| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
Alabama's House Bill 66, which would increase all new party petition requirements from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote to 5%, is very likely to pass the legislature in the next few days. The bill would also increase independent candidate petitions (for office other than president) from 1% to 5%.
Even though the bill was amended in the Senate Election Law Committee so that it did not raise the number of signatures (leaving only the provision against "sore losers" and changing the petition deadline from September to July), a parliamentary maneuver restored the numerical increases.
The House rejected the action of the Senate Elections Committee, voted again (89-11) for the increase in the number of signatures, and a conference committee upheld the House version, on July 13. The Senate is expected to pass this version of the bill this week.
Although Governor Fob James has told several people that he will veto the bill, the fear is that the legislature will override his veto.
If the bill passes, Alabama will be the only state to require a new party to collect signatures of 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, in order to get on the ballot for statewide office (although Georgia and Illinois require 5% petitions for district and county office, and Louisiana has a 5% registration requirement).
Even at 1%, Alabama's ballot is very uncrowded. In 1994, Alabama was one of only 9 states in which there were no statewide third party or independent candidates on the ballot. No partisan race in Alabama in November 1994 had more than 3 candidates on the ballot, and half the state legislative races had only one candidate on the ballot.
Alabama's HB 66 has no legitimate function, and is fueled entirely by a desire on the part of major party legislators to outlaw additional competitors. Anyone who wishes to write a letter to the bill's sponsor may write to Hon. Jack Page, State House, Montgomery Al 36130. In Alabama, Democrats and Republicans need not collect any signatures to get themselves on the primary ballot; but parties which poll less than 20% of the vote must petition. If HB 66 had been in effect as recently as 1958, even the Republican Party would have been forced to submit tens of thousands of petitions, before each election; whereas the Democratic Party would not.
(See also this update.)
On June 29, federal judge Russel Holland dealt a serious blow to the Republican Party of Alaska and to political parties in general. He ruled that a lawsuit filed in state court, over the right of political parties to keep their primary closed, must stay in state court, and not be transferred to federal court. O'Callaghan v Coghill, A95-0087 cv (HRH); see also Ross v State of Alaska, A-95-053.
The Alaska Supreme Court has already shown itself hostile to the right of parties to exclude non-members from voting in their primaries. See its tentative decision O'Callaghan v Coghill, 888 P 2d 1302, February 3, 1995 (see B.A.N. of May 4, 1995 for more details). Now the Alaska Supreme Court will decide the issue, and will have the last word, unless the U.S. Supreme Court should hear any possible Republican appeal.
Even though the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that a party has the right to decide for itself who should vote in its primary, the Alaska Supreme Court said earlier this year that that precedent doesn't control the Alaska situation.
On April 27, 1995, Washington state Governor Mike Lowry signed SB 5267 into law. It virtually bans write-in voting in the state.
The bill provides that declared write-in candidates must pay a filing fee, of 1% of the annual salary of the office ($1,400 for congress, for example). Then it provides that no write-in votes shall be counted, even for write-in candidates who have paid this fee, unless the vote-counting computer shows that there were so many write-in votes cast, that the write-in candidate might have won the election.
The idea that some valid votes should not be counted, clearly violates the 14th amendment. In 1973, in a famous footnote, the U.S. Supreme Court said "It has been established that the Equal Protection Clause confers the substantive right to participate on an equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the State has adopted an electoral process for determining who will represent any segment of the State's population." San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, at 59. In other words, all voters must be treated equally. The state cannot say that it will count the valid votes of some voters, and not count the valid votes of all voters.
Write-ins are especially needed in Washington state, since the ballot access laws (for statewide office other than president) are so severe that no third party candidate for Governor or U.S. Senator has ever qualified for the general election ballot, in the entire history of the law (which dates from 1977). Thus third parties depend on write-in campaigns. Now their write-ins will no longer be counted, even if their candidates pay the filing fee.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court made headlines by ruling that states may not draw congressional districts using race as a major criterion. Miller v Johnson, 94-631, invalidated Georgia congressional districts.
On the same day, the Court accepted two more cases on the same subject for its fall 1995 docket, from Texas (Bush v Vera, 94-805) and North Carolina (Shaw v Hunt, 94-923).
The Georgia decision may have important implications for third party and independent candidates for Congress and for state legislatures:
1. Proportional representation: the decision is a major boost for proponents of proportional representation. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga), whose district is now undone, expects to introduce a bill next month, giving states the right to use cumulative, preferential, or limited voting for elections to the U.S. House (current federal law mandates that states have single-member districts).
2. Easier petitioning: the Court's decision will lead to more compact districts, and it is easier to petition within a compact district, than a district which highly irregular boundaries.
3. Lower petition requirements: Florida law provides for easier petition requirements for district office, in years after reapportionment. It is virtually certain that Florida will be required to redistrict its congressional districts for 1996. A decision in Johnson v Smith, no. 94-20025 (federal court, Tallahassee) is expected by the end of the year.
Assuming redistricting is required, the Florida petition requirements for Congress in 1996 will be relaxed, just as they were in 1992, when nine independent and third party candidates got on the ballot for Congress (more than all other years 1920-1990 together, in Florida).
4. More interest in third party and independent candidacies: as a result of the decision, eventually there will be many districts with black voting populations of 30% to 40%.
If black candidates feel they cannot win the Democratic primary in such districts (all Southern states have runoff primaries between the top two contenders), they will be more likely to run as third party or independent candidates, hoping to win 3-way races in which their two opponents are both white.
No state requires a majority for anyone to be elected to the U.S. House at the general election, so it is possible to win a 3-way general election with as little as 34% of the vote.
1. Georgia: briefs have been filed in the 11th circuit in Chandler v Miller, 95-8230, over whether all candidates for state office must take a drug test.
2. Louisiana: On June 7, the state asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a law that no one can carry out any campaigning within 600 feet of any polling place on election day, or within 600 feet of any place where absentee voting is going on. Louisiana v Schirmer, 94-2022. The Court will probably say whether it will hear the case in October.
3. New Jersey: the Conservative Party is in state court, fighting to reinstate 7 of its legislative candidates who were kept off the November 7, 1995 ballot. The party needs all its candidates, because it must poll 10% of all the votes cast for state assembly in order to gain qualified status. There are 80 seats and the party will have either 61 or 68 candidates on the ballot, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.
4. New York: the lawsuit over whether the Independence Party should clear its party bylaws with the U.S. Justice Department, under the Voting Rights Act, is about to be settled. The party will submit the bylaws and will permit all factions of the party to nominate candidates for this year's local partisan elections.
5. Oregon: on July 13, federal judge Robert Jones, a Bush appointee, invalidated Oregon law which makes it illegal for anyone to contribute to a candidate for the legislature unless the contributor lives in the district. Zannatta v Keisling, cv-94-1541-JO.
6. Texas: briefs have been filed in the 5th circuit in Texas Independent Party v Hannah, 95-50172, over the requirement that independent candidate petitions contain the voter registration affidavit number of all signers, and the requirement that independent and new party candidates must file a declaration of candidacy in January, long before the petitioning period starts.
7. Virginia: the Virginia Independent Party, which polled over 10% of the 1994 vote for its candidate for U.S. Senate, is still not recognized by the state, on the grounds that the party wasn't in existence continuously from December 1993 until it filed its petitions in June 1994.
The party has decided not to sue over its lack of recognition, unless it hears from U.S. Senator John Warner that he would like the party's nomination for Senate in 1996. Warner might decide not to run for re-election as a Republican if he feels that the party won't renominate him. In that case, he would like the Independent Party nomination.
8. West Virginia: briefs have been filed in the 4th circuit in Hess v Hechler, no. 95-1951, over the May petition deadline (for office other than president).
On July 21, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber vetoed SB 319, which would have provided that all Oregon elections in the future be conducted strictly by mail. The Governor said such a drastic change should be made more gradually.
Congressman John Conyers (D-Mi) has now decided that he will not introduce the ballot access bill after all. He introduced it in 1985, 1987 and 1989, and earlier this year said he would introduce it again, but now he won't do it. He didn't explain why he changed his mind.
CORRECTION:
The June 29 B.A.N. said that the Labor Party had 1,000 signatures on its petition to qualify in Wyoming. Actually, it only has about 300 signatures so far.
Lowell P. Weicker, former third party Governor of Connecticut, has just published Maverick: A Life in Politics, the story of his years in politics, especially the years in Congress, 1967-1989, and as Governor, 1991-1995. The book is available from Little, Brown & Co. for $22.45, 200 West St., Waltham MA 02154, (800) 759-0190.
Because Weicker left the Republican Party in 1990 and organized a new party within Connecticut and was elected governor on its ticket, the book is worth reading for anyone interested in alternative politics.
Weicker, as Governor, was able to get most of his important proposals through the legislature, even though his party, A Connecticut Party, had no legislators of its own. Weicker and his party did benefit because Connecticut is one of the few states in which "fusion" or "dual nominations" is legal; at least once in negotiations with Republicans, Weicker was able to bargain effectively with Republicans, by promising that A Connecticut Party would use its cross-endorsing power to assist certain Republicans.
Also, at one point certain Republican and Democratic leaders, allied against a Weicker proposal, promised certain Democratic and Republican legislators that they would have no opponent from the other major party if such legislators voted against the Weicker proposal. Weicker and A Connecticut Party were able to defuse that threat by making it clear that any such Democrat-Republican legislator would have a vigorous opponent from A Connecticut Party.
Weicker also made his mark in election law history, while he was a Republican U.S. Senator, by being the person most responsible for persuading the Connecticut Republican Party to pass a bylaw, providing that independent voters could vote in Republican primaries. This was contrary to state election law, so the Republican Party sued, and won a landmark decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut.
The Court ruled that political parties have a right to decide for themselves whether to let independents vote in the party's primary, regardless of state election law. Unfortunately, A Life in Politics confines itself to only two paragraphs on this interesting episode.
A Life in Politics traces Weicker's difficulties with the Republican Party to 1973, when he happened to be appointed to the Senate Committee investigating Watergate, and when he soon became convinced that illegal activity originated at top levels in the White House; Weicker says that many Republicans never forgave him for disloyalty to the Nixon administration. A Life in Politics discloses previously unrecorded incidents from the Watergate story. The book is also worth reading if one believes that Weicker is a potential independent or third party presidential candidate in 1996, although the book provides no clues as to whether Weicker will run.
The Independent Party of Arkansas became legally qualified on election day in 1992 because its presidential candidate, Ross Perot, polled over 3% of the vote. It was the first third party to be qualified in Arkansas in the history of the state's current election law, which dates from 1969.
But the party (which has renamed itself the Arkansas Party) lost its qualified status in 1994 because it failed to poll 3% of the vote for Governor. The reason it failed to poll 3% of the 1994 vote was because the State Supreme Court removed the party's candidates from the November ballot, because it didn't hold a primary at its own expense.
Afterwards, the 8th circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional for Arkansas to require political parties to pay for their own primaries and to mandate that they nominate by primary. Consequently, the party feels that it should have been permitted to have its candidates on the 1994 ballot, and has filed a new lawsuit in federal court to demand that it be reinstated. Independent Party v Secretary of State, no. LR-C-94-762.
On May 31, the Ohio House passed HB 99, a 329-page rewrite of many election laws. The bill makes these restrictive changes: (1) "sore losers" in the presidential primary will not be permitted to run as independent presidential candidates in the general election, nor as write-in candidates; (2) write-in space would be deleted from ballots, unless a write-in candidate had filed a declaration of candidacy; (3) the deadline to file as a write-in candidate goes from 40 days before an election, to 50 days.
In addition, the bill re-enacts a law which was declared unconstitutional by the 6th circuit in 1992! In Rosen b Brown, Ohio law forbidding an independent candidate to have the word "independent" (or any other label) was struck down, but HB 99 re-enacts that same law.
However, the bill permits a group which circulates an independent candidate petition, to substitute a new candidate if the candidate named on the petition withdraws (the substitute must be chosen at least 76 days before the election). Previously, a replacement for an independent candidate could only be made if the independent candidate died before the election. The Senate will take up the bill when it returns from recess.
Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger died June 25, 1995. Like most other Supreme Court Justices, he became better on ballot access, as time passed and he learned more about it. Although he always voted to uphold petition requirements between 1969 and 1977, afterwards he always voted to strike them down, notably in 1983 when he cast the deciding vote in Anderson v Celebrezze.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | NATL LAW | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | *already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 2 | Sep 2 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | *250 | already on | *700 | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Ariz. | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | *12,300 | 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) *2,200 | *50,000 | already on | Oct 24 95 | Aug 9 |
| Colorado | no procedure | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 16 |
| 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) 150 | (reg) *20 | *finished | Aug 17 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 3,500 | 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 | *900 | 0 | Apr 24 | Sep 6 |
| Idaho | 9,644 | 4,822 | already on | can't start | can't start | can't start | Aug 31 | Aug 26 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | already on | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | 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 | can't start | can't start | De 14 95 | Jun 4 |
| Maryland | 10,000 | (es) 75,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 1,500 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 34,000 | 10,000 | already on | (reg) 13 | 0 | 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 | *3,700 | 0 | *200 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 27 |
| Nevada | 3,761 | 3,761 | already on | 0 | already on | already on | Jul 11 | Jul 11 |
| New Hamp. | 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 | 0 | 0 | Jul 9 | Sep 10 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 80,000 | *2,000 | 0 | 0 | *300 | in doubt | Jun 28 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 12 | Sep 6 |
| Ohio | 33,463 | 5,000 | 1,200 | 0 | *1,500 | *4,500 | Nv 20 95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | *7,500 | 0 | 0 | *1,300 | May 31 | Jul 15 |
| Oregon | 18,316 | 14,601 | already on | already on | 0 | 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 Isl. | 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 | already on | *100 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 1 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | already on | 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 Va. | 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 |
Green is on in Ak, Ca, Me, NM, and has 2,500 in Hi. 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 issue.
| 1992 primary date | 1996 primary date | Parties Entitled to a Pres. Primary (other than Dem & Rep) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ala. | June 2 | June 4 | |
| Ariz. | none | Feb. 27 | probably Libertarian |
| Ark. | May 26 | May 21 | possibly Arkansas Party, possibly others |
| Cal. | June 2 | March 26 | Amer Indp, Green, Libt, Peace & Freedom, maybe Natural
Law |
| Colo. | March 3 | March 5 | |
| Conn. | March 24 | March 5 | |
| Del. | none | Feb. 24 | Libertarian, US Taxpyrs, probably Natural Law, maybe
others |
| Fl. | March 10 | March 12 | |
| Ga. | March 3 | March 5 | |
| Id. | May 26 | May 28 | Libertarian, maybe others |
| Ill. | March 17 | March 19 | Libertarian |
| Ind. | May 5 | May 7 | |
| Ks. | April 7 | April 2 | |
| Ky. | May 26 | May 28 | |
| La. | March 10 | March 12 | Prudence, Action, Results |
| Me. | none | March 5 | Green, possibly others |
| Md. | March 3 | March 5 | |
| Mass. | March 10 | March 5 | Libertarian, possibly others |
| Mich. | March 17 | March 19 | |
| Miss. | March 10 | March 12 | Libertarian, US Taxpayers |
| Mont. | June 2 | June 4 | Libertarian, possibly others |
| Neb. | May 12 | May 14 | probably Libertarian, possibly others |
| N.H. | Feb. 18 | Feb. 17 | Libertarian |
| N.J. | June 2 | March 5 | possibly Conservative (if they poll enough votes in Nov.
1995) |
| N.M. | June 2 | June 4 | Green |
| N.Y. | April 7 | March 7 | Independence, Conservative, Liberal, Right-to-Life |
| N.C. | May 5 | May 7 | possibly Libertarian |
| N.D. | June 9 | Feb. 27 | possibly Libertarian, others |
| Ohio | June 2 | March 19 | possibly US Taxpayers, Natural Law, others |
| Okla. | March 10 | March 12 | probably Libertarian, US Taxpayers, possibly others |
| Ore. | May 19 | March 12 | |
| Penn. | April 28 | March 19 | |
| R.I. | March 10 | March 5 | Cool Moose |
| S.C. | March 7 | Mar. 9 | Libertarian, Patriot (called New Alliance), US
Taxpayers |
| S.D. | Feb. 25 | Feb. 27 | Libertarian, possibly others |
| Tenn. | March 10 | March 12 | in theory, any new party, but no new party ever tries to
qualify |
| Tex. | March 10 | March 12 | |
| Vt. | none | March 5 | Liberty Union |
| Wash. | May 19 | March 12 | |
| W.V. | May 12 | May 14 | |
| Wis. | April 7 | March 19 | |
| D.C. | May 5 | May 7 | |
| Puerto Rico | April 5 | Apr. 7 |
States not mentioned above will not conduct presidential primaries in 1996 for any political party. Minnesota is the only state which held presidential primaries in 1992 but will not hold them in 1996.
Just because any particular party is entitled to hold a presidential primary, does not necessarily mean that such party will hold a presidential primary. For instance, the Right-to-Life, Conservative and Liberal Parties of New York state never choose to hold a presidential primary, although they could if they wished.
Pennsylvania date assumes HB 543 passes this year (it has already passed House); otherwise date will be April 23. New Jersey date assumes A1309 passes this year (it has already passed Assembly); otherwise date will be June 4. Delaware and New Hampshire dates assume Delaware SB 129 will not pass this year; otherwise Delaware will be March 5 and New Hampshire will be Feb. 20. Republicans in South Carolina vote on March 2; in Puerto Rico on March 17.
On June 29-30 in Denver, the Prohibition Party national convention made these nominations: for president, Earl F. Dodge of Denver, Colorado; for vice-president, Rachel B. Kelly of Evanston, Illinois.
Eleven states sent delegates. Kelly is president of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and the first woman on the party's national ticket since 1924. The party has contested every presidential election starting with 1872. It can be reached at Box 2635, Denver Co 80201, (303) 572-0646.
On July 14, the Federal Election Commission issued Advisory Opinion 1995-16, ruling that the U.S. Taxpayers Party is a bona fide national political party, for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Other political parties which hold this status are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Natural Law.
The chief benefit of such recognition is that FEC-recognized parties may receive contributions of up to $20,000 from individual donors. Individual donors cannot give more than $1,000 to candidates for federal office, and cannot give more than $5,000 to ordinary political committees, so the $20,000 rule is an important one.
Oregon representative Chuck Carpenter of Portland, the only openly gay member of the Oregon House, became a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party on April 30, 1995. He was elected in November 1994 as a Republican, defeating his Democratic opponent by a margin of only 86 votes. He hasn't decided yet whether to run for re-election in 1996 as a Libertarian or as a Republican; he must decide by the end of 1995. Oregon election laws do not permit candidates to be jointly nominated by two parties.
CityVote, the organization which has arranged for a non-binding, non-partisan presidential primary in 18 cities around the U.S. on November 7, 1995, is also planning at least two presidential debates for the participants. Walter Cronkite has agreed to assist.
The first debate will be in St. Paul, Minnesota, on October 8, 1995, and it will be broadcast on Public TV. The second is set for Spokane, Washington, October 22.
A newsletter about initiatives has just been launched. It is Iron Press ("Iron" means "Initiative and Referendum Organizers' Newsletter"), a monthly, $99 per year. The first issue, July 1995, 12 pages long, includes an interview with leaders of U.S. Term Limits on what comes next; news about tax limit initiatives; a list of all state law initiatives in circulation; a chart showing all state legal requirements for initiatives; and a run-down of attempts to expand the list of states which have the initiative. The address is Iron Press, 3817 S. Carson St., #404, Carson City Nv 89701, fax (702) 885-9983.
Former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988, has let it be known that he will seek the Republican nomination for U.S. House of Representatives in Texas' 14th district in 1996. In order to be nominated, he must beat incumbent Greg Laughlin, who was elected in 1994 as a Democrat but who switched to the Republicans last month. Paul will formally announce on August 1.
Although Texas' congressional district boundaries will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, the decision is unlikely to be released in time to affect the 1996 election, even if the court does rule that the districts are invalid. The Texas primary for all office is in March.