Ballot Access News -- July 3, 1998

Volume 14, Number 4

This issue was originally printed on gray paper.

Table of Contents
  1. U.S. HOUSE TO VOTE ON RON PAUL BILLS IN LATE JULY
  2. CALIFORNIA BLANKET PRIMARY CHALLENGED
  3. NEW TURNOUT LOWS
  4. 1920 BALLOT ACCESS (table)
  5. U.S. SENATOR SUPPORTS DEBATES BILL
  6. NOTES ON 1920 DATA
  7. LEGISLATIVE NEWS
  8. VICTORY ON STANDING
  9. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN NORTH IRELAND
  10. NEW HAMPSHIRE VICTORY
  11. FULANI OWES $117,270
  12. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
  13. BALLOT FOUNDATION
  14. PARTIES NOT ON CHART
  15. JERRY BROWN
  16. NEW YORK GOVERNOR RACE
  17. 1998 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE (table)
  18. CALIFORNIA PRIMARY RESULTS
  19. NEW MEXICO SPECIAL ELECTION
  20. MIDWEST REFORM PARTY PRIMARIES
  21. NEW MEXICO GREEN PARTY PRIMARY
  22. TEXAS REFORM PARTY
  23. Subscription Information

U.S. HOUSE TO VOTE ON RON PAUL BILLS IN LATE JULY

CONGRESS IS IN RECESS UNTIL JULY 13; LOBBYING POSSIBLE LOCALLY

Congress recessed on June 26, and will return on July 13. When the U.S. House is again in session, it will debate HR 3526, the famous Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has been given permission to ask the House to attach HR 2477, the ballot access bill, to HR 3526. Thus, for the first time in the 14-year history of ballot access bills, each member of the U.S. House will cast a vote for or against ballot access reform (except, obviously, those members who aren't voting that day).

The ballot access bill has been repeatedly introduced in Congress ever since 1985. It never received a hearing, until February 26, 1998, when it received a very short hearing. In the current congress, it is HR 2477.

The presidential debates bill probably will also be offered as an amendment. Currently, the Ron Paul debates bill is HR 2478. However, the chances that the ballot access bill will be offered as an amendment are greater than the chances for the debates bill, since Paul has permission to try to attach the ballot access bill to six different campaign finance bills, whereas he has permission to try to attach the debates bill to only one campaign finance bill, a bill sponsored by Congressman Tom Campbell.

Shays-Meehan Bill

The Shays-Meehan bill, HR 3526 (by Christopher Shays, R-Ct, and Martin Meehan, D-Ma), without any amendments, makes these five changes in federal campaign law:

(1) It bans "soft money" by prohibiting national political parties, and federal candidates, from raising, spending or directing soft money. It also prohibits state parties from spending soft money for federal elections.

(2) It requires anyone who runs a broadcast ad mentioning a federal candidate within two months of a general election to submit to existing laws governing spending by candidates themselves (contributions would be limited to $1,000 from each donor).

(3) It provides for faster disclosure of campaign contributions.

(4) It codifies in federal law a past U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows non-union members who must pay fees in lieu of union dues to obtain a refund of the portion of their fees used for political campaigns.

(5) It limits spending of wealthy candidates by barring political parties from making coordinated expenditures on behalf of House candidates who do not agree to limit spending their own money to a limit of $50,000.

Unlike some prominent campaign finance bills in the recent past, Shays-Meehan does not discriminate for or against any political party.

Anyone is free to ask his or her member of the U.S. House to vote for the Ron Paul amendments, no matter what he or she thinks about the original, unadorned Shays-Meehan bill itself. It is likely that Shays-Meehan will pass the House in July or August, although its chances in the U.S. Senate, where filibusters are permitted, are not considered good.

It is important that supporters of the Ron Paul amendments ask their Congressmembers to support the Ron Paul amendments. Even if it isn't attached, it is important that it rally a significant number of "Aye" votes. If the number of "Aye" votes is impressive, it will be much easier for the bill to get serious consideration on its own in future congresses.

Ballot Access Amendment

If the ballot access amendment were passed into law, states would continue to write their own ballot access laws. However, the number of signatures for statewide federal office could be no higher than one-tenth of 1% of the last vote cast, and the number of signatures for district federal office could be no higher than one-half of 1%.

The one-tenth of 1% standard is similar to the median petition requirement which existed in the U.S. during the 1920's. See the chart on page two which substantiates this. Feel free to use the chart, if you communicate with your member of Congress. This information has never before been published.

Since most members of Congress will be available in their district offices during the first two weeks in July, try to make an appointment to see him or her. If you don't know where the district office is, your library can help you, or look in the phone book in the Government Pages under "Congress".

Point out that in Georgia, the ballot access laws for U.S. House are so severe that no minor party candidate for that office has ever appeared on the ballot, since the existing law was written in 1943. Yet the legislature of Georgia has repeatedly refused to alter it, and the courts have repeatedly refused to strike it down. The law requires any minor party which wishes to run against Speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, to submit over 25,000 valid signatures. It would be necessary for a group to collect 50,000 signatures in order to be certain that the petition contained 25,000 valid signatures, since the validity rate of petitions circulated in a single district is always very poor. Many well-meaning signers would turn out to be residents of a neighboring district.

Debates Amendment

The Ron Paul presidential debates amendment would provide that anyone who is on the ballot in at least 40 states, must be invited into general presidential debates. Major party presidential candidates who refuse to debate, lose general election public financing. The best argument in behalf of the debates amendment is that, without it, the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates will never agree to debate any opponents except each other. In 1996, President Clinton and Senator Dole refused to debate anyone else. In response, fewer voters watched the general election presidential debates in 1996 than any past general election presidential debates.


CALIFORNIA BLANKET PRIMARY CHALLENGED

The California blanket primary law, which was tried for the first time on June 2, is being challenged in the 9th circuit by four parties. In court, defenders of the law argue that the blanket primary does not affect the outcome of any party's primary for any office. If it could be shown that it does make a difference, it would almost certainly be invalidated. The results of the primary make it very likely that the blanket primary did affect the outcome of several minor party primaries, since the members of those parties were vastly outnumbered by non-member voters. The Associated Press noted this in a June 4 article, which will be reprinted in the next B.A.N.


NEW TURNOUT LOWS

According to a June 18 report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, voter turnout in primaries held so far this year averages only 16.9% of the potential electorate. This is the lowest turnout in primaries since before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 (however, 1998 data is far from complete, since many states haven't held their primaries yet).

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) can be reached at 421 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington DC 20003, phone (202)-546-3221, fax (202)-546-3571.


1920 BALLOT ACCESS (table)

See this note about tables.

STATE NUMBER PERCENT
Alabama 0 .00
Alaska 0 .00
Arizona 143 .10
Arkansas 0 .00
California 20,651 1.50
Colorado 500 .09
Connecticut 2,139 .34
Delaware 750 .59
Florida 0 .00
Georgia - - - -
Hawaii 0 .00
Idaho 4,807 2.12
Illinois 1,000 .03
Indiana 500 .03
Iowa 500 .04
Kansas (reg) 2,556 .26
Kentucky 1,000 .08
Louisiana 1,000 .30
Maine 1,000 .24
Maryland 500 .06
Massachusetts 1,000 .05
Michigan 0 .00
Minnesota 2,000 .16
Mississippi 0 .00
Missouri 0 .00
Montana 0 .00
Nebraska (att) 500 .07
Nevada 741 1.66
New Hampshire 1,000 .42
New Jersey 800 .05
New Mexico 0 .00
New York 12,000 .23
North Carolina imposs. - -
North Dakota 300 .10
Ohio 9,609 .30
Oklahoma oth state - -
Oregon 7,650 1.56
Pennsylvania 2,639 .06
Rhode Island 500 .17
South Carolina - - - -
South Dakota 0 .00
Tennessee 0 .00
Texas 0 .00
Utah 500 .24
Vermont 423 .21
Virginia 0 .00
Washington 0 .00
West Virginia 1,000 .14
Wisconsin 1,000 .07
Wyoming 100 .09
TOTAL 78,808 .08

"PERCENT" means the number of signatures for a new party to get on the 1920 statewide ballot (with a party label), divided by the number of votes cast for president, 1920. "Att" is attendees; "reg" is registered members.


U.S. SENATOR SUPPORTS DEBATES BILL

U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski wrote a letter on March 10, 1998, saying "HR 2478 (the Ron Paul debates bill) is a worthwhile approach and believe that this issue will be addressed when the Senate takes up campaign finance reform this month. When we do debate this issue, I will support it in the Senate." Murkowski is an Alaska Republican.


NOTES ON 1920 DATA

The preceding chart, showing ballot access requirements in 1920 for new parties, can be used to show that the Ron Paul ballot access amendment is reasonable. The Paul amendment sets a ceiling of one-tenth of 1% of the last vote cast, for petition requirements for new parties and independent candidates for statewide federal office. This is actually more difficult than the median state requirement, as of 1920. The median state requirement that year was only .08% of the 1920 vote cast for president. U.S. ballots were not overly crowded in 1920.

A few odd entries require an explanation. Dashes are shown for Georgia and South Carolina because those states didn't have government-printed ballots back then. Georgia started them in 1922 and South Carolina started them in 1950.

North Carolina in 1920 said that a party could not appear on the general election ballot unless it had polled at least 50,000 votes for Governor in 1900. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties met this standard. The state would provide a primary for a new party if it submitted 10,000 signatures on a petition, but that party still couldn't get its nominees on the government-printed general election ballot (such parties were permitted to distribute privately-printed ballots to its supporters, and they could then vote on those ballots and put them in a ballot box).

Oklahoma had no provision for a new party to get on the ballot, other than a law putting any party on the ballot which had polled 10% of the vote for any statewide office in any other three states.


LEGISLATIVE NEWS

1. Florida: Senator Bill Turner (D-Miami Shores) and Representative Jerry Melvin (R-Fort Walton Beach) have each pledged to support easier ballot access for all candidates, in next year's legislative session.

2. New Jersey: on June 25, the Senate State Government Committee passed SB 1227, which moves the non-presidential minor party and independent petition deadline from April to June. It also requires that independent and minor party candidates not be registered Republicans or Democrats. The bill was introduced in response to this year's court decision, striking down the April petition deadline. If the bill passes, the state will drop its appeal.

3. New York: On June 18, the legislature passed Assembly Bill 11314, which changes the method of proportional representation for New York City school board elections. In the past, the single-transferrable vote has been used. In the future, limited voting will be used. The practical difference is that, in the past, a candidate strongly supported by only 10% of the voters could be elected; now strong support from 30% will be required. Governor Pataki is expected to sign the bill during July.

4. North Carolina: SB 573, which eases the petition deadline for new parties from May to July, and which lets voters remain registered as members of a political party even after it has been disqualified, will receive a vote on the House floor during July or August. The same bill already passed the Senate last year.

5. Pennsylvania: the House State Government Committee will hold a workshop on HB 1918 on July 15 (Wednesday) at 1 p.m., Room 40, East Wing of the Capitol. This is the ballot access reform bill. Anyone may attend and testify.

6. South Carolina: The legislature adjourned without enacting S 399, the bill which would have legalized write-in votes for president (write-ins for all other office are permitted). The bill had passed the Senate but never made any progress in the House.


VICTORY ON STANDING

On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for private individuals to sue the Federal Election Commission. FEC v Akins, 96-1590. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. The U.S. Justice Department had sided with the FEC, to no avail.

The lawsuit had been brought by some individuals who were unhappy that the FEC had refused to require the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to register as a political committee. A political committee, defined in the federal law as "any committee, club, association or other group of persons" that spends at least $1,000 per year to influence federal elections, must disclose the names of donors who give $200 per year.

Although other technicalities in the case make it unclear that AIPAC will ever need to register, the Supreme Court settled that ordinary voters can file a lawsuit like this. In the past, "standing" (the ability to bring a lawsuit) has been a problem for minor parties and independents. For example, tax-exempt debate sponsors must act in a non-partisan manner, but when excluded candidates have tried to sue the IRS to force the IRS to revoke tax-exempt status for organizations which do discriminate, standing has been a barrier. This recent decision will be somewhat helpful in the future.


PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN NORTH IRELAND

On June 25, the voters of Northern Ireland elected an Assembly, which will function as the region's parliament. The voters used the single transferable voting method. Results are: Ulster Unionists 28 seats, Social Democratic-Labor 24, Democratic Unionists 20, Sinn Fein 18, Alliance 6, U.K. Unionists 5, Women's Coalition 2, Progressive Unionists 2, independents 3. This is the most important election using proportional representation ever held in the United Kingdom. All of the parties except the Democratic Unionists and the U.K. Unionists support the recent Belfast peace agreement.


NEW HAMPSHIRE VICTORY

On June 5, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro, a Bush appointee, issued an injunction against New Hampshire law which provides more difficult ballot access for candidates who won't limit campaign spending. Kennedy v Gardner, C-96-574-B.

The plaintiff sought a place on the Republican primary ballot for state legislature in 1996. Since he refused to promise to limit his campaign spending, he had to pay a fee of $25 and to submit ten signatures. If he had promised to limit his spending, both requirements would have been waived. Judge Barbadoro said "It is not the magnitude of the penalty, but rather the fact that the state has attempted to punish candidates who will not abandon their constitutional rights that makes the spending cap requirements coercive."


FULANI OWES $117,270

On June 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upheld a 1996 Federal Election Commission determination that Lenora Fulani must repay $117,270 in 1992 primary season matching funds. She had received $2,100,000. Fulani v FEC, 97-1466. The decision was written by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, and signed by Judges Raymond Randolph, a Bush appointee, and Steve Williams, a Reagan appointee. Lenora Fulani was the New Alliance Party's presidential candidate in 1988 and 1992.

Most of the amount in dispute concerned payments by the campaign which were not substantiated according to FEC rules. The campaign wrote checks to many people who performed services for the campaign, such as petitioning to get Fulani on the ballot. 570 of the checks were not negotiated by the payee. Instead, the campaign employees who were the recipients of these checks asked the campaign treasurer to cash them, so they could pick up cash when they came to the campaign office. Although the campaign later submitted affidavits that 568 of the check recipients did receive their money, the FEC said that this method of documentation was not good enough.


MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

1. Arkansas: on June 4, the 8th circuit struck down a law which capped contributions to legislative candidates at $100. The lower court had upheld the law. Russell v Burris, 97-3922. The decision was written by Judge Morris Arnold, a Bush appointee, and signed by Judges Roger Wollman and C. Arlen Beam, Reagan appointees.

2. California: on June 24, U.S. District Court Judge James Ideman dismissed the lawsuit Blanco v State on procedural grounds. This was the case filed by a Peace & Freedom Party member who was kept off the ballot because the San Luis Obispo County Clerk didn't tell him about the need to file a candidacy form.

3. Colorado: on June 29, a hearing was held in state court in Denver over the constitutionality of state petition requirements, for candidates seeking a place on a major party primary ballot. Joan Johnson, a State Senator running for the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State, was told she didn't have enough valid signatures (she needed 7,880). She alleges that it is unconstitutional for the state to require that circulators must be registered members of the Democratic Party; that the number of signatures required is too high; and that the congressional distribution requirement is void. A decision is expected momentarily. Johnson v Buckley, 98-cv-4992, Denver.

4. Louisiana: there will be a hearing in the 5th circuit on July 9 in Foster v Love, 98-30436, over the date of this year's congressional primaries.

5. Montana: on February 18, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Lovell ordered a trial in Montana Chamber of Commerce v Argenbright, cv97-6-H, over a law which prohibits for-profit corporations from donating out of their treasury for or against initiative campaigns. Although the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 had ruled that states cannot prohibit such spending, it had left the door open to a contrary finding, if it could be shown that corporate spending swamps other spending. Defenders of the state law hope to show that this is the case.

6. Nevada: on June 19, U.S. District Court Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, a Clinton appointee, upheld state law mandating alphabetical order for candidates on primary ballots. Schaefer v Heller, cv-s-96-492. The plaintiff had argued for rotation.

7. Oklahoma: on June 22, a trial was begun in Atherton v Ward, cv96-1926-A, a lawsuit filed by the Libertarian Party against state law which doesn't permit voters to remain registered in a party, after it loses its place on the ballot. Due to Judge Wayne Alley's tight schedule, the hearing can't be completed until mid-August.

8. Washington: on June 15 the State Supreme Court struck down a state law, making it illegal to make a false statement in a political campaign ad. State v 119 Vote No, no. 64332-6.

9. federal law: on June 26, U.S. District Court Judge William Bryant, a Lyndon Johnson appointee in Washington, D.C., refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a federal law which makes it illegal for political parties to pay for issue ads with soft money. The issue itself will be settled after a trial. Republican Natioal Committee v FEC, 98-1207, and Ohio Democratic Party v FEC, 98-991.


BALLOT FOUNDATION

Tom Newmark, a Missouri attorney with the Natural Law Party, and Tom Linzey, a Pennsylvania attorney with the Green Party, in conjunction with COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) have incorporated a new non-profit foundation, which will work to help the legal climate for minor parties and independent candidates. They have applied for 501(c)(3) status from the IRS, which may take a year or longer to obtain.


PARTIES NOT ON CHART

The 1998 statewide petitioning chart below does not have room for these parties: the Socialist Workers Party, which is petitioning in Iowa, New Jersey and D.C.; the Socialist Party, on in Oregon; and the Prohibition Party, petitioning in Colorado.


JERRY BROWN

The June 17 San Francisco Chronicle reports that Mayor-elect Jerry Brown of Oakland, California, who was Governor of California from 1975 through 1983, recently met with San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. The newspaper quotes Willie Brown as saying about Jerry Brown, "Take it from me, he's going to be the Independent Party candidate in 2000."

Jerry Brown changed his registration from "Democrat" to "Independent" in 1995. He has close ties to the Green Party. On the other hand, if he is considering a presidential race in 2000 outside the major parties, he may be tempted to seek the Reform Party nomination, since the Reform nominee for president in 2000 will be entitled to $10,000,000 in general election public campaign finds. This is separate from any primary season matching funds that he might receive.


NEW YORK GOVERNOR RACE

Minor parties always have a special interest in New York gubernatorial races, since state law defines "party" to be a group which polls 50,000 votes. Existing qualified minor parties in the state are Conservative, Reform (called "Independence"), Liberal, Right to Life, and Freedom.

Unqualified parties which hope to qualify this year are Green, Working Families, Libertarian and Socialist Workers. There are two factions of the Green Party in New York, but the stronger faction intends to run actor Al Lewis for Governor. Lewis is known for his role as "grandpa" in TV series The Munsters. Although he is 89, he is healthy, and has long been active in politics.

Working Families is the New York state branch of the New Party. It intends to cross-endorse the Democratic nominee, and has substantial support from several large labor unions. The Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate will be chosen in a primary on September 15. The Liberal Party has chosen Betsy McCaughey Ross as its gubernatorial candidate; she may or may not be the Democratic nominee. The Independence Party will run multi-millionaire Tom Golisano.


1998 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE (table)

See this note about tables.

STATE REQUIREMENTS SIGNATURES COLLECTED DEADLINE
FULL PARTY CAND. REFORM LIB'T NAT LAW TAXPAYR GREEN
Alabama 35,973 35,973 0 0 0 0 0 Jun 29
Alaska (reg.) 6,403 #2,453 3 already on 3 0 already on June 1
Arizona 18,726 est #8,000 already on already on 0 0 3,000 June 25
Arkansas 21,506 10,000 already on 0 0 0 0 May 5
California (reg) 89,007 156,621 already on already on already on already on already on Aug 7
Colorado *10,000 #1,000 *300 already on *already on *500 *already on Jul 14
Connecticut no procedure #7,500 0 *7,000 0 already on 0 Aug 7
Delaware (reg.) 224 *4,478 already on already on already on already on 20 Aug 22
D.C. no procedure #3,000 can't start can't start can't start can't start can't start Aug 26
Florida 242,337 242,337 *12,000 0 0 0 0 Jul 14
Georgia 38,113 #38,113 already on already on 0 0 *2,000 Jul 14
Hawaii 5,450 25 0 already on already on 0 already on Jul 21
Idaho 9,835 1,000 already on already on already on already on 0 Aug 31
Illinois no procedure #25,000 already on *10,000 *0 *0 *0 Aug 3
Indiana no procedure #29,822 0 already on 0 0 0 Jul 15
Iowa no procedure #1,500 already on *200 *0 0 0 Aug 14
Kansas 16,418 5,000 already on already on 0 *already on 0 Aug 4
Kentucky no procedure #5,000 already on 0 0 0 0 Aug 4
Louisiana est. (reg) 128,000 0 already on 691 14 40 89 July 31
Maine 30,288 #4,000 already on 0 0 *already on *already on May 25
Maryland (10,000) est. 78,000 0 6,000 0 0 2,000 Aug 3
Massachusetts est. (reg) 32,000 #10,000 already on *6,000 0 0 0 July 28
Michigan 30,891 30,891 already on already on *finished *4,000 6,000 July 16
Minnesota 109,487 #2,000 already on 0 0 0 0 July 21
Mississippi just be org. #1,000 already on already on already on already on 0 Apr 3
Missouri 10,000 10,000 already on already on 0 already on 0 July 27
Montana 16,039 #10,097 already on already on already on 0 0 Jun 1
Nebraska 5,741 2,000 already on *finished 0 0 0 Aug 25
Nevada 4,498 4,498 already on already on already on already on already on July 9
New Hampshire 14,901 #3,000 0 *finished 0 0 0 Aug 5
New Jersey no procedure #1,300 *250 *1,200 *200 *200 0 July 27
New Mexico (2,781) 14,029 already on already on 0 0 already on July 14
New York no procedure #15,000 already on can't start can't start can't start can't start Aug 18
North Carolina 51,324 est. 82,000 *too late already on *too late *too late *too late June 26
North Dakota 7,000 1,000 already on 0 0 0 0 Sep 4
Ohio 45,345 5,000 already on 0 *already on 0 0 May 5
Oklahoma 60,336 0 already on *too late *too late *too late *too late July 8
Oregon 18,282 13,292 already on already on already on 2,400 already on Aug 25
Pennsylvania no procedure #24,390 *8,000 *5,000 0 *finished 0 Aug 3
Rhode Island 18,069 #1,000 already on 0 0 0 *600 Aug 1
South Carolina 10,000 10,000 already on already on already on already on 0 Aug 1
South Dakota 7,792 #3,117 0 already on 0 0 0 Aug 4
Tennessee 37,179 25 *too late *too late *too late *too late *too late May 21
Texas 43,963 43,963 *too late already on *too late *too late *too late May 24
Utah 2,000 #300 already on already on already on already on too late Mar 15
Vermont just be org. #1,000 already on already on already on 0 already on Sep 17
Virginia no procedure 17,983 *too late *on in part *too late *too late *too late Jun 9
Washington no procedure #200 already on *0 *0 *0 *0 Jul 3
West Virginia no procedure #5,957 *too late already on *too late *too late *too late May 11
Wisconsin 10,000 #2,000 already on already on 0 already on already on July 14
Wyoming 8,000 10,500 0 already on 0 0 500 Aug 24
TOTAL STATES ON 32 26 *13 *12 *10

"FULL PARTY REQ." means a new party can qualify before it names candidates; () means party must also do candidate petitions. # Candidate procedure lets candidate use party label. "Deadline" refers to the procedure with the latest deadline. * - Entry changed since last issue. Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia have no statewide offices up in 1998, so for them, chart is for US House.


CALIFORNIA PRIMARY RESULTS

On June 2, California held a "blanket" primary. Every voter could vote for any candidate, for any office. Thus the results probably mirror what the November results will be:

Note: for Web edition, parties are indicated as follows: AIP - American Independent; GRN - Green; LBT - Libertarian; NTL - Natural Law; PNF - Peace & Freedom; RFM - Reform.

U.S. Senate: Ted Brown, LBT, 1.2%; Ophie Beltran, PNF, .9%; Timothy Erich, RFM, .7%; Joseph Perrin, AIP .4%; Brian Rees, NTL, .4%.

Governor: Dan Hamburg, GRN, 1.6%; Steve Kubby, LBT, .8%; Gloria LaRiva, PNF, .3%; Marcia Feinland, PNF, .2%; Nathan Johnson, AIP, .3%; Harold Bloomfield, NTL, .2%.

Lieutenant Governor: Sara Amir, GRN, 2.7%; Tom Tryon, LBT, 1.9%; Jaime Gomez, PNF, 1.3%; Regina Lark, PNF, 1.1%; Jim Mangia, RFM, .7%; George McCoy, AIP, .7%.

Secretary of State: Gail Lightfoot, LBT, 3.6%; Jane Bialosky, NTL, 2.0%; Carolyn Short, AIP, 1.5%; Valli Sharpe-Geisler, RFM, 1.2%; Israel Feuer, PNF, 1.2%; Marisa Palyvos-Story, PNF, 1.2%.

Controller: Pamela Pescosolido, LBT, 2.1%; Alfred Burgess, AIP, 1.7%; Denise Jackson, RFM, 1.6%; C. T. Weber, PNF, 1.3%; Iris Adam, NTL, 1.0%.

Treasurer: Jon Petersen, LBT, 2.3%; Jan Tucker, PNF, 1.8%; Carlos Aguirre, NTL, 1.7%; Edmon Kaiser, AIP, 1.0%.

Attorney General: Joseph Farina, LBT, 1.5%; Diane Templin, AIP, 1.4%; Robert Evans, PNF, 1.3%; Gary Kast, PNF, 1.1%.

Insurance Commissioner: Dale Ogden, LBT, 2.4%; Barbara Bourdette, NTL, 2.1%; Gary Ramos, PNF, 1.6%; Tom Condit, PNF, 1.3%; Merton Short, AIP, 1.3%.

A party must poll at least 2% for one statewide race, to remain on the ballot; or, it must have registration of 1% of the gubernatorial vote (American Independent has so many registrations, it need not worry about its vote; Green and Reform will probably also have enough registrations).


NEW MEXICO SPECIAL ELECTION

On June 23, there was a special election for Congress in the New Mexico First District. The results were: Heather Wilson, Republican, 54,221 (44.55%); Phil Maloof, Democrat, 47,987 (39.42%); Robert Anderson, Green, 17,971 (14.76%); Bruce Bush, Libertarian, 1,327 (1.09%); Cole, write-in, 213 (.17%).

All of the candidate debates included the Green candidate, and a few debates included the Libertarian candidate. The Green candidate only spent $5,000. The Republican and Democratic candidates together spent $4,000,000.


MIDWEST REFORM PARTY PRIMARIES

1. Iowa: The only voters who could vote in the Reform Party primary on June 2 were the 279 voters who are registered members of that party, plus anyone willing to change affiliation into the party on primary day. Three candidates sought the party's nomination for Governor. The vote was Jim Hennager, 131; Jeffrey Hughes, 99; Edward Moses, 99. No candidates ran for any other statewide office, but the party can nominate by convention for other offices.

2. North Dakota: 99,230 voters voted in the June 9 primary. Voters had to choose to vote in the Republican, Democratic or Reform primaries. 325 voted for the Reform Party candidate for U.S. Senate, and 289 voted for the Reform Party candidate for U.S. House. State law requires a statewide candidate to poll 300 votes in the primary, so one of the Reform Party nominees qualified, but the other one didn't.


NEW MEXICO GREEN PARTY PRIMARY

The only voters who could vote in the New Mexico Green Party primary on June 2 were the party's 7,054 registered members. 860 of them did so, nominating four statewide candidates, two congressional candidates, and some legislative and county candidates.


TEXAS REFORM PARTY

Although the Reform Party failed to get on the statewide Texas ballot this year, it qualified in Hunt County.


Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger ban@igc.apc.org. Note: subscriptions are available!
Go back to the index.
Compilation copyright (c) 1998 Bob Bickford