|This issue was originally printed on green paper.|
On March 21, New Jersey state court judge Anthony Parrillo ruled that the state must let voters register as members of minor parties. Ever since 1918, New Jersey voters have been restricted to registering only as Republicans, Democrats or independents. Council of Alternative Political Parties v State, Mer-C-006-99., superior court.
The plaintiff political parties in the case are Reform, Libertarian, Green, Natural Law and Constitution. The parties persuaded the judge that in states which permit voters to register into those parties, the parties benefit from having this list of supporters. The judge limited his relief to those particular parties, pending any legislative action. The state Democratic and Republican Parties, which had intervened in the suit to uphold the old restrictive law, will appeal. However, the Attorney General of New Jersey hasn't said yet whether he will appeal. If the state doesn't appeal, the appeal of the Democratic and Republican Parties will be weakened.
This is the third lawsuit won by minor parties on this issue. The previous victories were in Colorado in 1984 and Oklahoma in 1998. There have also been two losses, in Iowa in 1990 and North Carolina in 1995. Judge Parrillo distinguished the Iowa case from the New Jersey case by pointing out that a group can become a qualified party in Iowa if it polls 2% for Governor or president, whereas in New Jersey, it must poll 10% of the vote for legislature. Also in Iowa, only three counties had computerized voter registration records at the time, whereas all New Jersey counties have computerized registration records.
Parillo distinguished the North Carolina case from the New Jersey case by mentioning that at least in North Carolina, there is a petition procedure for a group to transform itself into a qualified party, and when it does that, it gains registration privileges.
By contrast, in New Jersey, there is no procedure for a group to turn itself into a qualified party (short of hoping that its candidates for legislature poll 10%). Since 1918, only the Democrats and Republicans have been qualified in New Jersey. No other state has gone so many years with no qualified parties other than the two major parties.
The only remaining states which ask for party affiliation on voter registration forms, but which force voters to choose only among the qualified parties or "independent" are New York, Iowa and Kansas. However, there are some other states which permit anyone to register into unqualified parties, yet don't keep separate computer tallies for those unqualified parties.
The basis for the decision was equal protection. Since the state gathers a list of registered voters for the major parties, it cannot fail to perform the same service for smaller bona fide parties. The 41-page ruling took care to describe the plaintiff political parties in some detail, to show that they enjoy a fair modicum of public support and are well-organized.
On March 6, the Virginia legislature passed HB 4, which provides that candidates of qualified parties may have a party label on the general election ballot next to their names. Republican legislators voted for the bill, whereas Democrats opposed it.
Virginia already permits party labels for presidential candidates at the general election (for qualified and non-qualified parties alike). But Virginia has never before printed party labels on the general election ballot for other office.
HB 4 requires that candidates of non-qualified parties must have "independent" printed next to their names. Non-qualified parties are those which failed to poll 10% at either of the last two elections for any statewide office.
Only the Democratic and Republican Parties meet the 10% standard. Virginia has no petition procedure for a group to transform itself into a qualified party. The only access for a group is to circulate candidate petitions, and then if a statewide candidate of that group gets 10%, the group becomes a party.
Under HB 4, if a new party were formed in an election year, no matter how popular it might be, it would be impossible for it to place its candidates on the ballot with a party label. Therefore, HB 4 is unconstitutional, as applied to new and minor parties, under a federal court decision from Wyoming in 1984, Blomquist v Thomsen, 591 F Supp 768. In the entire history of U.S. government-printed ballots, Wyoming (for the period 1973-1984) had been the only state which ever had a policy of printing party labels on the ballot only for old, already-established parties, and not for any new parties. Now, if Governor James Gilmore signs HB 4, Virginia will be alone in that discriminatory category.
The legislature was aware of the Wyoming precedent, but ignored it, voting down a separate House bill to provide party labels for all parties.
Governor Gilmore has the power to rewrite SB 4 and make it fair. He must either sign the bill as it is, improve it, or veto it, by April 4. Anyone may telephone his office at (804)-786-2211.
SB 4 doesn't take effect until 2001. It is certain that minor party candidates will sue, if the Governor does not improve the bill. It will be especially difficult for Virginia to defend its policy, because it already has a non-discriminatory policy for ballot labels for president.
Minor party candidates in Virginia need party labels even more than major party candidates do, since Republicans and Democrats are always on the top two lines of the ballot, whereas other candidates are not.
On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public universities may collect student activity fees even from students who object to particular activities. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v Southworth, 98-1189.
Significantly, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the decision, said that when government subsidizes the speech of groups with tax money, it must use a standard of viewpoint neutrality. Five other justices signed Kennedy's opinion.
The only part of the student activity fee which the Court disallowed was a procedure by which students voted on whether particular groups should be subsidized or not. The Court said, "The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as majority views. Access to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is controlling here." The Court remanded the case to a lower court to handle that part of the case.
Justices David Souter, John Stevens and William Breyer wrote separately to disagree with Kennedy on the point of neutrality. They cited Buckley v Valeo, the 1976 case upholding general election public financing only for parties which polled 5%, to bolster their position that the government may show favoritism.
The majority decision may protect minor parties from potential future discriminatory public funding schemes. For example, in 1994, the Senate passed S.3, which would have given public subsidies as high as thirteen times as much money to Democratic or Republican candidates as they had raised privately. Yet no other U.S. Senate candidate could ever receive a public subsidy greater than half of the private money he or she had raised. This would have been true, even in cases in which the minor party or independent candidate had raised more private money and was more popular than either of the major party candidates.
On March 23, state judge Stephen Pheffer ruled that New Mexico must recognize the new Libertarian registrations that the party obtained, in its drive to upgrade its status from qualified minor party to qualified major party. Under the law, a major party is one which polled 5% in the last election and has registration of one-third of 1% by January 31 of an election year. Lib't Party v Vigil-Giron, D-101-2000-191, Santa Fe.
The state had refused to recognize the new Libertarian registrations because some voters said they hadn't understood what they were signing, when a Libertarian worker approached them and asked them to sign a new voter registration, making them members of the party. However, Judge Pheffer said that was no basis for excluding all the new registrants.
But the judge also ruled that the law requires a party to have polled 5% for Governor, not 5% for any office. Under his ruling, the Green Party would also lose its major party status. It didn't run a candidate for Governor in 1998, but polled 28% for State Auditor. The Libertarians didn't run for Governor in 1998 either, but polled 9% for Land Commissioner.
Major parties nominate by primary. Qualified minor parties nominate by convention, but must submit petitions for each candidate equal to 1% of the last vote cast, in order to get their convention nominees on the November ballot (although no petition is required for president). Therefore, major party status is more valuable than minor party status.
In 1996 the New Mexico Attorney General ruled that the 5% vote test is satisfied by a candidate for any office, as long as that candidate receives a number of votes equal to 5% for the office at the top of the ticket. He based his ruling on the law, which says a major party is "any qualified party, any of whose candidates received as many as 5% of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for governor, or president, as the case may be" (and which has registration of .33%).
Judge Pheffer disagreed with the 1996 Attorney General Opinion. He said "any" means "any gubernatorial candidate" of that party, which is silly; the law permits a party to have only one nominee for governor at the general election.
On March 20, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear DeBauche v Trani, 99-1009, over whether a state college can hold a debate and invite only the Democratic and Republican candidates. The Reform candidate (the third candidate on the ballot) sued, but lost 2-1 in the 4th circuit.
COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) had filed an amicus brief (along with the Appleseed Electoral Reform Law Project, and the Center for Voting & Democracy) for the candidate. The brief was written by Prof. Jamin Raskin of American University. COFOE thanks Raskin for his help. Anyone who wants a copy of the amicus brief may get one by sending $2 to B.A.N. (if you are a COFOE member, the copy is free).
On March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed LaRouche v Fowler, 99-1212. The lower 3-judge U.S. District Court had held last year that the Voting Rights Act can't be used to override political party rules concerning presidential convention delegate selection. The U.S. Supreme Court has now said it agrees. There is no full opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court, just the phrase "affirmed".
According to a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Morse v Republican Party of Virginia, political parties (as well as state and local governments), are subject to the Voting Rights Act, and in covered jurisdictions (all or part of 16 states) can't change their own rules concerning candidate selection without getting federal government approval. This precedent has now been curtailed, if the party rules in question concern the presidential candidate selection process.
1. Alaska: on February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear ACLU v Alaska, 99-128, a challenge to a state campaign finance law which severely restricts political parties.
2. Arizona: on February 14, a state court ruled the "Clean Elections Act" (which provides for public financing of state candidates) violates the state Constitution, on the technicality of who appoints the 5-member Clean Elections Commission. The State Supreme Court is reviewing the decision. Citizen Clean Election Commission v Myers, cv--00-54.
3. Arizona (2): on February 29, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Rosenblatt ruled that the Democratic Party could use Internet voting for its March 11 presidential primary, against a claim that such usage discriminates against people without access to computers. However, he is studying post-election evidence to determine whether the process was fair and can be used to send delegates to the Democratic convention. Voting Integrity Project v Fleisher, cv 00-109-PHX.
4. California: on April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Calif. Democratic Party v Jones, over whether political parties opposed to the blanket primary can be forced to use them. Amici briefs on the side of the 4 political parties in the case were filed by the Democratic and Republican national committees; the Alaska Republican, Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Parties; the Eagle Forum and the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; and a group of political scientists. The Brennan Center for Justice filed a brief arguing that minor parties may not be forced to submit to a blanket primary but major parties can be forced to use them.
5. District of Columbia: on March 20, a 3-judge U.S. District Court judge ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require that voters in the District of Columbia be represented by voting members in Congress. Alexander v Daley, 98-2187, combined with Adams v Clinton, 98-1665.
Judge Louis Oberdorfer partially dissented, finding that D.C. voters should be allowed to vote for U.S. House as Marylanders (if that were to occur, Maryland would gain another seat). The majority opinion, by Judges Merrick B. Garland and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is 68 pages; the dissent is 69 pages. See it at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-1665/.
6. Illinois: on March 17, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Norgle, a Reagan appointee, removed a referendum from the municipal ballot in Cicero that would have extended the residency requirement for candidates for town president from one year to 18 months. U.S. v Town of Cicero, 00-cv-1530. The lawsuit was brought by the U.S. Justice Department because it believed the proposed change was motivated to block two particular Hispanic candidates from competing in the 2001 election.
7. Illinois (2): On January 13, the federal lawsuit to reinstate the party lever device on voting machines was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Crockett v Illinois Bd. of Elections, 98-cv-733 (s.d.).
8. Maine: on March 7, the First Circuit upheld the state's public financing law for state office. Daggett v Commission on Gov't Ethics & Election Practices, 99-2243.
9. Missouri: the U.S. Supreme Court still has not said whether it will hear Cook v Gralike, 99-929, even though it was filed in that court on November 29, 1999. The issue is whether state initiatives (promoted by the term limits movement) which place labels on ballots, telling the voters how that candidate feels about term limits, are valid.
10. New York: on February 29, U.S. District Court Magistrate David Hurd upheld state law which won't permit an independent voter to switch to membership in a political party (in order to vote in its primary) unless the switch was made the year before. Van Wie v Pataki, 00-cv-322 (n.d.). Plaintiffs argued the law is discriminatory, since someone who wasn't registered to vote is free to register into a party a mere month before its primary.
11. New York (2): on March 2, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy refused to place the Trump delegates to the Reform Party national convention on the presidential primary ballot. Essenberg v Berman, 00-cv-317 (n.d.).
Also on March 2, the State Supreme Court sided with the Reform Party's state committee and against its ousted state chair Jack Essenberg, and approved rules changes which place power in the hands of local party committees. Anderson v MacKay, 27609/99, Nassau Co.
12. North Carolina: on March 7, a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruled that the state's congressional districting plan is still "racially gerrymandered", and ordered the state not to use the 1997 boundaries for district 12. Cromartie v Hunt, 4:96-cv-104-BO. However, on March 16 the U.S. Supreme Court suspended that order.
13. Northern Mariana Islands: on January 19, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Torres v Sablan, a reapportionment case. The Northern Mariana Islands are a Commonwealth of the U.S. Its legislature does not follow the "one man, one vote" principles which have been in place in the U.S. since 1964. The lower court ruled that a Commonwealth is not required to follow that principle.
14. South Carolina: A Democratic legislator, Senator Todd Rutherford, sued the Republican Party in federal court for not opening all polling places in its February presidential primary. He complained that Republicans weren't opening polls in Black neighborhoods. The case, Rutherford v S.C. Republican Party, cv 4-00-329-24, was settled when the party promised to make its best effort to open all locations. However, it still failed to open 300 of the state's 1,752 polling locations.
15. Tennessee: on February 23, a U.S. District Court upheld the state's early voting law. Millsaps v Thompson, 1:99-cv-261. Plaintiffs, associated with the Voting Integrity Project, argued that federal law, setting the date of congressional elections, doesn't permit early voting.
HB 672, the Georgia ballot access reform bill, failed to pass this year's legislature. It had been tabled in the House on February 1 by a vote of 85-74. A motion to revive it on February 29 lost, 80-85. Then, on March 6, it was revived, 90-74.
Unfortunately, Speaker Tom Murphy then sent it to the Rules Committee (even though he had promised not to), which killed it on a voice vote. It is believed that leaders of both major parties are responsible.
It is difficult to pass ballot access reform in presidential election years, and the Georgia group which has been working for the bill is optimistic that the bill will pass in 2001, since half the membership of the House voted for it this year. The bill would have taken effect this year if it had passed.
On January 20, the Hawaii Attorney General ruled that the Libertarian Party is not qualified, as had been thought. Therefore, the party had to re-petition. Only 602 signatures were needed, and the petition has already been completed and checked.
In 1999, the Hawaii legislature lowered the vote test for a party to retain its position, from 10% of half the State Senate seats up in the last election, to 4% of all the State Senate seats up (there are several alternate means for a party to retain its status, but the party didn't meet them either). In November 1998 the party had not met the old test, but it did meet the new test. However, the Attorney General ruled that since the 1999 bill didn't specify that it had retrospective impact, the results of the 1998 election cannot be used to qualify any party under the 1999 law.
The Opinion did not mention that a 1997 law, also easing the retention test, was used to put the Green Party back on the Hawaii ballot for the 1998 election, even though the 1997 change also didn't specify any retrospective intent. Orally, however, the Attorney General said the reinstatement of the Green Party in 1998 had been a "mistake".
SB 2149 and HB 2594, bills in the Tennessee legislature which would let candidates who use the independent petition procedure choose a partisan label (which would appear on the petition and on the November ballot), are progressing, but their scope has been restricted.
Only the Democratic and Republican Parties are recognized in Tennessee. The name of no other party has appeared on any Tennessee ballot since 1972, when the American Party last appeared. Minor party candidates in Tennessee always use the independent petition, but with "independent" as their label.
As introduced, the bills would have allowed a choice of any short label which didn't mimic the name of a fully qualified party. Then they were amended to restrict the label only to the name of a party whose presidential candidate had placed among the top five candidates in the last election in the entire US. That would have limited the choice (for 2000) to Reform, Green and Libertarian.
The most recent version of the bill is even more restrictive; it would provide that the only possible label would be the name of any group whose statewide candidate had polled 5% (as an independent) in either of the last two elections in Tennessee. That would mean only "Reform" would be permitted. Activists are trying to get this latest amendment squelched.
On March 13, the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that any party may decide for itself how long its nominees must have been registered in the party, prior to their nomination. The law says a party cannot nominate anyone who has not been a member for a year, but she ruled that this law cannot be enforced, and each party may have its own by-law on the subject. However, the law banning anyone from running as the candidate of a party, if he or she has been a member of another party during the preceding year, will still be enforced.
The Initiative & Referendum Institute will sue the post office this month over a postal regulation banning petitioning on post office sidewalks. For more information, contact firstname.lastname@example.org or (202)-429-5539.
Arkansas requires 21,181 signatures for a new party, but only 10,000 for statewide independents (for office other than president). In 1996 a federal court ruled that the state must let parties on for 10,000, but Arkansas refuses to honor this decision. The Libertarian Party of Arkansas plans to submit 10,000 valid signatures, and if the state won't recognize it, will sue. The party is already on for president, but no other office.
On March 11, the National Council on Public Polls (the organization representing the nation's polling companies) released a statement which indirectly criticizes the Commission on Presidential Debates for its presidential debate criteria (15% average, in five polls).
The statement says, "We believe the Commission should establish criteria for including only comparable public polls in its determination. We also would like to know what the Commission means by 'use of the combined survey results'. The National Council on Public Polls believes the Commission should make public its answers to these questions well in advance of using the results of public polls as a criterion for debate participation... We do not want inappropriate poll results to decide who is included in presidential debates."
The statement urges the Commission on Presidential Debates to establish guidelines for polls: (1) set a fixed period of time for each poll; (2) define who is being polled; (3) standardize the questions; (4) recalculate percentages after eliminating persons who indicated no preference; (5) use scientific methodology.
(See this update.)
|Dem.||Rep.||Indp. & Misc.||Constit'n||Reform||Libt||Green||Nat Law||other|
|Iowa||565,726||585,900||666,324||- -||- -||- -||- -||- -||- -|
|Kansas||432,672||685,213||395,195||1,161||1,433||9,829||- -||- -||- -|
|New Hampshire||210,795||283,295||284,589||?||?||?||?||?||- -|
|New Jersey||1,110,259||843,534||2,486,141||- -||- -||- -||- -||- -||- -|
|New Mexico||478,541||291,321||111,701||?||177||3,786||8,772||?||- -|
|New York||4,960,666||3,089,345||2,150,806||- -||172,471||- -||3,611||- -||319,573|
|North Carolina||2,530,365||1,643,739||719,194||?||?||9,372||?||?||- -|
|South Dakota||179,195||219,624||53,108||?||50||924||?||?||- -|
|West Virginia||632,288||295,825||79,278||?||?||420||?||?||- -|
The parties in the "Other" column are: Alaska Independence in Alaska; Peace and Freedom in California; Umoja in the District of Columbia; these parties in Florida: American Reform 154, Socialist Workers 113, Socialist 120, Southern 74, We the People 42; these parties in Massachusetts: Interdependent Third 2,848, Rainbow Coalition 424, Socialist 201, Prohibition 13; these parties in New York: Conservative 171,496, Liberal 92,074, Right to Life 51,392, Working Families 4,611; Socialist in Oregon.
The 23 states not mentioned above do not ask voters which party they are registered in (except that Rhode Island voter registration forms do ask, but no one in Rhode Island compiles the totals for any political party).
Data is the most recent from each state. It is from early 2000 for all states above, except that it is from November 1999 for Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania; and it is from late 1998 in Nebraska, South Dakota and West Virginia. Data for spring 2000 from these last three states will be in the June B.A.N.
A dash means that the voters are not permitted to register into a particular party, since the particular party is not, or was not, qualified in that state, and the state won't let people register into unqualified parties. A question mark means that the state has not tabulated the number of registrants in a particular party.
Totals 18 months ago (October 1998) were: Dem. 37,425,660 (44.94%), Rep. 27,695,767 (33.26%), Indp. & misc. 16,804,922 (20.18%), U.S. Taxpayers 317,510 (.38%), Reform 245,831 (.30%), Libertarian 179,255 (.22%), Green 118,537 (.14%), Natural Law 70,032 (.08%), other parties 424,101 (.51%).
Totals in October 1996 were: Dem. 36,946,324 (45.68%), Rep. 27,323,046 (33.78%), Indp. & misc. 15,227,612 (18.83%), U.S. Taxpayers 306,900 (.38%), Reform 207,933 (.26%), Libertarian 162,545 (.20%), Green 112,199 (.14%), Natural Law 85,853 (.11%), other parties 328,833 (.63%).
|FULL PARTY||CAND.||LIB'T||REFORM||NAT LAW||CONSTIT'N||GREEN|
|Alabama||39,536||5,000||*finished||3,500||*3,000||*already on||*50||Aug 31|
|Alaska||(reg) 6,606||#2,410||already on||already on||already on||*2,000||already on||Aug 8|
|Arizona||13,565||*#8,815||already on||*6,000||already on||*1,500||500||*June 14|
|Arkansas||21,181||#1,000||*already on||*finished||already on||*already on||*60||Aug 1|
|California||(reg) 86,212||149,692||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Aug 10|
|Colorado||(reg) 1,000||#pay fee||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||July 10|
|Connecticut||no procedure||#7,500||100||already on||0||*500||already on||Aug 11|
|Delaware||241||4,819||already on||already on||already on||already on||*already on||Aug 19|
|D.C.||no procedure||es. #3,500||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||already on||Aug 15|
|Florida||be organized||82,203||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Sep 1|
|Georgia||39,094||#39,094||already on||*5,000||*1,500||0||*1,400||Jul 11|
|Hawaii||602||#3,703||already on||*finished||*need 100||already on||already on||Sep 7|
|Idaho||9,835||4,918||already on||already on||already on||already on||0||Aug 31|
|Illinois||no procedure||#25,000||*500||*200||*0||*0||*0||June 26|
|Indiana||no procedure||#30,717||already on||*4,000||0||*400||0||Jul 17|
|Iowa||no procedure||#1,500||*100||finished||800||finished||*150||Aug 17|
|Kansas||14,854||5,000||already on||already on||*finished||already on||*20||July 31|
|Kentucky||no procedure||#5,000||already on||already on||0||*1,000||*30||Aug 30|
|Louisiana||est. (reg) 135,000||#pay fee||*916||already on||*20||*53||*114||Sep 5|
|Maine||21,051||#4,000||0||already on||0||*200||already on||Aug 8|
|Maryland||10,000||es. 26,000||already on||*14,000||need 2,000||*14,000||*2,800||Aug 7|
|Massachusetts||est. (reg) 37,500||#10,000||already on||*3,500||*0||0||*300||July 31|
|Michigan||30,272||30,272||already on||already on||already on||already on||*1,500||July 19|
|Minnesota||104,550||#2,000||0||*0||0||already on||0||Sep 12|
|Mississippi||be organized||#1,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||*50||Sep 7|
|Missouri||10,000||10,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||0||July 31|
|Montana||5,000||#5,000||already on||already on||already on||*already on||*20||Aug 1|
|Nebraska||5,453||2,500||already on||200||already on||0||0||Aug 28|
|Nevada||4,099||4,099||already on||*500||already on||already on||*25||July 7|
|New Hampshire||9,827||#3,000||11,000||5,000||0||finished||0||Aug 9|
|New Jersey||no procedure||#800||0||finished||0||*800||finished||July 31|
|New Mexico||2,494||14,964||already on||already on||finished||finished||already on||Sep 11|
|New York||no procedure||#15,000||can't start||already on||can't start||can't start||already on||Aug 21|
|North Carolina||51,324||es. 95,000||already on||*30,000||200||0||0||June 30|
|North Dakota||7,000||4,000||0||already on||0||*3,500||0||Sep 7|
|Ohio||33,543||#5,000||already on||*8,000||already on||*8,000||*700||Aug 23|
|Oregon||16,663||13,755||already on||*6,000||*finished||5,500||already on||Aug 28|
|Pennsylvania||no procedure||*21,739||*2,000||*3,000||0||*1,000||*1,500||Aug 1|
|Rhode Island||15,323||#1,000||0||already on||0||0||0||Sep 7|
|South Carolina||10,000||10,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||0||Aug 1|
|South Dakota||6,505||#2,602||*already on||*finished||0||*200||0||June 20|
|Texas||37,381||56,117||already on||*6,000||*0||*0||*5,000||May 28|
|Utah||2,000||#1,000||already on||already on||already on||*already on||*0||Aug 31|
|Vermont||be organized||#1,000||already on||*250||already on||already on||0||Sep 20|
|Virginia||no procedure||#10,000||*3,600||0||0||0||*300||Aug 24|
|Washington||no procedure||#200||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||Jul 1|
|West Virginia||no procedure||#12,730||already on||*4,000||already on||*300||0||Aug 1|
|Wisconsin||10,000||#2,000||already on||0||0||already on||already on||Sep 5|
|Wyoming||3,485||3,485||already on||*600||*2,500||*2,000||0||Aug 28|
|TOTAL STATES ON||*33||*21||19||*19||*13|
"Deadline" refers to procedure with the LATEST deadline. * means entry changed since last issue. # means that candidate procedure allows partisan label. Other multi-state parties on the ballot: in Florida, the American Reform, Southern, Soc.Workers and Socialist Parties. The Socialist Party also is on in Colorado for president, and has 600 signatures in New Jersey, 300 in Ohio, and 1,000 in Iowa.
The three stories below contain unofficial vote totals for everyone on the ballot in presidential primaries held since the last B.A.N. For California and Washington, the totals shown include all votes cast for the candidates, no matter what the party affiliation of the voter (those two states kept separate tallies for party members as well as for all voters).
Complete California returns are at http://www.ss.ca.gov/(the Secretary of State's page). There are seven parties; the returns show how members of each party voted. Except for Greens, most minor party members preferred to vote in the Republican Party rather than in their own party's primary. Members of the Reform, Libertarian, American Independent (Constitution) and Natural Law Parties all cast more votes for McCain than for any other candidate.
See http://www.rhodescook.com/ for county breakdowns of the major party presidential primary election returns.
California: Gore 2,440,965; Bradley 598,071; LaRouche 18,331.
Connecticut: Gore 99,563; Bradley 74,075; uncom. 5,418.
Georgia: Gore 238,662; Bradley 46,093.
Maine: Gore 33,726; Bradley 25,900; LaRouche 202; Epstein 174; uncom. 2,458.
Maryland: Gore 339,912; Bradley 143,320; LaRouche 4,488; uncom. 16,862.
Massachusetts: Gore 341,586; Bradley 212,452; LaRouche 2,135; uncom. 11,281.
Missouri: Gore 171,516; Bradley 89,090; LaRouche 906; Price 565; uncom. 3,361.
New York: Gore 598,362; Bradley 311,671; LaRouche 11,486.
Ohio: Gore 709,991; Bradley 238,469; LaRouche 16,525.
Rhode Island: Gore 26,801; Bradley 19,000; LaRouche 199; uncom. 241.
Vermont: Gore 26,719; Bradley 21,561; LaRouche 334.
Washington: Gore 310,406; Bradley 162,725; LaRouche 2,576.
Colorado: Gore 63,384; Bradley 20,663; LaRouche 821; un- comm. 3,867.
Utah: Gore 12,444; Bradley 3,137.
Arizona: Gore 67,582; Bradley 16,383; Harder 1,358; uncom. 1,439.
Florida: Gore 451,657; Bradley 100,259.
Louisiana: Gore 114,942; Bradley 31,385; LaRouche 6,127; Crow 5,097.
Mississippi: Gore 79,408; Bradley 7,621; LaRouche 1,573.
Oklahoma: Gore 92,654; Bradley 34,311; LaRouche 7,885.
Tennessee: Gore 193,187; Bradley 11,060; LaRouche 998; uncom. 4,464.
Texas: Gore 636,542; Bradley 129,942; LaRouche 27,341.
Illinois: Gore 669,771; Bradley 113,697; LaRouche 11,218.
Virginia (February 29): Bush 350,584; McCain 291,487; Keyes 20,356; Bauer 852; Forbes 809.
California: Bush 1,999,168; McCain 1,652,777; Keyes 156,349; Forbes 13,346; Bauer 9,590; Hatch 8,536.
Connecticut: McCain 87,270; Bush 82,871; Keyes 5,913; Forbes 1,242; Bauer 373; Hatch 184; uncom. 1,208.
Georgia: Bush 429,166; McCain 179,567; Keyes 29,719; Bauer 1,958; Forbes 1,643; Hatch 413.
Maine: Bush 47,669; McCain 41,379; Keyes 2,929; Forbes 420; Bauer 296; uncom. 1,017.
Maryland: Bush 210,021; McCain 132,943; Keyes 24,861; Forbes 1,666; Bauer 1,316; Hatch 586.
Massachusetts: McCain 324,708; Bush 159,534; Keyes 12,630; Bauer 1,744; Forbes 1,407; Hatch 262; uncom. 1,292.
Missouri: Bush 275,353; McCain 167,936; Keyes 27,282; Forbes 2,044; Bauer 1,057; Hatch 356; Hornung 94; uncom. 1,343.
New York: Bush 1,056,431; McCain 920,563; Keyes 72,244; Forbes unknown.
Ohio: Bush 798,132; McCain 508,564; Keyes 54,076; Forbes 8,975; Bauer 6,346.
Rhode Island:McCain 21,745; Bush 13,170; Keyes 923; uncom. 114; Bauer 35; Hatch 35.
Vermont: McCain 48,870; Bush 28,702; Keyes 2,154; Forbes 547; Bauer 313.
Washington: Bush 402,287; McCain 399,980; Keyes 21,122; Forbes 5,136; Bauer 2,870; Hatch 2,263.
Colorado: Bush 116,897; McCain 48,996; Keyes 11,871; Forbes 1,197; Bauer 1,190; Hatch 504.
Utah: Bush 57,490; Keyes 19,363; McCain 12,683; Forbes 859; Bauer 426.
Florida: Bush 516,161; McCain 139,397; Keyes 32,343; Forbes 6,552; Bauer 3,493; Hatch 1,371.
Louisiana: Bush 86,038; McCain 9,165; Keyes 5,900; Forbes 1,041; Bauer 768.
Mississippi: Bush 101,042; Keyes 6,478; McCain 6,263; Forbes 588; Bauer 475; Hatch 133.
Oklahoma: Bush 98,781; McCain 12,973; Keyes 11,595; Forbes 1,066; Bauer 394.
Tennessee: Bush 188,791; McCain 33,397; Keyes 16,811; Bauer 1,273; Forbes 1,021; Hatch 218; uncom. 1,648.
Texas: Bush 1,013,886; McCain 82,979; Keyes 45,178; Forbes 2,971; Bauer 2,588; Hatch 1,387; Urban 765.
Illinois: Bush 495,693; McCain 158,234; Keyes 65,822; Forbes 10,654; Bauer 5,052.
California Green: Nader 104,282; Kovel 6,215
California Reform: Trump 14,193; Weber 8,820; Bowman 4,544; Anderson 2,904; Collins 1,681.
California Libertarian: Browne 19,346; Lee 3,723; Smith 2,950; Hollist 2,344.
California Constitution: Phillips 8,366
California Natural Law: Hagelin 5,443
Masschusetts Libertarian: Browne 524; Lee 108; Hines 61; Smith 56; McDaniels 42; Hollist 27; uncommitted 231.
Missouri Reform: Buchanan 2,214; Collins 295; Hagelin 220; uncom. 216.
Missouri Libertarian: Browne 770; Hines 166; Hollist 146; uncom. 364.
Missouri Constitution: Phillips 396, uncom. 117.
New York Green: fragmentary results show Nader won.
Utah Indp. American: Phillips 623; Dodge 479.
On March 7, Santa Fe, New Mexico voters elected Miguel Chavez to the city council. Chavez is a member of the Green Party. He joins fellow Green city councillor Cris Moore, who is midway through his second term. Santa Fe has non-partisan city elections but the partisan affiliation of Chavez was well-known through the campaign. The voters also re-elected another Green, Municipal Judge Fran Gallegos.
Wendell Harris, a Socialist Party member, polled 18.3% of the vote in a 3-person race for Mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on February 15. The election is non-partisan.
Gus Hall, national chairman of the Communist Party USA since 1960, left that post on March 4. He is 89, and now bears the title of "Senior Chairman". He was the party's presidential candidate 1972 through 1984. The new national chair is Sam Webb.
Native Hawaiians who are upset that the U.S. Supreme Court recently invalidated a state law letting only native Hawaiians vote for Office of Hawaiian Affairs, have organized a new political party, Aloha Ina. It expects to qualify for this year's ballot next week.
The Constitution Party has moved its national office from Vienna, Virginia, to 23 N. Lime St., Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602 (the office of national chairman James Clymer). Phone numbers are (717)-390-1993 and 390-1996; fax is 299-7101.
The Phoenix faction of the Libertarian Party, recently recognized in court as the "real" Arizona Libertarian Party, changed the state party bylaws in February to acknowledge that the government-adminstered primary is the proper place to elect certain party officers. This was to conform to the court decision of January 27, which upheld the constitutionality of requiring qualified parties to choose precinct committeemen via the primary (see B.A.N. of March 1). The bylaws change makes it more likely that the Phoenix and Tucson factions can settle their differences, since the chief reason for the intra-party dispute was over whether the party should acknowledge state law.
On March 4, the state convention of the Minnesota Reform Party voted to disaffiliate from the national Reform Party, by a vote of 151-23. It also changed its name to the Independence Party, 131-10. The national Reform Party is free to re-establish itself in Minnesota, of course, since the original Minnesota branch gave up the name "Reform".
On March 27, U.S. District Court Judge Norman Moon ruled that Pat Choate, not Jack Gargan, is the national chairman of the Reform Party. Reform Party of USA v Reform Party of America, 6:00-cv-14.