| This issue was originally printed on purple paper. |
On November 27, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman, a Reagan appointee, ruled that the number of signatures needed for Republicans to enter the New York presidential primary is unconstitutional. Rockefeller v Powers, 95-4478, Eastern District (Brooklyn).
The law requires 1,250 signatures of registered Republicans per congressional district, except in districts in which that would be over 5% of the number of registered Republicans. In those districts, the requirement is 5% of party members.
Judge Korman noted that in a majority of districts, 1,250 signatures works out to be some percentage that is equal to, or less than, 1.41% of the number of registered Republicans. Therefore, he reasoned that since a requirement of 1.41% is difficult enough to satisfy state interests in most districts, there is no rational reason to require a higher percentage in any district. Under the judge's logic, the signature requirements in 15 of the state's districts are too high and must be limited to 1.41% of the number of registered Republicans.
Defendants in the case, the New York State Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, and the State Board of Elections, are appealing. The appeal will probably be settled within the next 30 days, since the primary is in March 1996 and the petitioning period has begun.
If the Second Circuit upholds the decision, it will be a valuable precedent for other ballot access cases. Many states have logical disparities in their requirements that are more extreme than the New York example. For example, an independent candidate for Governor of Oklahoma needs only two signatures and a $1,500 fee to get on the ballot, whereas an independent candidate for President in Oklahoma needs 41,711 signatures.
On November 17, federal judge William Wilson, a Clinton appointee, ruled against ballot status for the Independent Party of Arkansas. Indp. Party v Secretary of State, no. LR-C-94-762.
The party was created in November 1992 when Ross Perot polled over 3% of the vote. However, it ceased to exist in November 1994 because it didn't have a candidate for Governor. However, the reason that it didn't have a candidate for Governor on the ballot was that the state illegally kept it off the ballot in 1994. Later, the 8th circuit ruled Arkansas' primary election law invalid, and the party then filed in federal court, hoping to win a ruling that since it was deprived of ballot position in 1994 under an unconstitutional law, it should be restored to the 1996 ballot.
Judge Wilson ruled that the party should have raised these issues in its 1994 lawsuit in state court (although at that time, the Arkansas primary election law had not yet been held unconstitutional). He also said that since the party didn't file an oath stating that it was not affiliated with the Communist movement, the party's failure to get on the 1994 ballot was its own fault. Arkansas requires all qualified parties to file such an oath when they come into existence.
The judge overlooked the fact that all political party anti-Communist loyalty oaths were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974, in Communist Party of Indiana v Whitcomb. However, the party does not plan to appeal. In the meantime, the Reform Party is petitioning in Arkansas and hopes to qualify that way. Although the Independent Party and the Reform Party were both created by Perot, they have separate identities.
On November 20, a 3-judge federal court in Tallahassee ruled that some of Florida's congressional districts were drawn for reasons of race. Johnson v Smith, no. 94-20025. Another hearing will be held in January or February 1996 to decide whether there was a compelling reason to use race in drawing the districts.
If, as expected, the judges then invalidate the congressional districts, new districts will be drawn. The judges indicated they plan to rule in time for the 1996 election. If new districts are drawn up, ballot access for Congress for third party and independent candidates will be substantially easier. Florida law provides for lower petition requirements, and easier procedures, for congressional petitions in years when the district boundaries change.
On December 11, the District of Columbia Board of Elections ruled that a stand-in presidential candidate may be listed on third party petitions. Later, the stand-in can withdraw and then the party can substitute the actual presidential candidate.
The ruling had been requested by the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which won't know the identity of its presidential candidate until August 18, only two days before the D.C. petition deadline. Under the ruling, the party can now circulate a petition before it has chosen its presidential candidate.
New Hampshire is now the only place in the U.S. in which it is impossible for a party to qualify for president, before it has chosen its presidential candidate. The New Hampshire Secretary of State has declined to rule on the question, preferring to ask the legislature to address the problem early next year.
Ever since June 1992, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that voters do not have a right to cast a write-in vote, defenders of write-in space have been on the defensive.
However, a lawsuit is pending which is very likely to be won, which will at least affirm that states which permit write-ins must honor their own laws. The case is Gelb v Board of Elections, no. 94-0013, Sou. Dist. of New York.
New York's highest state courts ruled in 1912 that the State Constitution protects the right of voters to cast a write-in vote. Nevertheless, in the 1993 primaries in New York city, it was literally impossible to cast a write-in vote for any office listed in the second column of the ballot. Irving Gelb, a write-in candidate for Bronx Borough President, filed a lawsuit against the Election Board for arranging the ballot in such a manner.
Gelb, a taxi driver, represented himself in the initial stages of the case. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Bush appointee, in a published opinion earlier this year (888 F Supp 509), indicated that his claim has substantial merit, but urged Gelb to retain an attorney before proceding further. Gelb has now retained an experienced election law attorney, and the case is proceeding.
A federal opinion, directing a state to obey its own law on write-in voting, will be of substantial value. Many states permit write-in votes but refuse to tally them, even for write-in candidates who have filed an official declaration of write-in candidacy. A good opinion in the Gelb case will be a useful precedent.
In a related development, the Michigan House of Representatives passed HB 4449 on October 19, 1995. It would provide a procedure for write-in candidates who wish their votes tallied, to file a declaration of write-in candidacy, at least three days before any election. If the bill passes, Michigan will be the 29th state to have such a procedure. A similar bill in Pennsylvania, HB 1516, has not made any headway, but may advance next year.
In early November, the Secretary of State told the Reform Party that signatures on its petition to qualify the party are invalid, unless the person signing changes his or her registration to join the party.
Since the petition is already very onerous (5% of the last vote cast must sign, by a very early deadline), the interpretation is harsh. Also, the law doesn't say that the signers must be members of the party; and laws in North Carolina and New Mexico (involving far fewer petition signers), which did say that the signers had to be registered members of the party whose petition they were signing, were ruled unconstitutional in federal courts in 1982 and 1992.
Nevertheless, the Reform Party complied with the ruling, rather than fighting it in court. The party submitted 33,000 signatures of registered members on December 14. As a result, 3.5% of Maine voters are now members of the Reform Party, and the Maine Reform Party has the largest registration membership of any third party in any state (expressed as a percentage).
The Reform Party now says that it will choose its presidential candidate in mid-July 1996. Ross Perot had originally said the party would choose its presidential candidate over Labor Day 1996, but later he learned that many states require the decision to be made by the end of August. Also, he may have been influenced by criticism of the Labor Day date; observers pointed out that a candidate nominated that late, would be handicapped, by too little time in which to campaign.
Reform Parties in California and North Dakota have already told elections officials not to hold Reform Party presidential primaries. Also, in California, the party told the Secretary of State not to print a space for County Central Committee elections on the party's primary ballot. The party's requests were granted.
Alabama's Attorney General still hasn't answered the questions posed by the U.S. Justice Department, concerning the state's reasons for tripling the petition requirement for new parties and non-presidential independent candidates.
The longer he takes to respond, the longer the old 1% petition will be in effect (the new 3% will not be in effect, at the earliest, until 60 days after Alabama's response). And if the state doesn't answer the questions by early January, or if the state's response is unconvincing, the Justice Department will veto the 3% petition.
On November 22, the Arizona Attorney General ruled that Arizona's presidential primary ballot access law is unconstitutional.
Arizona law bars anyone from the presidential primary unless the person is entitled to receive primary season matching federal funds. Steve Forbes objected to this law, since he has not applied for matching funds. The Attorney General agreed with Forbes that the law is unconstitutionally restrictive.
Forbes is currently negotiating with Colorado officials to get a similar ruling there; Colorado is the only other state with such a law.
On November 29, the North Carolina State Board of Elections voted to enforce the statutory petition deadline for third party petitions, of May 15. This was disappointing, because in 1988 and 1992 the Board had set the legal deadline aside, and had accepted petitions as late as mid-July.
The Board heard from a Libertarian Party representative that the deadline is unconstitutional. Ever since 1983, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Anderson v Celebrezze, all court challenges to petition deadlines (involving third party or independent presidential candidates) have won, if the deadline was earlier than July 1 of an election year. However, the Board seemed uninterested.
1. California: there will be a hearing in federal court in San Francisco on December 21 in Democratic Party v Lungren, C94-1703, over state law which makes it illegal for a party to endorse, support or oppose a candidate for non-partisan office. An injunction against the law is already in effect, so it is likely that the law will be held unconstitutional.
2. Florida: on November 7, the ACLU of Florida told the Libertarian Party that it will not represent the party, in a proposed lawsuit over whether the state must permit a stand-in presidential candidate. However, the party has since found alternate legal representation.
Florida has two procedures for a new party to get its presidential candidate on the ballot: a petition signed by 3% of the registered voters (which does not require a party to identify its candidate until after the petition is submitted), and a 1% petition (which does require that the presidential candidate be chosen, before petitioning can begin). The Secretary of State plans to ask the 1996 legislature to amend the law so that the 1% petition will have the same flexibility that the 3% petition has.
3. Georgia (1): a hearing was held on December 13 in Chandler v Miller, 95-8230, over whether a state may require candidates for state office to take a drug test, as a condition of being on the ballot. The judges were James Edmondson (Reagan appointee), Joel Dubina (Bush) and Rosemary Barkett (Clinton). Judge Edmondson predicted that the case will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Georgia (2): on December 13, a 3-judge federal court released a map of new congressional districts for the state, drawn by two of the judges (the third dissented). The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year had invalidated the old districts because race was used to influence district boundaries. The new districts provide for only one black-majority district, whereas the old plan had three such districts. The ACLU plans to appeal the new map back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. Iowa: Representative Mary Lundby will introduce a bill next year, to let voters register as members of parties which are not qualified. No third party has been a qualified party in Iowa since 1970. Consequently, since then, voters have been forced to register Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
5. Louisiana: on November 13, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state's appeal in Louisiana v Schirmer, no. 94-2022. The issue is a law, barring all campaign activity (including the wearing of T-shirts with political slogans) within 500 feet of the polls. The lower court had declared the law unconstitutional.
6. Maine: the Green Party, which is a qualified party in Maine because it polled over 5% of the gubernatorial vote in 1994, is planning legal maneuvers to force the state to provide it with a presidential primary in March 1996. The state refuses to grant the party any recognition as a qualified party yet on the grounds that it must first hold county conventions and a state convention. The party has already held such meetings but the state won't recognize them because state law says they must be held in the early months of even-numbered years. The party plans to hold all its county conventions on January 2, and its state convention very soon afterwards, and then will demand to be included in the state's March 5 presidential primary.
7. Maryland: the Libertarian Party is about to file a lawsuit, alleging that the state cannot keep its congressional candidates off the ballot, since it is a qualified party. The state insists that qualified parties with registration membership of less than 10% must submit approximately 9,000 signatures for each congressional candidate, whereas Republican and Democratic candidates for congress need not petition.
8. Montana: On November 13, the state Administration Department (which controls state property) ruled that petitioners can collect signatures inside state buildings. The ruling had been sought by the Natural Law Party, which is currently petitioning in winter weather in that state.
9. New Mexico: the Attorney General still has not ruled on whether the Green Party must poll 5% for president in 1996, or whether it is sufficient that it poll 5% for any statewide office. The question has been pending since March. The Attorney General says he is too busy with complicated questions from the Governor, to handle questions from state legislators.
10. North Dakota: state law contains a provision saying that all candidate petitions must be completed within 90 days. In 1991, then-Secretary of State James Kusler, a Democrat, ruled that a petition to qualify a new party is not covered by the 90-day rule. But this year, current Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger, not knowing about the 1991 opinion, announced that the 90-day rule does apply.
This discrepancy was brought to Jaeger's attention recently, and he has promised to obtain an Attorney General's Opinion. In the meantime, the three parties seeking party status in North Dakota (Libertarian, Reform, Natural Law) all seem likely to qualify within 90 days anyway.
11. South Carolina: the petition deadline for new parties is 6 months prior to the general election, i.e., early May. However, the state says it isn't practical for a party to qualify that late, and requests that parties submit petitions by January 31.
When the deadline law was written, parties in South Carolina handled their own nominations. Now, though, the state regulates the dates of party meetings, which must be held in March and April. The state feels that, therefore, parties must qualify before the meeting dates. The Reform Party has agreed to comply; the Natural Law Party is uncertain how it will deal with the request.
12. South Dakota: on November 20, the Secretary of State said that the Libertarian Party is free to invite registered independents to vote in its primary, even though state law says that independents may not vote in any party's primary. The decision was based on the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut.
Giving Up on Democracy: Why Term Limits Are Bad for America, by Victor Kamber (1995: Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC), sells for $24.95 hardcover, 275 pages.
The book presents arguments against congressional term limits. This is apparently the first book to argue against congressional term limits (although there have been articles in periodicals). By contrast, there have been at least three books published in favor: Cleaning House (1992) by James Coyne and John Fund; Why Term Limits? Because They Have it Coming (1994) by John Armor; and The Constitutional Case for Term Limits (1993) by John Safranek.
Victor Kamber is president of a communications consulting and public relations firm, The Kamber Group, of Washington, DC. This is his first book. The book has prefaces by Senator Bob Kerrey and Representative Henry Hyde, and quotations of praise from Geraldine Ferraro, Senator Orrin Hatch, and Congressman Bill Richardson.
Giving Up on Democracy will probably not sway any undecided reader to the book's point of view. Instead, it seems to have been written to make the opponents of congressional term limits feel better. Kamber writes that lobbyists will gain power if congressional term limits are ever enacted. Most people know that lobbyists for large corporations are generally opposed to congressional term limits. If Kamber wants to persuade readers that he is correct, he should acknowledge this point, and either rebut it or explain why this apparent paradox exists. But he doesn't acknowledge it.
Kamber demonizes the proponents of term limits. The Libertarian Party has never taken a formal stand on term limits, but Kamber is eager to persuade his readers that Libertarians are the chief force for congressional term limits. He describes a "radical Libertarian" as someone who believes "that drugs should be legalized, the income tax eliminated, and welfare and Social Security abolished".
Kamber attacks the Cato Institute for lobbying for "deregulating business and legalizing 'victimless crimes' such as illegal drugs and prostitution". He writes "Howard Rich replaced Mitchell and Lee with two of his libertarian cronies, Eric O'Keefe and Bob Costello", and then "reveals" that O'Keefe was once national director of the Libertarian Party and that Costello was once an active member.
This type of argument is somewhat analogous to someone back in 1971, arguing that the United States' role in Vietnam must be correct, because the Socialist Workers and Communist Parties were in the forefront of activism against the war. It isn't logical that just because people associated with the Libertarian Party are leading the fight for term limits, therefore term limits is bad.
Better books on the subject of term limits obviously will be written in two or three years, after observers have had a chance to evaluate the performance of term-limited state legislatures.
The Libertarian Party will file its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in its North Carolina ballot access lawsuit soon. The 4th circuit denied a rehearing in McLaughlin v North Carolina State Board of Elections, on October 24th, so the U.S. Supreme Court brief is due January 22, 1996. The issue is the constitutionality of laws which make it very difficult for parties to remain on the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this issue.
This will be the fifteenth time the Libertarian Party has tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear one of its ballot access appeals. All of the other requests were refused.
1. Third Parties '96 meets in Washington, DC on Jan. 5-7. Contact Linda Martin, 703-642-5710.
2. C.U.R.E. meets in Wichita, Ks., Feb. 19-20. Contact Nelson Bernauer at 216-273-3189. The American Party meets at the same place immediately afterwards.
The November 16 B.A.N. mentioned five third party candidates who were elected to public office on November 7, 1995. Additional third party candidates, not named in that issue, who were elected, are: (1) the Independence Party of Minnesota elected Coral Houle Mayor of Bloomington, and elected Gene Winstead to the Bloomington City Council: (2) the Libertarian Party elected Doug Carlsten to the Brighton, Colorado city council; and Jim Hager to the Cordova, Alaska city council. All are non-partisan elections.
The next issue of B.A.N. will contain the vote and percentages cast for third parties in the state legislative elections of Nov. 7, 1995.
The Workers World Party held a national convention in New York city December 2-3. 450 people attended. The convention nominated Monica Moorehead for President, and Gloria LaRiva for Vice-president. Moorehead, 43, is a receptionist who lives in New York; LaRiva, 41, is a printer in California.
The U.S. Taxpayers Party held a national committee meeting in Cleveland on December 1. The group voted that Howard Phillips and Albion Knight should be the party's stand-in candidates for president and vice-president. The actual candidates won't be chosen until August. Phillips and Knight were the party's actual candidates for president and vice-president in 1992.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | REFORM | NATL LAW | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 200 | 0 | Sep 2 | Sep 2 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | *already on | maybe on | *2,000 | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Arizona | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 21 | Jun 30 |
| Arkansas | 21,506 | 0 | 0 | *14,000 | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 15 |
| California | (reg) 89,007 | 147,238 | already on | already on | already on | 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 | maybe on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 7 |
| Delaware | (reg.) 187 | *3,739 | already on | maybe on | (reg) *50 | 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 | *20 | 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 | maybe on | *2,000 | 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 | *200 | 0 | 0 | Jun 1 | Aug 6 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 29 |
| Louisiana | 0 | 0 | 0 | maybe on | 0 | 0 | Jun 30 | Aug 29 |
| Maine | 25,551 | 4,000 | 0 | *finished | 0 | 0 | De 14 95 | Jun 4 |
| Maryland | 10,000 | (es) 75,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 2,000 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 34,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 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 | maybe 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 | *7,500 | 0 | Mar 14 | Jul 31 |
| Nebraska | 5,741 | 2,500 | 5,100 | 0 | *4,000 | 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 | *Apr 2 | Sep 10 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | maybe on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 80,000 | 2,200 | 0 | 0 | *1,700 | *May 15 | Jun 28 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 4,000 | *finished | *6,000 | *5,800 | 0 | De 29 95 | Sep 6 |
| Ohio | 33,463 | 5,000 | 0 | finished | finished | 0 | Nv 20 95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | *30,500 | *300 | 0 | *6,100 | May 31 | Jul 15 |
| Oregon | 18,316 | 14,601 | already on | maybe on | 0 | 0 | Aug 27 | Aug 27 |
| Pennsylvania | no procedure | *24,250 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | 18,069 | 1,000 | can't start | maybe on | can't start | can't start | Aug 1 | Sep 6 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | *7,000 | 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 | *Apr 3 | Aug 20 |
| Texas | 43,963 | 61,541 | already on | can't start | can't start | can't start | May 27 | May 13 |
| Utah | 500 | 300 | already on | *finished | *finished | *finished | Mar 1 | Sep 1 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | *organizng | 0 | already on | 0 | Sep 19 | Sep 19 |
| Virginia | no procedure | (es) 16,000 | can't start | in dispute | 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 | *4,800 | 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 | *200 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 25 |
Green on in Ak, Ca, Me, NM, Or, and has *3,700 in Hi. Prohibition: 100 in Ut. Other nationally-organized parties on: Grassrts in Vt.; New Pty in Wis.; *Soc. in Ore; Wrkrs Wrld in Mi; Prohi. 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. "Maybe On" in Reform Party column means there is a qualified party which may join. 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 Libertarian Party is entitled to its own presidential primaries in Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota (although the Nebraska and Oklahoma primaries depend on the party's finishing petitions on time). This is more presidential primaries than any other third party in U.S. history has ever been entitled to. However, until recently, the party seemed unlikely to use most of them.
Now, however, that is changing. Irwin Schiff, a candidate for the party's nomination who lives in Las Vegas, and who earlier had no interest in running in the party's primaries, has changed his mind, and has already qualified in California, South Dakota and New Hampshire; he intends to run in certain other ones as well. Rick Tompkins, a candidate for the party's nomination who lives in Phoenix, has entered the California primary and also plans to enter the Massachusetts primary. Harry Browne, considered the front-runner for the party's nomination, is now likely to run in most of the primaries.
Ralph Nader will be the only presidential candidate running in the Green Party presidential primary in California. Greens hope he will consent to run in the Maine and New Mexico Green primaries as well.
U.S. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, failed to qualify for the South Dakota Republican presidential primary. His aides blamed the difficulty of trying to cope with so many different state election procedures, all of which are different.
There are 22 Republicans, 21 Democrats, and 2 Libertarians, running in the three New Hampshire presidential primaries. No petition is required to obtain a place on the New Hampshire presidential primary; instead, candidates must pay a fee of $1,000, by the deadline, which was December 15.
New Hampshire still doesn't know when it will hold its presidential primary. Its law says the date should be either February 20, 1996, or at least one week before any other state's presidential primary. Delaware insists that it is going to hold its presidential primary on February 24. Under New Hampshire law, this should put the New Hampshire primary on February 13 (the latest Tuesday which is at least one week before February 24).
However, New Hampshire officials hope Delaware will give up, since most leading Republicans have agreed to boycott the Delaware primary, out of respect for New Hampshire. Senator Phil Gramm, however, says he will run in Delaware. The issue should be resolved by December 31.
The only name on the American Independent Party presidential primary will be Howard Phillips (the American Independent Party in California is affiliated with the U.S. Taxpayers Party nationally).
The only name on the Natural Law presidential primary will be John Hagelin. The party has already informally determined that Hagelin will be its nominee, although the formal nomination will not be made until late August.
The Peace & Freedom presidential primary will be contested by Mary Hollis (who is already the Socialist Party nominee), Monica Moorehead (who is already the Workers World nominee), Gerald Horne, and Jan Tucker.
sale cialis cheapest generic viagra viagra prescription generic cialis online discount viagra no rx cialis no prescription cialis on sale express viagra delivery viagra no rx required viagra online cialis vs viagra canada buy cialis online without prescription cialis 30 mg cialis delivered overnight cheap cialis in uk canadian cialis prescriptions cialis sales online get viagra fast buy cialis usa order viagra cheap cialis uk discount canadian cialis cheapest viagra price cost of cialis viagra for order viagra canadian pharmacy buy cialis online canada pfizer viagra canada cialis low price cialis low price buy viagra cheap buy viagra now online buy cheap viagra online uk cheap viagra index cialis by mail how to get some viagra viagra for cheap free viagra sample canada meds viagra viagra next day delivery buy cialis online order viagra us buy viagra com viagra generic drug levitra versus viagra viagra generico viagra next day delivery cialis online ordering cialis online canada buying cialis soft tabs 100 mg cialis online order cialis 100 mg buy branded cialis buy viagra brand cheap viagra from canada brand viagra professional buy cialis where cialis soft cialis daily canadian pharmacy how can i get some cialis free cialis samples real viagra online cialis on sale