.
The law says that only residents can circulate an initiative petition. Term limits proponents hired some out-of-staters to circulate the petition, and hired residents to witness the petition sign-ing. Proponents believed that this was legal; but it turns out that it isn't.
The chart below shows the number of third party and independent candidates on the ballot for U.S. Senate, 1970-1994. A similar chart for U.S. House, and one for Governor, will be in the next issue of B.A.N. This Senate chart shows the relatively high number of candidates this year, compared with past mid-term years. It also shows the extreme variation among states.
On August 17, a 3-judge federal court in Houston declared that Texas congressional district boundaries for districts 18, 29 and 30 violate the 14th amendment. The decision was 3-0 and said "the exclusively racial makeup of these districts harks back to the infamous 'white primary', which was condemned decades ago." Vera v Richards, no. H-94-0277.
On Sep. 12, a 3-judge federal court in Augusta, Ga., also invalidated a Black-majority district, Georgia's 11th. Johnson v Miller, 194-008. The vote was 2-1.
1. California: On August 25, the State Court of Appeals upheld a law which says that only registered voters within a city may circulate an initiative petition in that city. Browne v Russell, no. B078417.
2. Hawaii: On August 24, a Circuit Court upheld the removal of Libertarian gubernatorial candidate George Peabody from the primary ballot, on the grounds that since no one ran for Lieutenant Governor in the Libertarian primary, the party can't have a gubernatorial candidate. Hawaii elects Governor and Lieutenant Governor as a team in November, but they run separately in the primary. Cayetano v Peabody, no. 94-0592(1), 2nd Circuit (Maui). Peabody and the party named a Lieutenant Governor candidate after they learned about the problem, but the primary filing deadline had passed by then. Since Hawaii bans write-ins, it was impossible for the party to nominate a Lieutenant Governor candidate in its own primary.
3. Illinois: The United Independence Party filed a lawsuit to contest the State Board of Elections' decision that its statewide petitions were filed 10 minutes too late. Reed v State Board of Elections, no. 4-94-0778, 4th Appellate District. The party says it was on time and has the evidence to prove it.
4. Texas: A hearing was held in federal court in Austin on September 15 in Texas Independent Party v Hannah, no. A94ca175, before Judge James Nowlin. This case challenges several early petition and declaration of candidacy deadlines.
5. Washington: A challenge is underway in federal court to a state law which makes it illegal for initiative petitioners to pay circulators per signature. LIMIT v Maleng, no. 94-cv-162. A hearing is scheduled before federal judge Barbara J. Rothstein on September 20.
6. federal law: On August 22, Lenora Fulani filed a lawsuit in the 2nd circuit to overturn a Federal Communications Commission decision denying her equal time in 1992 when she was running for president. ABC-TV put Ross Perot on the air for over 2 hours, and let members of the audience ask him questions. When Fulani asked for equal time, ABC and, later, the FCC, said that the Perot air time was exempt because it was a "bona fide news interview". Fulani v FCC, no. 94-4100.
See this note about tables.
| State | 1970 | 1972 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1994 | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al | - - - | 3 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 5 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 12 |
| Ak | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 2 |
| Az | 0 | - - - | 0 | 3 | - - - | 3 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 1 | 13 |
| Ar | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 |
| Ca | 2 | - - - | 2 | 3 | - - - | 3 | 3 | - - - | 3 | 3 | - - - | 3 | 4 | 26 |
| Co | - - - | 2 | 3 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 4 | - - - | 2 | 3 | - - - | 21 |
| Ct | 1 | - - - | 2 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 1 | 14 |
| De | 1 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 11 |
| Fl | 0 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ga | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 1 |
| Hi | 0 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| Id | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 4 |
| Il | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 5 | - - - | 4 | 3 | - - - | 0 | 6 | - - - | 25 |
| In | 0 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Ia | - - - | 2 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 3 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 7 | - - - | 17 |
| Ks | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 4 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 10 |
| Ky | - - - | 2 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 6 |
| La | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 3 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 7 |
| Me | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 3 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 5 |
| Md | 1 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Ma | 2 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 2 | 10 |
| Mi | 2 | 5 | - - - | 5 | 0 | - - - | 4 | 7 | - - - | 2 | 1 | - - - | 3 | 29 |
| Mn | 2 | 1 | - - - | 4 | 5 | - - - | 3 | 3 | - - - | 4 | 1 | - - - | 4 | 27 |
| Ms | 1 | 2 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 5 |
| Mo | 2 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Mt | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 3 |
| Ne | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 2 |
| Nv | 1 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 4 | 2 | 13 |
| NH | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 4 | - - - | 9 |
| NJ | 4 | 3 | - - - | 3 | 9 | - - - | 6 | 5 | - - - | 3 | 3 | - - - | 7 | 43 |
| NM | 0 | 0 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 2 |
| NY | 4 | - - - | 6 | 4 | - - - | 5 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 5 | - - - | 4 | 3 | 36 |
| NC | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 6 |
| ND | 1 | - - - | 2 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| Oh | 2 | - - - | 2 | 4 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Ok | - - - | 3 | 1 | - - - | 4 | 3 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 14 |
| Or | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 |
| Pa | 5 | - - - | 1 | 4 | - - - | 4 | 3 | - - - | 1 | 4 | - - - | 1 | 2 | 25 |
| RI | 2 | 2 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 5 |
| SC | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 8 |
| SD | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 4 |
| Tn | 2 | 1 | - - - | 3 | 2 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 16 |
| Tx | 0 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 1 | 11 |
| Ut | 1 | - - - | 1 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 3 | 4 | 19 |
| Vt | 1 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 4 | - - - | 2 | 2 | - - - | 2 | 3 | 18 |
| Va | 1 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 1 | - - - | 2 | 7 |
| Wa | 2 | - - - | 3 | 4 | - - - | 0 | 2 | - - - | 1 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| WV | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 2 |
| Wi | 4 | - - - | 2 | 4 | - - - | 3 | 3 | - - - | 3 | 3 | - - - | 5 | 1 | 28 |
| Wy | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 0 | 0 | - - - | 1 | 1 |
| TOT | 44 | 39 | 40 | 66 | 41 | 55 | 48 | 40 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 68 | 50 | 585 |
The Aug. 23 B.A.N. said that a Colorado independent legislative candidate had filed a lawsuit against Colorado law for determining the order of candidates on the ballot. Colorado conducts a random sample drawing to determine whether the Republican or Democrat gets the top line, but third party and independent candidates do not participate in the drawing, and are always below both ma-jor party candidates on the ballot.
No sooner had the lawsuit been filed, when the Secretary of State ruled that the candidate-plaintiff, Joanne Conte, was being removed from the ballot, even though the Secretary of State had already certified her!
Colorado law says that no one may be an independent candidate unless he or she has been a registered independent for a year before filing a petition. The candidate changed her registration to "Independent" on August 2, 1993. The petition was due August 2, 1994. If the candidate had waited until the last day to file, she would have been in compliance with this law.
Instead, Conte submitted her petition a few days early. The Secretary of State accepted it, determined that Conte had enough valid signatures, and issued a certification that she qualified.
But once the candidate filed the lawsuit on ballot design, the Secretary of State revoked her ballot certification, on the grounds that Conte hadn't complied with the one-year prior disaffiliation law. Conte will try to obtain a court order putting her back on the ballot; unless this succeeds, she won't have standing to pursue the ballot order lawsuit.
On September 4, Harry Browne, author of How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, declared his candidacy for the 1996 presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party.
On August 29, the U.S. Justice Department told Georgia that a new state law, Act No. 774, will not be approved.
Act 774 reduces the need for general election run-offs in Georgia. It doesn't abolish them, but it lowers the threshold which triggers a run-off, from 50%, to 45% (that is, if no one polls 45%, a run-off is still needed).
The Justice Department is opposed to run-off elections, because it believes that they hurt Black candidates. Therefore, since Act 774 reduces the chance that a run-off will be held, it was surprising that the Justice Department vetoed the law. The Department says it did so because it would rather that Georgia abolished run-offs entirely. (?!)
Probably for the first time ever, "Fascist" will appear on a ballot in the U.S. this year. 24 states permit independent candidates to choose any partisan label they wish, as long as it doesn't mimic the name of a fully-qualified party. New Jersey is one of those states. Stuart Bacha, an independent candidate for Congress in the 11th district, in northern New Jersey, qualified and is using that label.
On August 23, Alaska held its primary. There are two primary ballots. One contains only Republican candidates, and only registered Republicans and Independents can ask for it. The other primary ballot contains the candidates of all the other parties (currently, Democrats, Greens, and Alaska Independence candidates), and any voter may ask for that ballot.
For U.S. House, the results for the non-Republican primary were: Smith (Dem.) 72.5%; Whitmore (Green) 15.3%; two other Democrats, 7.1% and 5.1%. Smith and Whitmore will advance to the November election.