| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
On February 27, 1995, the 10th circuit ruled that Oklahoma may ban write-ins for president at the general election, even though Oklahoma has the second most difficult ballot access law for third party and independent presidential candidates of any state (only Wyoming requires a higher number of signatures, as a percentage of the number of registered voters) COFOE v McElderry, no. 93-6151 ("COFOE" is the Coalition for Free & Open Elections). Oklahoma is one of 5 states with a total ban on all write-in votes.
The decision was written by Judge David Ebel (a Reagan appointee) and signed by Judges John Moore (Reagan appointee) and Kathryn Vratil (Bush appointee).
Oklahoma requires a petition signed by 3% of the last presidential vote, for third party or independent presidential candidate to get on the ballot.
In 1996, the 3% requirement equals 41,711 signatures. In order to obtain that number, a petition must contain at least 65,000 signatures, to take account of those which will be disqualified. At the normal rate for hiring petitioners, plus inevitable other costs, it would cost $65,000 for any group to complete this petition.
In the last five presidential elections only two third parties, Libertarian and New Alliance, have ever managed to put their presidential candidates on the Oklahoma ballot. These two happen to be the only two third parties in that period which have ever placed their presidential candidate on the ballot of all states.
Even some third party candidates who qualified for primary federal matching funds -- Sonia Johnson of the Citizens Party in 1984, John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party in 1992, and Lenora Fulani in 1992 -- were unable to get on in Oklahoma.
The issue is whether the Constitution requires Oklahoma to provide write-in space on its general election ballots, for president, given that it has such restrictive ballot access laws for that office (for other office, Oklahoma has extremely easy ballot access laws for independent candidates).
Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hawaii's ban on write-ins in 1992 in Burdick v Takushi, that was in the context that the plaintiff-voter wanted to write in a candidate for the legislature in the primary, and anyone could have been on that ballot with 15 signatures. Since ballot access was so easy, the Supreme Court thought the plaintiff's rights were only slightly burdened.
The decision says that Oklahoma access laws are no more difficult than Hawaii's. It describes Hawaii procedures for non-presidential independent candidates, but doesn't mention the Hawaii procedures for third party and independent presidential candidates. Thus it was able to disguise the truth, that Hawaii only requires 3,829 signatures, due in September; whereas Oklahoma requires more than ten times as many, due in July.
The 10th circuit implied that an independent presidential candidate in Hawaii must poll 10% of the vote in a primary; the truth is that Hawaii doesn't even have a presidential primary. Since COFOE's brief emphasized the Hawaii presidential procedure, and the point was also made at oral argument, one can only conclude that Judge Ebel hoped to deceive those who read his opinion.
The 10th circuit opinion said that the state has an interest in stopping factionalism, and therefore it may prevent voters from voting for weak candidates. The idea that factionalism is bad is from The Federalist Papers, by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.
Factionalism, they said, was an evil, but they meant how elected officials and pressure groups act after an election, not the election process itself.
Madison and Hamilton wrote that voters be allowed to vote freely for the candidate of their choice. Madison said "A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected, as the number authorized to elect" 2 Farrand 249-250. Hamilton said "The people should choose whom they please to govern them". 2 Elliot's Debates 257.
In November 1992, the various third party and independent candidates who were not on the Oklahoma ballot, polled 361,944 votes. Oklahoma cast 1.33% of the national vote. Therefore, it is likely that 4,814 (1.33% of 361,944) Oklahomans would have voted for such candidates, if they had been able to do so.
If 4,814 registered voters in Oklahoma had been prevented from voting because of their race, their economic class, or their religion, any court would have been horrified. However, in this case, several thousand Oklahomans were prevented from voting for the candidate of their choice, because they happened to support parties which weren't big and rich enough to get on the ballot.
COFOE would like to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but must raise $1,500 for this purpose. Anyone who contributes at least $10 toward this will receive a copy of the 19-page decision. Although COFOE can be reached at PO Box 20263, London Terrace Sta., New York NY 10011, for a faster response write COFOE at PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.
Also, a petition for rehearing may be filed in the 10th Circuit.
On March 2, the 8th Circuit ruled that if a state tells a political party that it must nominate by primary, then the state must pay for that primary. Arkansas Republican Party v Faulkner, no. 94-1684. The state is not appealing, and HB 1883 has already been introduced to provide that the state will pay for primaries.
Arkansas had been the only state which still required parties to pay for primaries, unless the county government chose to pay for them (most counties didn't volunteer). The Republican Party had lost in the lower court; the 8th circuit reversed. The decision was written by Judge Gerald Heaney (a Johnson appointee) and signed by Judges Donald Lay (Johnson) and James Loken (Bush).
One could conceivably use the logic of the decision to argue that if a qualified political party (one that has already met the state's criteria to qualify as a "party") is required by state law to nominate by petition, then the state should pay for that petitioning process. Maryland and Pennsylvania laws have this characteristic. However, Maryland and Pennsylvania aren't in the 8th circuit.
On November 30, 1994, the Louisiana Supreme Court struck down a state law, making it illegal to petition within 500 feet of any polling place on election day. State v Schirmer, 646 So 2d 890. The vote was 4-3.
The decision was surprising, since the same law had been upheld in federal court in 1993.
On January 16, the 2nd circuit refused the Libertarian Party request for a rehearing in Schulz v Berman, the case over whether New York may require the precinct number and legislative district number to be added to petitions, for all signers. The party plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a split in the circuits, since the 5th circuit struck down a similar Texas law in 1988.
On January 11, a lower Florida State Court upheld discriminatory practices for distribution of filing fees. Florida filing fees are the nation's highest, at 7.5% of the salary of the office being sought (almost $10,000 for U.S. Congress, for example). Libertarian Party v Smith, no. 93-5017, Leon Co.
When a Republican or a Democrat pays a filing fee, the government turns over one-fifth of it to the candidate's party; but if a minor party candidate pays a filing fee, the government keeps all of the money. Judge L. Ralph Smith felt this was constitutional. The Libertarian Party is appealing.
On February 21, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Romer v Evans, no. 94-1039. Although the case is not an election law case, it could have a major impact on election law, particularly laws which openly discriminate against small political parties.
Evans v Romer, the name of the case when it was in the Colorado Supreme Court, struck down a Colorado initiative which made it illegal for any Colorado city to outlaw discrimination against gay people, whether by local initiative or by action of a city council. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down the law on the basis that the U.S. Constitution guarantees "all identifiable groups the right to participate equally in the political process."
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court and upholds this principle, a powerful precedent would be created, that states cannot discriminate against small political parties. For example, Florida's law mandating that large political parties get a filing fee rebate, whereas small ones do not (see article above), could no longer pass muster; neither could New Hampshire's law, providing that only the two largest parties may appoint polling place officials.
1. federal law: On January 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, ruled that a voter's ballot is tangible property with an intrinsic value in itself to the voter. U.S. v DeFries, 94-3110. This ruling made it possible for the federal mail fraud statutes to be applied to a case of vote fraud, in a pending criminal case.
2. Arkansas: On Feb. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Langguth v McKuen, no. 94-829. The case challenged the Arkansas May 1 petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates.
3. Georgia: the Libertarian Party has filed an appeal in the 11th circuit in Chandler v Miller, over Georgia's law requiring all candidates for state office to be tested for illegal drug use, before they can be on the ballot.
4. Maryland: On Feb. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Worcester County, Maryland, which was fighting an order telling it that it could no longer elect County Commissioners on an at-large basis. Worcester County v Cane, no. 94-1579. The Supreme Court action makes it even more likely that the County will be forced to use cumulative voting in its next general election for commissioners, although there is a faint chance that the 4th circuit will upset that.
5. Racial gerrymandering: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases in late April: Miller v Johnson, no. 94-631, from Georgia; and Louisiana v Hays, no. 94-558. These concern whether it is constitutional for state legislatures to draw congressional district boundaries with the intent of guaranteeing racial minorities districts in which they hold a majority.
Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont will be the chief co-sponsor for the ballot access reform bill in Congress. The lobbying firm Ross-Green (see back page for their address) is already rounding up co-sponsors. The bill outlaws restrictive ballot access laws for candidates for federal office.
1. Colorado: both Houses of the legislature have passed one or another bill to improve ballot access. HB 1022, by Rep. Tupa, passed the House on Feb. 6 and passed the State Senate State Affairs Committee on Feb. 24. SB 28, by Senator Mares, passed the Senate on Jan. 30. Therefore, it is likely that some version of one of these bills will be enacted. Generally, the bills lower petition requirements and ease procedures.
2. Maryland: on March 3, the Senate Economic & Environment committee passed SB 261, which dramatically improves ballot access. The vote was 9-2. It lowers the petition requirements for statewide office to 20,000 (from 70,000), and district petitions from 3% to 1% of the registered voters.
Credit for this development goes to activists from the Libertarian Party, the Natural Law Party, and United We Stand America, who testified ably at the hearing.
1. Maine: Rep. Royce Perkins recently introduced HB 495, which would change the presidential independent petition deadline from early June to August 1.
2. Michigan: HB 4449, by Rep. Beverly Hammerstrom, would provide that write-in candidates who wish to have their write-ins tallied must file a declaration of write-in candidacy, shortly before the election. Under existing Michigan practice, only presidential write-in candidates get their votes tallied and recorded; write-in candidates for other office don't get tallied at the state level.
3. Nebraska: LR 6, which lowers the number of signatures needed for a statewide initiative, passed the Government Committee on Feb. 22.
4. New Mexico: SB 1051, by Senator Duncan Scott, would lower the number of signatures for independent candidates.
HB 1128 would delete all references in the election code to an assumption that there are always only two major parties.
5. New York: AB 645, introduced on Jan. 10, would let candidates and parties correct minor errors in their petitions after they had been filed.
AB 1173, introduced Jan. 18, would instruct courts to construe the election law liberally so as not to defeat petitions for miniscule errors.
AB 1150, introduced Jan. 18, would abolish the requirement that statewide petitions contain at least 100 signatures from each of half the congressional districts in the state.
6. North Dakota: SB 2453, which expands the write-in filing declaration of candidacy from president, to all office, passed the Senate on Feb. 16.
7. South Carolina: SB 443 would legalize write-ins for president at the general election. A similar bill is being introduced in the House.
8. West Virginia: On Jan. 15, Rep. Margaret Miller introduced HB 2488, which would let voters sign a third party or independent candidate petition, even if they also vote in a major party primary. On Feb. 23, Rep. Barbara Fleischauer introduced HB 2693, which would move the petition deadline for non-presidential third party and independent candidates from May to August.
1. Arizona: SB 1138, which makes it more difficult for a write-in candidate in a primary to receive his or her party's nomination, passed the Senate unanimously on Feb. 13, and passed the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 22.
2. Arkansas: Two bills, HB 1658 and SB 461, would move the filing deadline for a non-presidential candidate from May to April. However, after it was pointed out to legislators that a federal court in 1977 had ruled the old Arkansas independent candidate deadline of April unconstitutional, the bills were dropped.
3. Connecticut: Three bills to outlaw dual nominations had a hearing on Feb. 21, but no action has been taken on them yet. They are SB 145, HB 5924, and HB 6178. "Dual nominations" means that two parties may jointly nominate the same candidate.
4. Florida: A bill drafted by the Elections Committees originally changed the petition deadline for non-presidential third party and independent candidates from July to April. However, the bill has now been revised to delete this change.
Credit for this change goes to Dan Walker, a Libertarian Party activist who has been lobbying for better ballot access.
5. Idaho: HB 270, sponsored by the House Committee which handles election law bills (the State Affairs Committee), would require independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy in March; their petitions would still be due in June.
6. New Hampshire: HB 333 has been amended to eliminate qualified political parties with less than 1% of the registration. This bill would force the Libertarian Party to either double its registration, or lose its place on the ballot. The bill is pending in the House Committee on Constitutional & Statutory Revision.
7. New Mexico: HB 1079, by Rep. Ed Sandoval, would increase the petition requirement for newly-qualified major parties to nominate candidates in their own primaries, and would increase the signature requirement for minor party candidates six-fold. It would also move the deadline for a new party petition from July to February. It was tabled in committee on Saturday, March 2, after many activists testified against the bill, but it could be revived at any time.
8. Oklahoma: HB 1032, by Rep. Kevin Cox, would make it illegal to pay initiative petition circulators per signature. It passed the House on March 1.
See this note about tables.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | GREEN | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | *6,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 2 | Aug 31 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | 100 | already on | already on | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Arizona | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | (rg)*8,200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 21 | Jun 30 |
| Arkansas | 21,506 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 15 |
| California | (reg) 89,006 | 147,238 | already on | (reg) 466 | already on | already on | Oct 24 95 | Aug 9 |
| Colorado | no procedure | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 6 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 7,500 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 7 |
| Delaware | (es) (reg.) 180 | (es) 3,600 | already on | (reg) 130 | (reg) 5 | (reg) 168 | Aug 17 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 3,200 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| Florida | 196,788 | 65,596 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 16 | Jul 15 |
| Georgia | 30,036 | 30,036 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 9 | Jul 9 |
| Hawaii | 4,889 | 3,829 | already on | 0 | *1,000 | 0 | Apr 24 | Sep 6 |
| Idaho | 9,644 | 4,822 | already on | 0 | 350 | 0 | Aug 31 | Aug 26 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 5 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,822 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 16 |
| Kansas | 16,418 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jun 1 | Aug 6 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 29 |
| Louisiana | 0 | 0 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | Jun 30 | Aug 29 |
| Maine | 25,551 | 4,000 | can't start | can't start | already on | can't start | De 14 95 | Jun 4 |
| Maryland | 10,000 | (es) 75,000 | *6,000 | 0 | 0 | *1,000 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 34,000 | 10,000 | already on | (reg) 13 | (reg) 40 | 0 | Jul 1 | Jul 30 |
| Michigan | 30,891 | 30,891 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 18 | Jul 18 |
| Minnesota | 89,731 | 2,000 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | May 1 | Sep 10 |
| Mississippi | just be org. | 1,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | already on | Apr 1 | Sep 6 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Montana | 10,471 | 10,471 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Mar 14 | Jul 31 |
| Nebraska | 5,741 | 2,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 27 |
| Nevada | 3,761 | 3,761 | already on | 0 | 1,000 | already on | Jul 11 | Jul 11 |
| New Hampshire | no procedure | 3,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 7 |
| New Jersey | no procedure | 800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 29 |
| New Mexico | 2,339 | 14,029 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Jul 9 | Sep 10 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 80,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | in doubt | Jun 28 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 12 | Sep 6 |
| Ohio | 33,463 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | *2,000 | Nv 20 95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 31 | Jul 15 |
| Oregon | 18,316 | 14,601 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | Aug 27 | Aug 27 |
| Penn. | no procedure | (es) 30,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | 18,069 | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | Aug 1 | Sep 6 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | 0 | already on | May 5 | Aug 1 |
| South Dakota | 7,792 | 3,117 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 2 | Aug 6 |
| Tennessee | 37,179 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 20 |
| Texas | 43,963 | 61,541 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 19 | May 9 |
| Utah | 500 | 300 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 1 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 19 | Sep 19 |
| Virginia | no procedure | (es) 16,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 23 |
| Washington | no procedure | 200 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 6 |
| West Virginia | no procedure | 6,837 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 1 |
| Wisconsin | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | already on | Jun 1 | Sep 3 |
| Wyoming | 8,000 | 9,810 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 25 |
Natural Law Party has 10,000 registrants in Calif., and is on in Nev & Vt. Other nationally-organized parties already on: Grassrts in Vt.; New Pty in Wis.; Wrkrs World in Mi. "FULL PARTY REQ." is a procedure by which a new party can qualify before it chooses candidates; not every state has such a procedure. Az. parties need either 15,062 pet. sigs. OR 14,500 registrants. "Already on" in Patriot column for Ak and Ct. is only good for president, not other office. In some states it is possible to start the full party procedure now, but not the candidate procedure; for these states, the entry refers to the more commonly-used method. * - entry changed since last table.
| NO. SEATS UP | Libertarian | Patriot/Indpdnce | Natural Law | Other | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ala. | 35 | 0 | 6,649 | 25.37 | 0 | |||
| Alaska | 10 | 1,041 | 14.56 | 0 | 0 | Ak Indp 861 (6.62) | ||
| Ariz. | 30 | 97,165 | 18.82 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Ark. | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Calif. | 20 | 58,460 | 3.49 | 0 | 0 | PFP 39,823 (3.73) | ||
| Colo. | 18 | 1,964 | 4.79 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conn. | 36 | 1,429 | 2.54 | 0 | 0 | Ct 108,894 (17.56) | ||
| Del. | 10 | 273 | 4.47 | 0 | 0 | ConC 8.20 (2.81) | ||
| Florida | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Georgia | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Hawaii | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Best 1,183 (7.07) | |||
| Idaho | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Illinois | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Indiana | 49 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Iowa | 25 | 459 | 4.86 | 0 | 2,895 | 19.87 | Grassrts 160 (.85) | |
| Kansas | 0 | |||||||
| Ky. | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| La. | 0 | |||||||
| Maine | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Md. | 47 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Mass. | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Mich. | 38 | 15,223 | 2.95 | 0 | 3,115 | 1.32 | ||
| Minn. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Miss. | 0 | |||||||
| Mo. | 17 | 1,301 | 2.37 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Mont. | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Neb. | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Nev. | 11 | 2,071 | 10.29 | 0 | 0 | USTax 5,341 (5.40) | ||
| N.H. | 24 | 6,576 | 6.41 | 0 | 0 | |||
| N.J. | 0 | |||||||
| N.Mex. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Cn 328,316 (8.96) | |||
| N.Y. | 61 | 0 | 2,893 | 2.55 | 0 | Lib 62,818 (3.60) | ||
| No. C. | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RTL 60,454 (3.19) | |||
| No. D. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Ohio | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Okla. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Ore. | 15 | 2,097 | 5.22 | 12,891 | 11.59 | 0 | ||
| Penn. | 25 | 13,505 | 5.00 | 2,045 | 2.90 | 0 | ||
| R.I. | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Green 343 (5.19) | |||
| So. C. | 0 | |||||||
| So. D. | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Tenn. | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Texas | 31 | 51,421 | 11.56 | 0 | 0 | SWP 282 (1.70) Ut | ||
| Utah | 17 | 5,043 | 4.61 | 0 | 0 | Indp 1,277 (7.70) | ||
| Vermont | 30 | 0 | 0 | 1,684 | 5.41 | Liby Un 308 (2.46) | ||
| Virginia | 0 | |||||||
| Wash. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| W.Va. | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Wisc. | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | USTax 472 (1.09) | |||
| Wyo. | 18 | 1,263 | 10.25 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL | 1,161 | 259,291 | 24,478 | 7,694 | ||||
The chart above shows the 1994 vote for third parties for State Senate. Next issue will include similar statistics for the lower house of state legislatures.
Abbreviations of parties in the "Other" column: Ak Indp = Alaska Independence; PFP = Peace & Freedom; Ct = A Connecticut Party; ConC = Concerned Citizens and refers to votes in Connecticut; USTax = U.S.Taxpayers; Cn = Conservative Party of N.Y.; Lib = Liberal Party of N.Y.; RTL = Right to Life Party of N.Y.; SWP = Socialist Workers Party and refers to votes in Utah; Indp = Independent Party of Utah; Liby Un = Liberty Union.
For each party, vote totals are in the left column, followed by the percentage received by that party in the districts in which that party ran candidates.
1. The Independence Fusion Party last month formally changed its name to the Independence Party.
2. The Tax Cut Now Party changed its name last month to the Freedom Party. Tax Cut Now was created for the purpose of giving the Republican gubernatorial nominee a third line on the New York 1994 ballot. The new name "Freedom Party" is to attract Black voters to support future Republican nominees who will also be the nominees of this new party. There was already a completely different Freedom Party in New York, although it didn't appear on the statewide ballot last year. The original Freedom Party may sue to block the Tax Cut Now Party's new name.
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 sponsors lawsuits to permit different parties to nominate the same candidate ("fusion"). 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. A coalition of political parties and other organizations fighting for civil rights for people who support third parties and independent candidates. Bx 20263, London Terrace Sta., New York NY 10011. (212)-691-0776.
5. COALITION TO END THE PERMANENT CONGRESS, favors more competitive elections for Congress, including easier ballot access. Tel. (800)-737-0014.
6. COMMITTEE FOR PARTY RENEWAL, Political scientists and others who believe that strong parties are needed for popular control of government. Dr. Bill Mayer, Pol. Sci., Northeastern Univ., Boston Ma 02115, (617)-373-4410.
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, 1417 NW 21st 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 congressional ballot access bill (it has no bill number yet) and has a lobbying office at 1010 Vermont, #811, Washington, DC 20036, (202)-638-4858.