Ballot Access News -- September 1, 2000

Volume 16, Number 6

This issue was originally printed on pink paper.

Table of Contents
  1. ONE DEADLINE WIN, ONE DEFEAT, THREE PENDING
  2. PUERTO RICO WINS VOTE
  3. FEC STARTS REFORM PARTY PROCESS
  4. ILLINOIS VICTORY
  5. REPUBLICANS KILL PRIMARY REFORM
  6. BUCHANAN WINS NORTH CAROLINA RULING
  7. ANOTHER DAKOTA WIN
  8. BUCHANAN TAKES QUICK LEGAL ACTION
  9. PUERTO RICO LIKELY TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT
  10. OREGON NATURAL LAW BECOMES REFORM
  11. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
  12. AUGUST PRIMARIES
  13. 2000 REFORM PARTY PRESIDENTIAL MAIL BALLOT (table)
  14. REFORM CONVENTIONS: VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT (table)
  15. 2000 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT (table)
  16. RIGHT TO LIFE PARTY PICKS BUCHANAN
  17. UNITED CITIZENS PARTY PICKS NADER
  18. NEW YORK CONVENTIONS UPCOMING
  19. MATCHING FUNDS
  20. CANDIDATES NOT ON CHART
  21. REFORM VICE-PRESIDENT CANDIDATES
  22. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SUMMARY
  23. INCLUSIVE POLLS
  24. Subscription Information

ONE DEADLINE WIN, ONE DEFEAT, THREE PENDING

NADER WINS ILLINOIS, BUT LOSES NORTH CAROLINA

On August 9, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina refused to grant an injunction against North Carolina's May 17 petition deadline for new parties. The case had been brought by Ralph Nader and the Green Party, and is being appealed. Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Bartlett, 5:00-cv-348-BR. In the 4th circuit, it is number 00-2040.

But on August 25, a U.S. District Court in Illinois granted an injunction putting Nader on the ballot (if he has enough valid signatures) even though over 40% of his signatures were turned in after the June 26 deadline for new parties. Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Illinois State Board of Elections, 00-cv-4401. Nader had turned in 39,000 signatures to meet the requirement of 25,000, but 16,000 of the signatures were late.

Although the court order implies that the Illinois deadline is too early, it is based on the fact that the state had required petitioners to be registered voters, even though two U.S. District Courts in Illinois had already struck down that requirement.

Also on August 28, there were hearings in two other Nader petition deadline cases, one filed against Oklahoma's July 15 independent deadline, and one against South Dakota's June 20 deadline. As this newsletter went to the printer, there were no decisions from either one, although they are expected momentarily. See http://www.ballot-access.org/2000/news.html for an update.

The Oklahoma case (Nader v Ward, cv-00-1340-R) includes several issues in addition to the deadline. The Nader campaign put on several witnesses, during the 2.5 hour hearing, to show that their petitioners had been illegally chased off public property by law enforcement officials. One policemen even told the petitioners that they ought to be supporting the Democratic Party.

Still another pending deadline case is Harry Browne's challenge to the Arizona independent deadline (Browne v Bayless, cv00-15468, Maricopa). Browne had to file as an independent in Arizona because he fears the ballot-qualified Arizona Libertarian Party will not nominate him. A hearing is set for Sept. 6.

The chief reason Nader's lawsuit failed in U.S. District Court in North Carolina was that the Green Party didn't obtain 51,324 signatures. Generally, it is a bad idea for any party to challenge a petition deadline, unless it has completed the petition and submitted it past the legal deadline. Otherwise, however, the Nader case against North Carolina was strong. In the past, the Board of Elections itself was so sure that the May deadline was unconstitutional, that in 1988 it accepted party petitions until mid-July, despite the language of the law. New parties in North Carolina nominate by convention, not in the May primary, so there is no election administration-related reason for the deadline to be so early. It had been in July from 1949 til 1979, and in August before 1949.

Evidence in the case was that it cost the Reform Party $250,000 to qualify this year. The 4th Circuit, which is reviewing the lower court decision, is expected to decide by September 10.


PUERTO RICO WINS VOTE

On July 21, U.S. District Court Judge Jaime Pieras ruled in Igartua v United States, 00-142, that the Constitution requires that Puerto Rico be given electoral votes in presidential elections. Although the decision is almost sure to be overturned on appeal (a similar Puerto Rico case lost in 1996 in the First Circuit), the decision has stimulated the Puerto Rico legislature to pass legislation providing for a popular presidential vote this year. See related story below.


FEC STARTS REFORM PARTY PROCESS

On August 20, Lawrence Noble, General Counsel to the Federal Election Commission, outlined procedures for establishing whether Pat Buchanan or John Hagelin should receive the $12,613,452 in federal funds which is due the Reform Party presidential nominee. To start, each must prove that he will be on the ballot in at least 10 states with the "Reform" label, or with the label of any state party which is affiliated with the national Reform Party.

Pat Buchanan complied on August 25, proving that he will be listed with "Reform" next to his name in Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia; and also that in a few more days he will prove this for Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and North Dakota.

John Hagelin has still not supplied such proof. He is disadvantaged because he didn't decide to start submitting ballot access petitions with "Reform" as his chosen label, until fairly late in the petitioning season. Some of the states he is counting on for the purpose of meeting the 10-state requirement have September deadlines, and either he hasn't finished petitioning in those states, or those states haven't checked the petitions yet.

Also, there are only five states (Colorado, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington) in which the undisputed state officers of a ballot-qualified party named "Reform" have certified Hagelin; and in one of those, North Carolina, the state disregarded the wishes of the state party officers.

The FEC must respond to the evidence within 10 days. In the case of Buchanan, this will be September 4. If both qualify, the FEC will be forced to do a further investigation.


ILLINOIS VICTORY

On July 20, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman, a Clinton appointee, ruled that it is unconstitutional for Illinois to require that petitioners for candidates be registered voters. Tobin for Governor v State Bd. of Elections, 99-c-2713. This was the second U.S. District Court decision to invalidate that Illinois law. The first decision, last year, was appealed and is awaiting a decision from the 7th circuit. These two decisions formed part of the basis for the Nader Illinois victory.


REPUBLICANS KILL PRIMARY REFORM

On July 28, the national Republican Party killed its own proposal for reform of presidential primary timing. A committee of the national party had developed a plan to revise dates so that the very smallest states would vote in February, the medium-small states in March, the medium states in April, etc. It was believed Governor George W. Bush didn't want the plan debated at the national convention because it might cause discord.


BUCHANAN WINS NORTH CAROLINA RULING

On August 24, the State Board of Elections voted 3-1 that the Long Beach, California national Reform Party convention chose Pat Buchanan for president. The state Reform Party had certified John Hagelin as its presidential candidate, but the state party bylaws also say that the party's presidential candidate should be the person who was nominated at the national convention.

There are 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans on the State Board of Elections. The Democratic members felt that the Board should make its own independent decision as to the events in Long Beach. After five hours of testimony about those events, the Democratic members made their decision in favor of Buchanan. One of the Republican members was absent; the other felt that the Board should defer to the state party officers, and certify Hagelin. Although the Hagelin campaign says it plans to sue the Board, it has not yet done so.


ANOTHER DAKOTA WIN

On August 8, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Battey ruled that a Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. House needs 44 signatures of party members, not 250, in order to appear on the party's primary ballot. Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Hazeltine, 00-3021. The candidate, Brian Lerohl, missed the June primary, but he will be on the November ballot.

The law says a candidate seeking a place on a statewide primary ballot needs signatures of party members equal to 1% of that party's last gubernatorial vote. The Libertarian Party only polled 4,398 votes for Governor in 1998. 1% of 4,398 equals 44. The law also says that a new party "with no voting history" needs 250 signatures. The Secretary of State had argued that, since the party went off the ballot as a result of its low vote total in 1998 (it re-qualified in time for 2000), the newly-qualified Libertarian Party was not the same organization as the party on the ballot from 1992 through 1998. The judge rejected that notion.


BUCHANAN TAKES QUICK LEGAL ACTION

Pat Buchanan is moving aggressively to use the courts to establish that he is the true Reform presidential candidate. On August 24, he sued the Montana Secretary of State, who had that very day used a drawing to award the Reform nomination in his state to John Hagelin. Reform Party of Montana v Cooney, District Court, Lewis & Clark County, bdv 2000-519. The judge immediately entered an order forbidding the state from printing ballots until a hearing on the merits, held August 31. The dispute is caused by the fact that two different people claim to be the state chair of the party, and each certified a different presidential candidate.

Also, on August 22, Buchanan's wing of the party brought a lawsuit in federal court in Lynchburg, Virginia, which seeks a judicial declaration that Buchanan is the candidate. Reform Party of the US v Hagelin, civ 6:00-cv-0078. The hearing started on August 30.


PUERTO RICO LIKELY TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT

A bill is being rushed through the Puerto Rico legislature, to provide for a November vote for president. The bill provides that the nominees of parties which participated in the island's presidential primary will be on that November ballot automatically. Others must submit 8,000 signatures (except that for 2000, due to the short time permitted for gathering the signatures, only 4,000 are needed). The signatures must be notarized.

Identical bills in each house are SB 2656 and HB 3539. It is likely that one of them will be signed into law on or about September 9. Petitioners then have 15 days from the date of signing, to collect the signatures.

Guam has been holding a similar presidential vote since 1980. Since neither Guam nor Puerto Rico have any electoral votes, their popular votes have no legal effect on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, unless the Igartua decision is affirmed, which is unlikely (see story above).


OREGON NATURAL LAW BECOMES REFORM

Last month the ballot-qualified Natural Law Party of Oregon officially changed its name to the Reform Party. The old Reform Party hadn't been a qualified party in the state since 1998, and Oregon permits parties to change their names. Some officers of the old Reform Party are on the board of the new state party.


MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

1. Arizona: the State Supreme Court will hold a hearing on August 30 to decide which faction of the Libertarian Party has the right to choose a presidential candidate. Schmerl v Bayless, cv-00-280.

Arizona (2): on August 23, a lower court state judge dismissed the case filed by the Libertarian Party, Inc., to force the state to print the office of "precinct committeeman" on the party's primary ballot in all counties, not just Pima County. The judge ruled the case had been filed too late. Konikov v Santa Cruz Co. Board of Supervisors.

2. California: on September 8, there will be a hearing in federal court in Sacramento to determine who is the Republican nominee for Assembly, 67th district. Tom Harman got the most votes in the primary, but if only the votes of registered Republicans should have been counted, then Jim Righeimer won the primary. Lorinzce v Jones, 00-cv-1520-DFL.

California (2): the state will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Schaefer v Townsend, the 9th circuit decision which said that congressional candidates need not be registered voters. The 9th circuit had rejected the state's request for a rehearing on August 1.

3. Florida: on August 15, a federal judge declared unconstitutional a law which required minor parties to post a bond, as a condition of being recognized. Socialist Workers Party v Leahy, 92-cv-1451. The state had not been enforcing the law.

Florida (2): on August 23, a federal case was settled out of court, over arrests of petitioners on public sidewalks last year. The Duval County Sheriff promises not to repeat the behavior. Aplin v Glover, 99-434-cv-J-20A, Jacksonville.

4. Idaho: Ralph Nader will probably sue over the number of signatures needed for independent presidential candidates. The state only requires 1,000 signatures for non-presidential statewide independents, yet inexplicably requires 4,918 for presidential independents.

5. Indiana: on August 3, the Democratic Party lost a federal lawsuit over the deadline for it to nominate candidates by committee meeting, in cases in which the primary had left the party with no nominee. The law, which was upheld, requires the nominations to be made by June 6 (35 days after the May primary). The party had pointed out that qualified minor parties, who make all their nominations by convention, don't need to name their candidates until August 4. Marion Co. Democratic Party v Marion Co. Election Board, IP 00-1169-C.

6. Michigan: on August 23, a state court upheld a law which requires candidates to swear under penalty of perjury that every statement and form for compliance with the campaign finance laws has been filed. The candidate will appeal. Michigan Libertarian Party v Secretary of State, 00-92155-AW, Ingham Co.

7. Missouri: the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Cook v Gralike, 99-929, on November 6. This is the case over whether states may enact laws placing a label such as "Disregarded Voters' Instructions on Term Limits" on the ballot, next to the names of candidates who refuse to support a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits.

8. New York: on August 22, the 2nd circuit remanded Gelb v Board of Elections in City of New York, 99-9369, to the highest state court, the State Court of Appeals. The state court will now decide whether state law requires write-in space automatically on primary ballots for races in which there are at least two candidates already on the primary ballot (when there is only one candidate in a primary, there is no write-in space unless a write-in candidate submits a petition). The vote was 2-1; the dissenter wanted to dismiss the case.

New York (2): on August 24, the Working Families Party defeated an attempt by various Republican candidates to invalidate the WFP candidates. Koppell v Garcia, app. div., Albany, 87792. The Republicans argued that since the party didn't choose a State Committee at any 1999 primary, it cannot nominate. However, the court agreed with the Working Families Party that the law permits it to do so in this year's primary, on September 12. Most WFP nominees are also Democrats.

9. Texas: on August 15, U.S. District Court Sam Sparks again upheld the law which makes it illegal for a party to get on the ballot in only a single legislative or congressional district, if it hasn't qualified statewide. The 5th circuit had asked him to re-consider. The case now returns to the 5th circuit. Holmes v Gonzales, A-98-ca-600.

10. Utah: on July 25, the Libertarian Party sued in state court to place its candidate for Governor, Douglas Jones, on the November ballot. Libertarian Party of Utah v Walker, 905838, 3rd district. The only candidate who filed for Governor in the Libertarian primary, Dub Richards, failed to qualify under the party's bylaws (he refused to become a dues-paying member of the party as he had promised), so the party chose Jones at its convention (in Utah, parties use a hybrid convention-primary system to nominate candidates).

11. Vermont: on August 10, a federal court struck down the state's campaign expenditure ceiling for candidates who choose not to participate in public funding. Landall v Sorrell, 2:99-cv146. The decision is 90 pages long. Shortly afterwards, the Democratic candidate for Governor announced that he would forego public funding. The Republican candidate had earlier opted out of public funding.

12. West Virginia: Ralph Nader is expected to sue the state for requiring him to collect 12,730 valid signatures, given that John Hagelin, Natural Law presidential candidate, was permitted to qualify for this year's election with only 6,365 valid signatures. The different standard was because Hagelin submitted his signatures before a 1999 law, doubling the requirement, took effect.

West Virginia (2): Howard Phillips plans to sue the state over its $4,000 filing fee, just to file as a declared write-in candidate. West Virginia is in the 4th circuit, and a 4th circuit decision from Maryland in 1989 found that filing fees for write-in candidates are unconstitutional, since the purpose of a filing fee is to keep the ballot from being too crowded, and that rationale doesn't apply to write-in candidates.

10. federal law: a hearing was held in Ralph Nader's debates lawsuit on August 23 in federal court in Boston. Nader seeks an order barring the Commission on Presidential Debates from accepting corporate contributions. Becker v FEC, 00-cv-11192. The hearing went well, and an order is expected very soon.


AUGUST PRIMARIES

Alaska: minor party vote for U.S. House (combining both August 22 primaries): Green, Anna Young, 10.1%; Alaskan Independence, Dore, 8.2%; Libertarian, Karpinski, 2.6%.

Missouri: In the August 8 Libertarian gubernatorial primary, John Swenson defeated Dick Illyes, 1,032 to 678. In the Reform U.S. Senate primary, Hugh Foley won with 294, versus 269 for James Hall and 186 for Martin Lindstedt. There were no contests in the Constitution primary, in which 303 voters participated.

Oklahoma: the August 22 primary for the only statewide office, Corporation Commissioner, had a 3-way Libertarian contest: Boutin 859; Bloxham 652; Prawdzienski 538. Only registered Libertarians and independents could vote in that primary.


2000 REFORM PARTY PRESIDENTIAL MAIL BALLOT (table)

The column on the left shows the number of people who received a ballot in the mail. The "percent" column next to it, reflects this number as a percentage of the number of votes cast for president in the November 1996 election.

On the far right of the chart under "Buchanan Data", are two columns: the left column shows the number of names submitted by the Buchanan campaign by state. Under the national party rules, a candidate seeking the party's nomination is to submit the names and addresses of people who had signed ballot access petitions circulated by that candidate. These people would then be sent a ballot, without having to request one.

Other voters in the Reform Party primary who were to receive a ballot were registered members of the party, people on the party's mailing list, and anyone who requested a ballot in writing. Requests for a ballot could come to the state Reform Party in that voter's state, or through the Buchanan or Hagelin campaigns.

The Hagelin campaign submitted 25,000 names, and OK'ed making their names and addresses available to the Buchanan campaign, so that the Buchanan campaign could send campaign literature to them.

By contrast, the Buchanan campaign submitted 500,000 names, but asked Mic Farris, chair of the national presidential nominations committee, to agree that the names would not be shown to anyone except e-Ballot, the company handling the primary. Farris agreed, because he felt that the motive was to protect the people named in the list from unwanted commercial mailings.

It became apparent soon after that the names Buchanan submitted were not the names of people who had signed petitions; nor were they people who had requested a ballot in writing. The far-right column, headed "petitions", shows the number of signatures a presidential candidate Buchanan had to submit in each state, for the ballot access method he used (party or independent) in the period before July 1, the cut-off date. Notice that there is little correlation between the number of signatures he had to collect in each state, and the number of signatures he submitted from each state.

The "Names" column is incomplete for some states. The data was calculated by starting with the total number of names in each state, and subtracting the other known methods by which names for that state could be submitted. In some cases, that data was also unavailable, so no entry for such states could be calculated.

In the opinion of Ballot Access News, it doesn't follow logically that, just because the Buchanan campaign seems to have broken the Reform Party's rules on the presidential selection process, therefore he could be disqualified from being considered for the nomination. The party's national executive committee voted on July 29 to disqualify him, yet there is no party rule to justify such disqualification. Furthermore, the party's rules on presidential selection specified that no changes in those rules could be made after December 31, 1999.

Dozens of members of Congress have been fined by the FEC for violating campaign finance laws, yet no one ever suggested that, because of such violations, the members should be barred from running again for Congress.

The elections of Presidents Rutherford B. Hayes and John F. Kennedy are believed by many historians to have been brought about by a dishonest vote count, yet no one ever suggested that, therefore, either should have been barred from running for re-election.

STATE RECIPIENTS OF BALLOTS VOTE FOR BUCHANAN AND HAGELIN BUCHANAN DATA
NUMBER PERCENT Buchanan Buchanan % Hagelin Hagelin % Names Petitions
Alabama 6,807 .44 222 79.3 58 20.7 ?? 5,000
Alaska 5,704 2.36 549 79.8 139 20.2 2,990 0
Arizona 13,295 .95 1,042 72.8 390 27.2 8,661 13,565
Arkansas 4,584 .52 347 80.7 83 19.3 ?? 1,000
California 160,657 1.60 8,166 51.9 7,554 48.1 70,040 0
Colorado 11,103 .73 571 43.7 736 56.3 7,222 0
Connecticut 7,943 .57 557 63.4 321 36.6 5,127 0
Delaware 1,617 .60 125 73.1 46 26.9 287 0
D.Columbia 900 .48 78 59.1 54 40.9 698 0
Florida 43,296 .82 2,806 63.9 1,583 36.1 29,578 0
Georgia 10,704 .47 807 73.0 298 27.0 7,909 39,094
Hawaii 1,348 .37 67 35.1 124 64.9 865 602
Idaho 3,706 .75 289 73.4 105 26.6 2,697 0
Illinois 21,252 .49 1,896 79.3 496 20.7 ?? 25,000
Indiana 11,682 .55 931 77.4 272 22.6 8,466 30,717
Iowa 34,592 2.80 1,192 50.9 1,150 49.1 37,270 1,500
Kansas 9,502 .88 663 69.2 295 30.8 6,400 0
Kentucky 9,490 .68 571 66.2 291 33.8 1,998 0
Louisiana 6,760 .38 472 81.7 106 18.3 ?? 0
Maine 8,459 1.40 284 58.3 203 41.7 ?? 0
Maryland 9,283 .52 710 65.8 369 34.2 ?? 10,000
Massachusetts 10,808 .42 1,010 69.9 434 30.1 7,883 10,000
Michigan 23,507 .61 1,812 69.5 796 30.5 13,957 0
Minnesota 11,836 .54 1,213 73.2 444 26.8 5,633 0
Mississippi 3,301 .37 256 82.1 56 17.9 1,856 0
Missouri 14,975 .69 1,128 72.7 423 27.3 9,493 0
Montana 3,361 .83 245 75.4 80 24.6 2,639 0
Nebraska 3,735 .55 267 75.9 85 24.1 ?? 2,500
Nevada 4,116 .89 341 65.3 181 34.7 ?? 4,099
New Hampshire 20,688 4.14 801 76.9 241 23.1 20,035 3,000
New Jersey 15,137 .49 1,406 77.9 398 22.1 5,315 800
New Mexico 3,499 .63 273 59.6 185 40.4 ?? 0
New York 180,379 2.86 4,160 52.5 3,762 47.5 45,679 0
North Carolina 13,257 .53 896 49.3 922 50.7 9,128 51,324
North Dakota 2,736 1.03 192 89.7 22 10.3 2,758 0
Ohio 37,647 .83 2,181 72.5 826 27.5 28,080 5,000
Oklahoma 6,853 .57 474 74.6 161 25.4 ?? 43,680
Oregon 8,747 .63 681 65.0 366 35.0 ?? 13,755
Pennsylvania 29,084 .65 2,809 78.8 756 21.2 19,507 21,739
Rhode Island 1,575 .40 164 68.3 76 31.7 ?? 0
South Carolina 6,139 .53 567 77.9 161 22.1 3,333 0
South Dakota 1,934 .60 158 77.1 47 22.9 ?? 6,505
Tennessee 8,408 .44 641 74.8 216 25.2 ?? 275
Texas 40,433 .72 1,690 63.3 979 36.7 ?? 56,117
Utah 3,115 .47 266 66.2 136 33.8 ?? 2,000
Vermont 1,088 .42 94 57.3 70 42.7 846 1,000
Virginia 15,724 .65 1,035 67.0 509 33.0 ?? 10,000
Washington 16,248 .72 1,054 51.7 985 48.3 11,433 200
West Virginia 3,140 .49 326 84.9 58 15.1 1,601 12,730
Wisconsin 12,426 .57 946 67.4 458 32.6 ?? 0
Wyoming 1,348 .64 98 74.8 33 25.2 ?? 3,485
887,928 .92 49,529 63.4 28,539 36.6 379,381+ 374,687

"Recipients of Ballots" are the number of people who received a ballot in the mail during July, to choose the Reform Party's presidential candidate. To understand why this data is meaningful, see comments above the chart, which also explain the columns.


REFORM CONVENTIONS: VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT (table)

The chart below shows certain Reform convention votes. The far-left column shows how many delegates each state was entitled to. The column headed "Combined vote" shows how many votes were actually cast by each state, if one combines votes taken in each of the two meetings.

The votes used for the "Combined vote" were taken from the presidential vote, or the vice-presidential vote, whichever produced a bigger total. There is no presidential tally for the Hagelin meeting, since Hagelin was nominated by acclamation.

The data suggests that the number of delegates voting in the Buchanan meeting was more than twice the number voting in the Hagelin meeting. Therefore, if the delegates had not split into two different meetings, it is likely that Buchanan would have controlled more than two-thirds of the vote, enough to have set aside the mail-in primary vote (the rules permitted a two-thirds vote of the delegates to override the primary). Consequently, in the opinion of Ballot Access News, Buchanan should be considered the actual Reform nominee (his meeting, in fact, did vote to overturn the primary results). This opinion is not a legal opinion, merely a personal statement about fairness. A legal opinion turns on complex questions about credentials, something not being attempted here.

STATE DELEGATE DATA PRES. VOTE VICE-PRES. VOTE V-P VOTE, other convention
Allotment Comb vote Buchanan Other Foster Collins Other Goldhaber Fulani Other
Alabama 10 9 7 0 7 0 0 0 2 0
Alaska 4 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona 9 16 9 0 9 0 0 6 1 0
Arkansas 7 9 4 0 4 0 0 5 0 0
California 55 57 44 0 34 0 0 7 3 3
Colorado 9 18 9 0 6 0 0 3 1 5
Connecticut 9 10 3 0 3 0 0 7 0 0
Delaware 4 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
D.Columbia 4 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0
Florida 26 23 13 0 11 3 0 9 0 0
Georgia 14 25 14 0 10 3 0 9 3 0
Hawaii 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
Idaho 5 5 4 0 4 0 0 1 0 0
Illinois 23 26 18 0 18 0 0 0 8 0
Indiana 13 11 6 3 5 1 2 0 1 1
Iowa 8 9 7 0 4 4 0 1 0 0
Kansas 7 9 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 2
Kentucky 9 8 6 0 5 0 0 1 1 0
Louisiana 10 12 10 0 10 0 0 1 1 0
Maine 5 5 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0
Maryland 11 11 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0
Massachusetts 13 11 8 0 8 0 0 2 1 0
Michigan 19 20 15 0 13 0 1 5 0 0
Minnesota 11 11 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0
Mississippi 8 16 8 0 7 1 0 3 0 5
Missouri 12 13 9 1 9 1 0 0 0 3
Montana 4 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
Nebraska 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Nevada 5 9 5 0 5 0 0 2 0 2
New Hampshire 5 9 5 0 5 0 0 4 0 0
New Jersey 16 26 15 0 12 0 0 7 2 2
New Mexico 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
New York 34 37 15 0 14 0 0 0 22 0
North Carolina 15 15 9 0 9 0 0 5 1 0
North Dakota 4 6 4 0 4 0 0 2 0 0
Ohio 22 28 20 0 12 1 0 7 1 0
Oklahoma 9 9 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
Oregon 8 5 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 1
Pennsylvania 24 21 16 2 12 4 1 0 3 0
Rhode Island 5 6 5 0 5 0 0 1 0 0
South Carolina 9 9 5 0 4 0 1 4 0 0
South Dakota 4 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
Tennessee 12 12 12 0 11 1 0 0 0 0
Texas 33 25 17 0 11 0 2 4 4 0
Utah 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Vermont 4 4 4 0 1 2 0 4 0 0
Virginia 14 26 13 0 13 0 0 12 1 0
Washington 12 12 3 0 3 0 0 2 7 0
West Virginia 6 8 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 2
Wisconsin 12 20 12 0 12 0 0 6 1 1
Wyoming 4 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
national officers 11 14 4 0 6 0 0 7 0 1
TOTAL 600 682 453 6 397 23 7 129 66 28

See above the table, for why this information is meaningful and for an explanation of each column.


2000 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT (table)

The presidential petitioning chart has been changed to show columns for candidates, rather than columns for parties. This is because the "Reform" column no longer means much without reference to which candidate is meant. The chart attempts to show party labels for each entry, but they are often tentative.

STATE REQUIREMENTS SIGNATURES COLLECTED DEADLINE
FULL PARTY CAND. BROWNE BUCHANAN HAGELIN PHILLIPS NADER
Alabama 39,536 5,000 LIBT on INDP on INDP fin INDP on *INDP fin Aug 31
Alaska (reg) 6,606 #2,410 LIBT on REF on NL on *CON on GR on Aug 8
Arizona 13,565 *#9,598 in court REF on NL on too late GR on June 14
Arkansas 21,181 #1,000 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on GR on Aug 1
California (reg) 86,212 149,692 LIBT on undecided NL on AIP on GR on Aug 10
Colorado (reg) 1,000 #pay $500 LIBT on FREE on REF on AC on GR on July 10
Connecticut no procedure #7,500 *LIBT on *FREE fin *REF fin *CC fin GR on Aug 9
Delaware (reg) 241 4,819 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on GR on Aug 19
D.C. no procedure #3,320 *LIBT on *too late *disputed *too late SGR on Aug 15
Florida be organized 82,203 LIBT on undecided NL on CON on GR on Sep 1
Georgia 39,094 #39,094 LIBT on *INDP on too late too late too late Jul 11
Hawaii 602 #3,703 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on GR on Sep 7
Idaho 9,835 4,918 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on *too late Aug 31
Illinois no procedure #25,000 LIBT on INDP on REF on too late *GR fin June 26
Indiana no procedure #30,717 LIBT on *INDP on *too late too late *too late Jul 17
Iowa no procedure #1,500 *LIBT on *REF on *INDP on *CON on *GR on Aug 17
Kansas 14,854 5,000 LIBT on REF on INDP fin CON on *INDP on July 31
Kentucky no procedure #5,000 LIBT on *undecided *NL fin *CON fin *GR on Aug 30
Louisiana est. (reg) 135,000 #pay $500 *LIBT on FREE fin *NL fin *CON fin *GR fin Sep 5
Maine 21,051 #4,000 *LIBT on REF on *too late *CON on GR on Aug 8
Maryland 10,000 25,607 LIBT on REF on *too late CON on *GR on Aug 7
Massachusetts est. (reg) 37,500 #10,000 LIBT on *REF on INDP fin *disputed GR fin July 31
Michigan 30,272 30,272 LIBT on *undecided NL on UST on *GR on July 19
Minnesota 104,550 #2,000 *LIBT fin *REF fin *REF fin CON on GR fin Sep 12
Mississippi be organized #1,000 LIBT on INDP fin NL on CON on IND 1,300 Sep 7
Missouri 10,000 10,000 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on *GR on July 31
Montana 5,000 #5,000 LIBT on in court NL on CON on *GR on Aug 1
Nebraska 5,453 2,500 LIBT on *INDP on NL on *INDP on *GR on Aug 28
Nevada 4,099 4,099 LIBT on CIT on NL on IAP on GR on July 7
New Hampshire 9,827 #3,000 *LIBT fin INDP fin *REF fin CON fin *GR fin Aug 9
New Jersey no procedure #800 *LIBT on *REF on *INDP on *CON on GR on July 31
New Mexico 2,494 14,964 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on GR on Sep 11
New York no procedure #15,000 *LIBT fin *R-T-L on *undetermined *CON fin GR on Aug 22
North Carolina 51,324 98,062 LIBT on REF on too late too late in court June 30
North Dakota 7,000 4,000 *IND 3,500 REF on *IND 2,500 CON on *IND 2,000 Sep 7
Ohio 33,543 #5,000 LIBT on INDP fin NL on INDP fin INDP fin Aug 23
Oklahoma 43,680 36,202 LIBT on REF on *too late too late *in court July 15
Oregon 16,663 13,755 LIBT on *INDP fin REF on CON on GRP on Aug 28
Pennsylvania no procedure 21,739 *LIBT on *REF on too late *CON on *GR on Aug 1
Rhode Island 15,323 #1,000 LIBT fin REF on *NL 1,200 *CON 500 *GR fin Sep 7
South Carolina 10,000 10,000 LIBT on REF on NL on CON on *UC on July 17
South Dakota 6,505 #2,602 LIBT on REF on in court INDP on in court June 20
Tennessee 24,406 25 *LIBT on INDP on *INDP on *INDP on GR on Aug 17
Texas 37,381 56,117 LIBT on INDP on *disputed too late *GR on May 30
Utah 2,000 #1,000 LIBT on REF on NL on IAP on *GR on Aug 31
Vermont be organized #1,000 LIBT on *REF 750 NL on CON on PROG on Sep 20
Virginia no procedure #10,000 *LIBT fin *REF fin *NL fin *CON fin *GR fin Aug 25
Washington no procedure #200 LIBT on FREE on REF on CON on GR on Jul 1
West Virginia no procedure #12,730 LIBT on *REF on NL on too late *too late Aug 1
Wisconsin 10,000 #2,000 LIBT on *REF fin *REF fin CON on GR on Sep 5
Wyoming 3,485 3,485 LIBT on REF on NL on *INDP on *INDP fin Aug 28
TOTAL STATES ON SO FAR *44 *35 *28 *33 *32

#procedure allows partisan label. * -- entry changed from corresponding column entry in last month's table. "On" refers to whether the candidate is on the ballot. For Buchanan and Hagelin, it doesn't necessarily mean the label next to his name is final. Due to the uncertainty in many states on how to handle competing claims between Buchanan and Hagelin, many of the entries above (where the Reform Party is qualified) are probabilities, not certainties.


RIGHT TO LIFE PARTY PICKS BUCHANAN

On August 19, the New York Right to Life Party, in convention, chose Pat Buchanan for president. 90% of the districts voted for him; 10% voted for Howard Phillips, who had received the Right to Life nomination in 1996. Right to Life Party leaders said they had invited George W. Bush to apply for the nomination, but he seemed uninterested.


UNITED CITIZENS PARTY PICKS NADER

On August 12, the United Citizens Party of South Carolina chose Ralph Nader as its presidential candidate. The party also changed its name from Patriot Party to United Citizens, which was its original name when it was formed in 1970.


NEW YORK CONVENTIONS UPCOMING

These ballot-qualified New York parties will pick a presidential candidate on September 23: Independence, Liberal, and Working Families. The Conservative Party of New York will choose on September 25.


MATCHING FUNDS

Minor party presidential candidates received these cumulative totals in primary season matching as of July 31: Pat Buchanan $4,022,171; John Hagelin $389,495; Ralph Nader $278,628.


CANDIDATES NOT ON CHART

Harris (Socialist Workers): on in Colorado, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington; finished in New York, Mississippi and Rhode Island.

McReynolds (Socialist): on in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington; finished in New York and Rhode Island; 1,500 in Wisconsin; 500 in Mississippi.

Moorehead (Workers World): on in Washington; finished in Florida, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Lane (Grassroots): on in Colorado, Minnesota, and Vermont.

Dodge (Prohibition): on in Colorado.


REFORM VICE-PRESIDENT CANDIDATES

Both factions of the Reform Party chose Californians for vice-president. Both of them are new to the Reform Party. Buchanan's faction chose Ezola Foster, a former schoolteacher who lives in Los Angeles. She changed her voter registration from Republican to Reform on March 25, 2000. Hagelin's faction chose Amos Nathaniel Goldhaber, vice-president and director of MyPoints.com, who lives in Oakland. He changed his registration from Natural Law to Reform on August 8, 2000.


PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SUMMARY

This year, there are only 13 presidential candidates on the ballot in any state. These 13 are the Democratic and Republican candidates, the five candidates listed in the petitioning chart, the five candidates named in the story above, and one independent, Randall Venson, who qualified only in his home state, Tennessee. If the New York Independence Party picks someone who isn't on any other state's ballot, there would be fourteen. The state with the most presidential candidates on its ballot is Colorado, with eleven.

In 1996, there were 21 candidates on in at least one state. Parties on the ballot for president in 1996, but not in 2000, are Peace & Freedom of California, American, and Socialist Equality. Also there were two Grassroots Party candidates in 1996, but only one this year; and there were 5 independent presidential candidates on some ballot in 1996, but only one this year.


INCLUSIVE POLLS

Rasmussen Poll results released August 27: Bush 43.1%; Gore 40.7%; Nader 2.8%; Buchanan .9%; Browne .8%; Phillips .1%; some other 1.9%; not sure 9.7%. http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-804.htmlThis poll is updated daily. Hagelin will be added to the poll. Special web note: If that page does not display, try http://www.rasmussenresearch.com/html/poll-804.htmlinstead.

Zogby Poll results of August 20: Bush 44.1%; Gore 40.9%; Nader 5.3%; Buchanan 1.7%; Browne 1.0%; Hagelin .1%; undecided or other, 6.9%. For later results, see http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=8


Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger ban.AT.igc.org. Note: subscriptions are available!
Go back to the index.
Compilation copyright (c) 2000 Bob Bickford