1. OHIO LEGALIZES STAND-INS ON PETITIONS
2. ALABAMA FIGHTBACK
3. NEW YORK VICTORY
4. MICHIGAN HEARING
5. ILLINOIS LAWSUIT
6. OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
7. CITYVOTE
8. ARIZONA PRIMARY
9. GEORGIA DISTRICTS
10. FEC v FULANI
11. PRIMARY DATES
12. SUN-SENTINEL EDITORIAL
13. 1996 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT (CHART)
14. LABOR PARTY SETS THE DATE
15. OREGON U.S. SENATE ELECTION
16. 1995 STATE ELECTIONS
17. SOCIALIST PARTY CONVENTION
18. GEORGIA BLACK DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS DISCUSS A NEW PARTY
19. C.U.R.E. MEETING
20. Subscription Information

On August 22, Ohio Governor George Voinovich signed HB 99, which permits an independent candidate who withdraws, to be replaced a new candidate. The new candidate is chosen by a "substitution committee". A substitution committee is a group of five individuals whose names are printed on the petition; they have the authority to name the replacement.

This means that a new or unqualified party in Ohio can circulate an independent candidate petition to place its presidential candidate on the ballot, before the party has chosen its presidential candidate. Once the party chooses its presidential candidate, the stand-in (the candidate named on the petition) can withdraw, and the actual candidate will be put on the November ballot.

Ohio is the sixth state to have improved its procedure on this point since 1993. The others are Kentucky, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. (In most other states, there was no problem to begin with, since in most states, petitions for a new party don't need to indicate the names of the party's candidates).

The effect of these changes is to make it possible for a new or third political party to petition for a place on the ballot, before it has chosen its presidential candidate. This gives such a party the luxury of choosing its candidate after the presidential primaries are over, when it is generally possible to know whom the major parties will nominate and what their platforms will be.

Credit for these changes goes to the Libertarian Party, which decided last year that it would not choose its presidential candidate until July 7, 1996. The party has been working for election law changes to make it possible for it to circulate petitions, before it has chosen its candidate.

On September 28, the ACLU will say whether it will bring a lawsuit on the party's behalf, against Florida, which refuses to permit stand-ins. Florida and Maine are the only states in which the party's late convention still represents a problem for the party. In 1980 Florida lost a lawsuit in federal court over vice-presidential substitution, so it is likely that the proposed lawsuit will win.

The Democratic and Republican Parties have never had any problem, when they desire to substitute a new candidate. For instance, in 1972, the Democratic candidate for vice-president, Senator Thomas Eagleton, resigned from the ticket a month after he had been nominated. The Democratic National Committee replaced him with Sargent Shriver, and no state balked at printing Shriver's name on November ballots.

On September 11, a meeting was held in Birmingham, Alabama, to organize opposition to Alabama's new ballot access law (see B.A.N. of August 24). Present were two attorneys who are willing to bring a lawsuit against the new law, and activists from United We Stand America and the Patriot, Libertarian and Natural Law Parties.

The group will conduct a letter-writing campaign to the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Justice Department, which has the authority to veto the new law, if it is convinced that the new law will have a disproportionate effect on black voters.

The group plans to point out that, in Alabama, Republicans generally don't run candidates for the legislature in black-majority districts. For instance, in 1994, in the 35 black-majority legislative districts, Republicans ran a candidate in only 7 districts; but there were third party or independent candidates in 15 of those districts.

Therefore, if third party or independent candidates are kept off the ballot, voters in black-majority district will generally have no choice of candidates; they will be stuck with ballots containing only a single candidate (the Democratic nominee).

Alabamans are encouraged to participate in this campaign. Contact Bob Friedman at (205)-933-1723.

Friedman, with the Patriot Party, is the first person to have noticed an amusing error in HB 99. Due to a bill-drafting glitch, the bill fails to ban "sore-loser" third party candidates. The original intent of the bill was to make it illegal for a third party to nominate a candidate who had lost a major party primary; the bill also triples the petition requirements for third parties and independent candidates. When the Governor signed the bill, he said he didn't approve of the signature increase, but that he was signing it because he wanted to ban "sore losers". Ironically, the bill omits the sore loser provision!

On August 23, the New York Supreme Court, App. Div., upheld the validity of signatures on petitions of voters who have moved within a district, and have not yet re-registered at the new address. Rosado v Bd of Elections, no. 55481. On August 30, the New York Court of Appeals refused to disturb that ruling. The ruling was surprising, since in the past decade, New York State courts have invariably ruled that the tiniest defect in petitions are fatal.

On November 8, the Michigan House Local Government Committee will hear HB 4762, which would cut the number of signatures needed for new parties and independent candidates in half. For more information, call Representative Greg Kaza at (517)-373-0615. Kaza is the bill's author.

On October 2, the Illinois Libertarian Party will file a lawsuit against Illinois law, which forces it to submit petitions signed by 5% of the last vote cast, if it wishes to run candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. This will be the first lawsuit to test the theory that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton may help to overturn severe ballot access restrictions for Congress.

1. Alaska: (See also this update.) On October 19 the State Supreme Court will hear O'Callaghan v Ulmer, over whether the state can force the Republican Party to let Democrats vote in its primary.

2. Arkansas: In January 1996 there will be a hearing in federal court in Independent Party v Secretary of State, LR-94-762, over whether the Independent Party (a party created by Ross Perot's 1992 vote) should be put back on the ballot.

3. California (1): (See also this update.) On September 12, there was a hearing in federal court over whether the U.S. Constitution forbids lifetime term limits for state legislators. Bates v Jones, C95-2638, Northern District.

Judge Claudia Wilken, a Clinton appointee, said she was not inclined to issue an injunction against the legislative term limits law. But she seemed to hint that she may eventually hold it unconstitutional, on the grounds that the lifetime ban is too severe (as contrasted to a term limits law which forces state legislators to leave office after a certain number of terms, but lets them run again, after sitting out a term).

California (2): On August 16, the State Court of Appeals, 1st District, ruled that a petition signature is valid, even if the signer failed to print a name on the petition. California petition forms leave one space for signers to sign, and another space for them to print. Sometimes signers sign in both places; this is OK, according to the court, if the signature is legible. Malick v Athenour, no. A065620.

California (3): There will be a trial in January 1996 in California Democratic Party v Lungren, C94-1703, the case in federal court in San Francisco over whether a state can make it illegal for a party to endorse a candidate in a non-partisan election.

4. Florida: There will be a hearing on October 25 in Libertarian Party of Florida v Smith, 95-00547, in the State Court of Appeals. The issue is Florida law, which provides that 53% of the filing fee paid by Republican and Democratic candidates is rebated back to those parties, whereas filing fees paid by third party candidates are retained by the government and not shared with that candidate's party.

5. Ohio: on August 29, a 3-judge federal district court heard arguments in Miller v State of Ohio, no. C2-94-1116, over whether it is constitutional for a state to draw congressional district boundaries with the motive of targeting one particular member of Congress for defeat, by eliminating his district. Judges assigned to the case were Walter H. Rice (a Carter appointee), George C. Smith and Alan E. Norris (Reagan appointees). The panel must first decide whether to grant plaintiffs' request for a trial; a decision is expected soon.

6. Rhode Island: On July 18, the State Supreme Court construed state law, and ruled that qualified political parties have the right to nominate a candidate by convention, in instances when no one was nominated for that office in the party's primary. Dahl v Begin, 660 A 2d 730.

7. Texas: the first set of briefs was filed in the 5th circuit on September 14 in Texas Independent Party v Hannah, no. 95-50172, over Texas law that requires new party and independent candidates (other than presidential candidates) to file a declaration of candidacy in January of an election year.

8. Virginia: On October 2, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Morse v Republican Party of Virginia, 94-203, over whether a political party may charge delegates a fee to participate in a nominating convention.

CityVote, the non-binding presidential primary planned for November 7, 1995, in 18 cities, is now getting much greater attention from the campaign committees of the various major presidential candidates, and not all the attention is friendly.

Some of the major presidential candidates do not feel that it is to their advantage to participate in CityVote, and are mulling over some means to avoid the CityVote debates, and perhaps even to remove their names from the ballots. The outcome will be known by early October, when the cities must print their ballots.

Arizona is holding its first presidential primary, on February 27, 1996. The only parties which will be entitled to participate are the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian Parties.

The Arizona Democratic Party and the Arizona Libertarian Party have both resolved that they do not wish to participate. However, the Secretary of State says that if any candidate files for the primary, the state will print up primary ballots for that candidate's party.

In the Democratic primary, it is possible that the only name on the ballot will be Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche, who has been running for president in Democratic presidential primaries in all elections starting in 1980, is close to qualifying for primary season matching funds. Under Arizona law, any candidate who qualifies for federal matching funds, may be placed on the primary ballot upon request.

President Clinton does not plan to request a spot on the ballot because the national Democratic Party rules do not sanction primary elections earlier than March 1 (although the party accepts the New Hampshire primary, which is in February). The Democratic Party plans its own privately-managed, privately-funded primary on March 9 in Arizona.

The official state primary of February 27 uses ballots with no write-in space.

On September 12, the Georgia legislature gave up trying to reapportion the state's congressional districts. The special session of the legislature worked from August 14, but could not agree. The state needs new districts because the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the existing districts on June 29.

Georgia requires all parties (except parties which polled 20% of the vote for president in the entire nation, or which polled 20% for Governor) to submit a petition of 5% of registered voters, to run for the U.S. House. No third party has ever complied with this law, which dates from 1943.

Any third party which wishes to run a candidate for the U.S. House, is now in an excellent position to sue to overturn the 5% petition, at least for the 1996 election. Georgia law permits these petitions to be circulated from April 1995 until July 1996, but it is impossible to circulate them, if one doesn't know the eventual district boundaries.

In 1982, the 11th circuit ruled in Citizens Party v Poythress, unreported, 82-8411, that when the normal Georgia petitioning period is not available due to late redistricting, the deadline must be extended to make up for lost time. This precedent will apply to 1996.

Any third political party which intends to run candidates for the U.S. House in Georgia in 1996 ought to immediately notify the Secretary of State of the proposed candidacy, and ask the Secretary of State for a ruling that either the deadline be set aside, or that the number of signatures be reduced. The longer it takes to redraw the Georgia districts, the stronger the case for setting aside the 5% petition requirement.

Since the legislature has given up, a federal court will draw new districts for the state. This is a difficult task, and it is not likely to be completed until early next year; furthermore, groups which are unhappy with the new districts will probably appeal, so the districts probably won't be final until most of the petitioning time is gone.

On August 3, the Federal Election Commission demanded that the 1992 Fulani for President Committee repay $612,557 in matching funds. This decision was the result of a second FEC audit; the first audit had found that the Committee need only repay $1,700. The second audit was triggered by allegations of a disgruntled former associate of Fulani, that the Fulani campaign engaged in fraud.

Lenora Fulani was the 1992 presidential candidate of the New Alliance Party. She received $1,989,966 in primary season matching funds.

Specifically, the complaint is that the former campaign worker never received payment for her services, even though Fulani's campaign report showed that the associate had been paid $450.

The complainant also alleged that much of the Fulani campaign funds were used to buy services (advertising, petitioning, etc.), but that the people and organizations which received the money to carry out these services were friends and associates of Fulani, and that the services were never performed.

Ordinarily, the FEC would take considerable time to review such allegations; but recently the FEC was told by a federal appeals court that it must notify campaigns of the specific amount that they are overpaid, within three years of the original award of funds. Since that time limit was almost upon the FEC, the FEC simply demanded the return of all the money that could conceivably be connected to the complaints. The FEC noted that records pertaining to Fulani's vendors total over 120,000 pages of complex financial data, and the FEC staff hasn't had a chance to review it.

Fulani explains that many campaign workers traveled around the country and didn't have access to bank accounts, so the campaign cashed the checks made out to those workers and then fed-exed the cash to them. Unfortunately for the Fulani campaign, that method leaves the campaign open to allegations by any disaffected worker, that the cash was never received.

Fulani also freely acknowledges that the campaign hired many individuals and firms associated with her, to carry out work for the campaign. But there is no law forbidding this. The FEC staff report merely says that "the Fulani Committee was connected to the vendors in question, and therefore was in a position to overpay the vendors for goods and services." It doesn't allege that the vendors failed to provide the services.

Fulani placed 6th in the November 1992 presidential election, appearing on the ballot in 39 states and polling 73,714 votes. Clearly, her campaign had substance, and a great deal of activity was conducted on behalf of the campaign. Fulani is attempting to persuade the FEC to revise its determination, and if she is unsuccessful, she will sue. She is personally liable for any necessary repayment.

Bills in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to advance the date of the 1996 presidential primary are now not expected to pass, even though each bill passed one house already. Therefore, the Pennsylvania primary will probably be April 23, not March 19; the New Jersey primary will probably be June 4, not March 5.

Also, Delaware's SB 129 didn't pass, so Delaware's primary will be February 24. Consequently, New Hampshire's law that the New Hampshire primary must always be on a Tuesday at least one week before any other state's primary will go into effect, and the New Hampshire primary will be on February 13, not February 20.

(Note from Librarian: in the paper version of this issue of Ballot Access News, the following was photocopied and inserted as page 4 of the newsletter. It is reproduced by permission.)

From page 12A (Opinion page) of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida "Sun-Sentinel" dated Wednesday, July 26, 1995, under the heading "Editorials":

It's time to remove some harmful legal roadblocks, make it fairer and easier for candidates who aren't Republicans or Democrats to get on the ballot and give voters more choices.

Current ballot-access rules, designed by lawmakers in Florida and other states, are unequal, unfair and discriminatory.

To get on the ballot nationwide, a Democrat presidential contender needs 25,000 voter signatures, none in Florida. A Republican needs 50,000 signatures. But an independent or third-party candidate needs 720,000 signatures.

That's a huge hurdle, rarely leaped, requiring millions of dollars and a party-like organization, which independent Ross Perot needed in 1992. He won about one in every five votes -- 19.7 million nationally, 1 million in Florida. That's a huge "no confidence" vote in the two-party monopoly.

In congressional races, Democrats and Republicans can qualify a full slate of candidates nationally with 140,000 signatures, none in Florida. A third party needs 1.6 million signatures.

In Florida, Democrats and Republicans don't need voter signatures to run for partisan offices. Independent or minor party candidates need signatures of 3 percent of the voters in the state, county, or district. That's 197,000 signatures statewide. To fix the problem, Florida and other states should enact reasonable rules for presidential or congressional candidates. To qualify, each candidate, regardless of party label, should have to submit a token number of voter signatures on petitions favoring his candidacy. State lawmakers should set similar rules for candidates for state and local office.

The need for signatures should only be a way to force candidates to show minimal seriousness of purpose and modest voter support, not a way to block most "outsiders" from qualifying.

Florida's exclusionary ballot access law is the worst in the nation -- time-consuming and virtually impossible to satisfy. No independent candidate for statewide office has ever made it to the ballot. The law functions like an unconstitutional poll tax, keeping an entire class of people off the ballot and out of office. This debate may seem rather remote from most Floridians, but it actually has important significance to everyone, not just the 753,209 Florida voters (10.2 percent) registered outside the mainstream parties, including 71,659 in Broward County and 72,433 in Palm Beach County.

A larger number of candidates and parties will translate into a broader choice of policies and programs, laws and leadership styles. Democrats and Republicans have no monopoly on political wisdom. Minor party candidates and independents can infuse the system with new ideas and new vigor. Ballot-access laws should be reformed to encourage them to participate in government, not put up roadblocks to keep them out.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND.	LIBT	PATRIOT	NATL LAW	TAXPAYR	PARTY	CAND.
Alabama	11,991	5,000	already on	0	*300	0	Sep 2	Sep 2
Alaska	2,586	2,586	300	already on	*2,200	0	in doubt	in doubt
Arizona	15,062	(es) 8,000	*finished	0	0	0	May 21	Jun 30
Arkansas	21,506	0	0	0	*500	0	Jan 2	Sep 15
California	(reg) 89,006	147,238	already on	(reg) *2,600	*68,000	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	*1,400	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	*200	0	Aug 5	Aug 5
Montana	10,471	10,471	already on	0	*1,100	0	Mar 14	Jul 31
Nebraska	5,741	2,500	*5,100	0	*2,800	0	Aug 1	Aug 27
Nevada	3,761	3,761	already on	0	already on	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	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	*2,500	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	*11,000	*6,000	Nv 20 95	Aug 22
Oklahoma	49,751	41,711	*18,000	0	0	*3,000	May 31	Jul 15
Oregon	18,316	14,601	already on	already on	0	0	Aug 27	Aug 27
Pennsylvania	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	already on	*300	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 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

Green on in Ak, Ca, Me, NM, Or, and has *3,400 in Hi. Socialist has *1,500 in Ore. Prohibition has *100 in Utah. 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. "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.

After five years, Labor Party Advocates has set a date for a founding convention of the Labor Party. It will be June 6-9, 1996, in Cleveland, Ohio, at the Sheraton Hotel.

Oregon will hold a special U.S. Senate election on January 30, 1996. Third parties, which nominate by convention, must name any candidate no later than December 8. The election will be by mail ballot.

Five states hold state elections on November 7, 1995:

1. Kentucky: elects 9 statewide constitutional offices, including Governor. There are no third party or independent candidates on the ballot.

2. Louisiana: elects all executive and legislative state offices, including Governor. There is one candidate for the State House from the Prudence, Action, Results Party (the only qualified third party in the state). There is also one Libertarian for the State House, but he cannot have the word "Libertarian" next to his name on the ballot since the Libertarian Party is not a qualified party.

3. Mississippi: elects all executive and legislative state offices, including Governor. There is one U.S. Taxpayers Party candidate for the State Senate and one Libertarian Party candidate for the State Senate.

4. New Jersey: Elects all 80 members of the lower house of the legislature. There are 63 Conservative candidates, 8 Natural Law candidates, 6 New Party candidates, 2 Socialist Workers, 2 Libertarians, and 1 Socialist.

5. Virginia: Elects all members of the state legislature. There are 4 Green Party candidates, 3 Patriot Party candidates, and 1 Libertarian.

The Socialist Party will hold its national convention October 6-9, 1995, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the Harvard Divinity School. It is possible the party will nominate a presidential candidate. The party had a presidential candidate in 1988 and 1992, but none in 1984.

U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) and two Georgia state legislators, held a public meeting in Atlanta on September 8 and discussed the idea of forming a new party, in Georgia, to better represent black voters.

McKinney's congressional district was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. She has been working with the Georgia legislature on a plan to redraw the lines, but was frustrated, as the legislature was unable to agree.

State representative Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) said black lawmakers and voters would actually increase their political voice by being independent. He said, "Without us, there would be no Democratic Party, and yet here we are struggling to hold on to the little bit of political power we've gained over the years." Senator Ed Harbison (D-Columbus) said "Blacks feel victimized. I'm not ready to promote the death of the Democratic Party, but I think a lot of us are going to evaluate it closely."

McKinney will soon introduce a bill to let states use proportional representation for U.S. House elections.

A group of conservatives headed by former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham, plans a national convention in February 1996 to nominate a conservative independent for president. "CURE" stands for "Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everyone", and can be reached at 3812 Pearl Rd., #17, Medina Oh 44256, (216)-723-8326.