| This issue was originally printed on gray paper. |
On August 9, Alabama Governor Fob James signed HB 66 into law, even though he had told a press conference only hours earlier that he would veto it.
The bill triples the petition requirement for new parties and for independent candidates (except that the presidential independent petition continues to be 5,000 signatures). The new petition is 3% of the last vote cast for Governor (35,973 signatures). The old 1% requirement, in effect since 1983, has itself been so restrictive that no party or candidate has ever used it for statewide office, except for the Libertarian Party in presidential years. Probably the new law will result in a total absence of third parties from the Alabama ballot. Arkansas has had a 3% (of the last vote) petition for new parties since 1977, and no party has ever complied with it.
Major newspapers in the state ran editorials and even editorial cartoons, criticizing the Governor for signing the bill. The bill had earlier passed with a 5% petition requirement, but the Governor had asked the legislature to lower it to 3%. He thought the legislature wouldn't have time to amend the bill in this manner, but the change passed both Houses in less than 48 hours, and the amended bill passed on July 31, the last day of the session.
During the first week in August, James said repeatedly that he would still veto it. He even said this at a press conference on August 9, but then he signed the bill that evening, saying he felt committed to keep his word to the legislature.
The change is the worst one in any state, since 1983, when North Carolina increased the new party petition from 5,000 signatures to 2% of the last vote cast (now 51,904 signatures).
HB 66 also makes it illegal for a qualified minor party to nominate a candidate who had lost a major party primary; and it changes the petition deadline (for non-presidential petitions) from early September to early July. These portions of the bill were praised by Governor James. James criticized the signature increase and pledged to try to persuade the legislature to undo it, next year.
The bill passed the House 89-0 and passed the Senate 23-1. If the Governor had vetoed it, the veto could not have been overridden, since the legislature had gone home and Alabama legislative rules do not give the legislature any chance to override end-of-the-session vetoes.
Voting Rights Act
Under the Voting Rights Act, Alabama cannot change any election law, unless the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department agrees that the change does not harm the ability of racial minorities to vote and to participate in politics. The Justice Department will probably need two or three months to decide. Until the Justice Department approves the change, the law is not in effect, and thus it is possible for any third party to qualify for 1996 under the old law, if such party acts quickly. Because the new law is still not in effect, the petitioning chart below still reflects the old requirement.
Under Democratic administrations, the Justice Department has been good on ballot access changes. When Lyndon Johnson was president, the Justice Department refused to let Mississippi increase the number of signatures for a statewide independent candidate, from 1,000 signatures, to 10,000. (When Jimmy Carter was president, the Justice Department happened not to receive any submissions on ballot access).
However, when Ronald Reagan was president, the Justice Department let North Carolina increase its petition requirement for new parties 7-fold; let Virginia impose a severe distribution requirement for statewide third party and independent candidate petitions; and let Alabama increase the vote test for a party to remain on, from just being active, to 20% of the vote for any statewide office.
When Richard Nixon was president, the Justice Department let Virginia increase the number of signatures 10-fold; and let Arkansas increase the new party requirements from no petition whatsoever, to a petition of 7% of the last vote cast. When Gerald Ford was president, the Justice Department let Louisiana increase requirements for new parties (for office other than president) 50-fold.
The Rainbow Coalition will probably ask the Justice Department to disapprove the recent Alabama increase in signatures.
Lawsuit Possibilities
An experienced constitutional attorney and scholar, Herbert Titus of Virginia, has already expressed interest in bringing a lawsuit against the 3% petition. There are at least two bases for a lawsuit:
1. The legislature did not alter the existing requirement for independent presidential candidates, of 5,000 signatures. There were 8 candidates for president on the November 1992 election, but no other statewide race in Alabama has had more than 3 candidates on the ballot, since the old 1% petition went into effect in 1983. Obviously, if the legislature sincerely was concerned about "overcrowded" ballots, it should have increased the independent presidential requirement, since the only general election "crowding" that ever occurs in Alabama, is for president.
There is already a federal precedent in Alabama that it is unconstitutional for a state to require more signatures for an independent candidate, than for a new or minor party candidate (Childrey v Bennett, 997 F 2d 830, 11th cir., 1993). The logic in that case was that if 12,157 signatures were sufficient to keep the number of new or minor parties from cluttering the ballot, there couldn't be a logical reason to force an independent candidate for statewide non-presidential office to submit 26,367 signatures.
By the same logic, it should be possible to argue that if 5,000 signatures is sufficient to keep the presidential ballot uncluttered, there is no rational reason to require 35,973 signatures for other statewide office. This is especially obvious when one examines 1994 election returns; under the 1% petition, there were no partisan races in the state with more than three candidates on the November ballot, and in almost half the legislative races, there was only one candidate on the ballot.
Term Limits Decision May Help
2. The U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, issued May 22, 1995, said that states may impose "election procedures" in congressional elections, but these "procedures" must be needed to insure that "elections are operated equitably and efficiently". States cannot impose "qualifications", which are defined as laws which "handicap a class of candidates" (for Congress).
Since no congressional election in Alabama in 1994 had more than two candidates on the general election ballot, it is obvious that the old 1% petition was sufficient to keep the congressional ballot uncrowded. There is no neutral, election-administration-related reason to triple that requirement. Therefore, a 3% petition law should be unconstitutional under Article I, even if it isn't unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The proposed lawsuit against the 3% law will include plaintiff-candidates for Congress.
Furthermore, the term limits decision said it is relevant to examine the motives behind the challenged election law, and there is abundant evidence that the Alabama legislature increased the petition requirement to "get even" with the Patriot Party in 1994, and not because of concern about the size of the ballot.
The Patriot Party angered legislators by running aggressive campaigns for the legislature and for county office in 1994, and especially for nominating candidates who had earlier lost major party primaries. This technique was legal, but still evoked great bitterness among Democrats. One of the Patriot Party candidates, William Roberson, was elected in November 1994 to the Greene County Commission. His Democratic opponent then filed a lawsuit, charging that the Patriot Party didn't follow proper procedures in nominating Roberson; the lawsuit is still unresolved, but shows the depth of hostility toward any third party which is able to win an election.
On July 7, Nevada Governor Bob Miller signed SB 420 into law. Among other things, it makes it illegal for a qualified minor party to nominate anyone who hasn't been a member of that party since the preceding September 1.
Last year, the Secretary of State of Nevada had interpreted Nevada law to already contain this restriction, but the Nevada Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that qualified minor parties were free to nominate anyone, regardless of the candidate's past affiliation. The 1995 change in the law now makes it clear that minor parties are restricted, just as major parties are.
The Secretary of State has ruled that the new law won't be in effect for the 1996 election, because the law has an effective date of October 1, 1995, after the September 1, 1995 cutoff date. The law is probably unconstitutional; in 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 US 208, that parties have a right to nominate non-members for public office.
On August 7, federal judge Joseph DiClerico upheld New Hampshire law, which makes it illegal for a Town Clerk to appoint any voter as a precinct election official on election day, unless that voter is a registered member of one of the two largest parties in the state. Werme v Merrill, no. 94-414-JD. Plaintiffs Paula Werme and the Libertarian Party plan to appeal.
New Hampshire law also says that the Town Clerks must insure that there must are an equal number of registered members of each of the two largest parties. This implies that political parties have an interest in having their own members placed as ballot clerks; in fact, it implies that the Democratic clerks must keep an eye on the Republican clerks, and vice versa. Since the Libertarian Party is also a qualified party (and has elected state legislators), and has a stake in seeing that votes are counted honestly, it is obviously discriminatory that all the ballot clerks must be Democrats and Republicans.
Judge DiClerico didn't grapple with this point; he simply said that Libertarians are free to express their political views, and therefore strict scrutiny does not apply. He didn't mention precedents which contradict his conclusion, such as Iowa Socialist Party v Slockett, 604 F Supp 1391 (1985), which struck down Iowa law that only members of qualified parties could be deputy registrars of voters.
Discrimination against voters on the basis of partisan affiliation is expressly prohibited by the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting, which the United States signed (along with 36 other nations) in 1990. The Document was cited to the Judge, but he didn't mention it in his decision.
On July 24, the 9th circuit upheld the federal voting registration law. Voting Rights Coalition v Wilson, no. 95-15449. No court has yet ruled against the law. The state of California may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
1. Alaska: On August 8, there was a hearing in the 9th circuit over whether the U.S. Constitution impliedly forbids candidates for Congress from accepting out-of-state contributions. Whitmore v Federal Election Commission, no. 94-36236. The judges were Cynthia Hall and Charles Wiggins, Reagan appointees, and Andrew Kleinfeld, a Bush appointee. Judge Kleinfeld, who is from Alaska, appeared very interested in the substantive issue (although he disagreed with Whitmore); but the odds are that the panel will agree with the lower court that Whitmore lacks standing to raise the issue.
Plaintiff Joni Whitmore was the Green Party candidate for U.S. House from Alaska in 1994, and she refused to accept out-of-state contributions.
2. California: (See also this update.) On July 20, a California legislator filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that term limits for state legislators (which are contained in the state Constitution) violate the U.S. Constitution. Bates v Jones, no. C95-2638, Northern District. The case was assigned to Cynthia Wilkin, a Bush appointee.
The lawsuit argues that term limits for state office violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff Thomas Bates has an uphill struggle, since if state legislative term limits violate the U.S. Constitution, then gubernatorial term limits also violate it; yet most states have had term limits for Governor for decades (some since the 19th century) and they have always been upheld in the past.
3. Florida: the ACLU of Florida is about to decide whether to represent the Libertarian Party, in a proposed case to force the state to let an unqualified party circulate its presidential petition before it has chosen its nominee.
4. Louisiana: on August 8, four voters filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that Louisiana violates federal law by holding its congressional elections in October. Federal law tells the states to hold congressional elections in November. Love v Edwards, no. 95-788-B.
The case was assigned to Judge Frank Polozola, a Carter appointee. Louisiana congressional elections are in October, but if no one gets 50% of the vote, there is a run-off in November. The voter-plaintiffs argue that an "election" is something that theoretically can elect a candidate, and therefore the October election is an "election", not just a primary.
5. Michigan: On June 7, the 6th circuit upheld a city ordinance that no one may run for city office if that individual owes back taxes or fees to the city. Corrigan v City of Newaygo, 55 F 3d 1211. As a result of the law, there was only one candidate on the ballot for Mayor of Newaygo in the 1993 election.
The only other case on this issue, from the 3rd circuit in a 1986 Delaware case, struck down a similar law, so there is a conflict in the circuits and plaintiffs in the Michigan case may ask for U.S. Supreme Court review.
6. Minnesota: On August 4, the State Supreme Court ruled that term limits for city office, are inconsistent with the State Constitution. Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v Keefe, no. CX 94-2137. The vote was 4-3. As a result, the local initiative asking the voters whether they wish to have term limits for Minneapolis City Council will not be on the ballot.
7. Missouri: On July 7, federal judge Catherine Perry, a Clinton appointee, struck down part of a new Missouri campaign finance law for state office. Shrink Missouri PAC v Mauphin, no. 4:95-cv-815, western dist.
Invalidated were sections which restricted the amount of money a candidate can spend on his or her own campaign; required the forfeiture of unspent campaign contributions; and banned anonymous campaign ads.
8. Oklahoma: the state's response has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Coalition for Free & Open Elections v McElderry, the case over whether the U.S. Constitution obliges Oklahoma to let voters cast a write-in vote for president at the general election, since ballot access there is so difficult.
The state argues that collecting 41,711 valid signatures before July 15 is not difficult, so there is no need for write-ins. The Supreme Court will say in October whether it will hear the case.
9. Virginia: On June 14, the 4th circuit agreed with the lower court that a candidate does not have standing to argue that the U.S. Constitution impliedly bans out-of-state contributions in congressional elections. Froelich v Federal Election Commission, no. 94-1777.
Arthur Block, an attorney in New York city who has extensive experience fighting laws which discriminate against third party and independent candidates, wishes to communicate with activists and attorneys interested in changing the current system of public funding for general election campaigns.
Under existing law, passed in 1974, general election presidential campaigns are funded from the U.S. Treasury. However, only parties which polled at least 5% of the vote in the last election are ever eligible for funding before election day. Thus if a new party were formed, it would be excluded from general election public funding (until after the election was over), no matter how much support it had. Although this was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, a new challenge is always possible.
Block can be reached at 72 Spring St., #1201, New York, NY 10012, ph. 212-966-0404, fax 431-3516, email: ablock@pipeline.com.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | NATL LAW | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | *50 | 0 | Sep 2 | Sep 2 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | *300 | already on | *1,000 | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Ariz. | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | *13,200 | 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) *2,400 | *58,000 | 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 | *already on | 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 | *1,200 | 0 | Apr 24 | Sep 6 |
| Idaho | 9,644 | 4,822 | already on | *0 | *0 | *0 | 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 | *200 | 0 | Mar 14 | Jul 31 |
| Nebraska | 5,741 | 2,500 | 3,700 | 0 | *500 | 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 | *2,200 | 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 | *2,500 | *5,000 | Nv 20 95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | *12,500 | 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 | *200 | 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 on in Ak, Ca, Me, NM, Or, and has *3,300 in Hi. Other nationally-organized parties on: Grassrts in Vt.; New Pty in Wis.; Wrkrs World in Mi; *Prohibition in Tn. "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. 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.
The recent increase in Alabama's petition requirement for new parties is the first drastic increase in petition requirements in any state, for new parties, since 1983. "Drastic" in this context means the requirement was at least tripled. Below is a list of other instances at which a state drastically increased its petition requirement, and a note on whether the action was ever reversed.
See this note about tables.
| Year of change | Old petition | New petition | If eased again, when and how | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | 1895 | 326 | 1,048 | 1925, by legislature; eased again by legislature 1987 and
1993 |
| Nebraska | 1929 | 1,000 | meeting of 750 | 1969, by legislature |
| Florida | 1931 | 1,675 | no procedure | 1970, by State Supreme Court |
| Illinois | 1931 | 1,000 | 25,000 | never eased |
| W. Virginia | 1931 | 1,000 | 7,438 | never eased |
| California | 1937 | 23,610 | register 23,610 | never eased |
| Massachusetts | 1939 | 1,000 | 52,977 | 1973, by legislature; eased again in 1990 by initiative |
| S. Dakota | 1939 | 8,818 | 27,685 | 1984, by federal court |
| Georgia | 1943 | 0 | 30,570 | 1979, by legislature; eased again by legislature in
1986 |
| Ohio | 1947 | 30,953 | 345,570 | 1968, by U.S. Supreme Court; eased again by fed. court,
1970 |
| Missouri | 1953 | 0 | 18,710 | 1993, by legislature |
| Wyoming | 1961 | 100 | 6,717 | 1984, by federal court |
| Tennessee | 1963 | 0 | 52,590 | 1973, by legislature |
| Kansas | 1965 | 0 | 2,702 | increased again in 1971; see below |
| Maryland | 1967 | 5,000 | 45,548 | never eased, except for president (by 1984 Att. Gen.
Opinion) |
| Texas | 1967 | 0 | 14,259 | never eased |
| Arizona | 1969 | 358 | 9,680 | 1992, by legislature |
| Hawaii | 1969 | 0 | 2,550 | never eased |
| Montana | 1969 | 0 | 9,033 | never eased |
| New Mexico | 1969 | 0 | 15,949 | 1983, by legislature; but raised again in 1995 |
| Virginia | 1969 | 1,000 | 8,685 | never eased |
| Alabama | 1971 | 0 | 5,000 | raised again in 1982 and again in 1995 |
| Arkansas | 1971 | 0 | 42,644 | 1977, by federal court |
| Kansas | 1971 | 2,560 | 22,356 | 1984, by legislature |
| Pennsylvania | 1971 | 8,601 | 35,624 | never eased |
| Colorado | 1973 | 300 | 10,000 | 1975, by legislature; eased again 1995 (refers only to
president) |
| Oklahoma | 1974 | 5,000 | 40,243 | never eased |
| Maine | 1975 | 3,254 | 10,920 | 1977, by legislature |
| Louisiana | 1976 | 1,000 | register 91,052 | never eased (this line refers to office other than
president) |
| Michigan | 1976 | 17,674 | big primary vote | 1982, by State Supreme Court |
| Kentucky | 1977 | 1,000 | 5,000 | never eased |
| Washington | 1977 | 156 | big primary vote | never eased (this line refers to office other than
president) |
| Idaho | 1978 | 1,500 | 10,323 | 1985, by legislature |
| Indiana | 1980 | 6,982 | 35,040 | never eased |
| N. Hampshire | 1981 | 1,000 | 3,000 | never eased |
| N. Carolina | 1983 | 5,000 | 36,949 | never eased |
| Alabama | 1995 | 11,991 | 35,973 | ???? |
"Old petition" means the number of signatures in the election year before the change was made; "New petition" means the number of signatures in the first election year in which the change was in effect. "Year of change" means the year the legislature increased the requirements, not necessarily the year the law went into effect. For example, the Indiana change was made in 1980 but didn't go into effect until 1983.
This chart shows that there have been 37 drastic increases in the numerical requirements to qualify new parties for the ballot, in the history of the U.S. It also shows that in half those instances, the new, higher requirement was later reduced, although it took an average of 22 years for the new harsh change to be ameliorated.
The chart also shows that over two-thirds of hostile drastic changes were made in a short 22-year period, 1961-1983. These drastic changes had come to a halt, until Alabama's recent action. Note again that this chart only includes instances in which the requirements were at least tripled in difficulty; lesser increases are not included.
On July 27-30, the Green Party met in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 250 delegates attended from 27 states. There were visitors from six other countries, including two Green Party Senators from Australia. A national coordinating body was established, which will assist Green Parties to qualify for the ballot in more states. There was some interest in running a presidential candidate in 1996. Another national meeting will be held in Boulder, Colorado in November 1995.
United We Stand America met in Dallas, August 11-13. Ten Republican presidential candidates spoke, as did Jesse Jackson. President Clinton was invited, but did not attend. The only declared presidential candidates who have raised enough money to qualify for the CityVote presidential primary who were not invited to address the meeting, were Libertarian Harry Browne and Natural Law Party leader John Hagelin.
Three seminars were held on August 13 to discuss whether United We Stand America should help organize a new political party. Every one of the 600 participants in these seminars was able to express his or her opinion, briefly. Opinion was mixed. Ross Perot was not at these meetings, but he promised to read the transcript of the remarks.
Perot's own comments indicate that he is not persuaded that a new party is needed. He was non-commital about whether he will run for president as an independent candidate in 1996.
Results in the August 12 special election for State Representative in Delaware's First District: Democrat 64.6%, Republican 31.2%, Libertarian 4.2%. In 1994 in the same district, the Democratic nominee was unopposed.
CityVote presidential primaries will be held on November 7, 1995, in these cities (with 1990 census population):
It is possible that other cities will participate, including Iowa City, Iowa, pop. 59,738. If so, the population of the participating cities will be over 3,150,000, greater than the population of each of twenty states.
The only third party presidential candidates who have qualified for the CityVote ballot are Harry Browne, and John Hagelin. Five undeclared independent presidential candidates may also be listed: Bill Bradley, Jesse Jackson, Ross Perot, Colin Powell, and Lowell Weicker.
According to Election Administration Reports, Ohio candidates for county sheriff (starting in 1996), must be fingerprinted, or they will not be allowed on the ballot. Prints are due two months before the filing deadline.