Ballot Access News -- December 1, 2001

Volume 17, Number 9

This issue was originally printed on white paper.

Table of Contents
  1. REP. JESSE JACKSON, Jr INTRODUCES DEBATES BILL
  2. HIGH COURT TURNS DOWN MORE CASES
  3. CONGRESS
  4. LEGISLATIVE NEWS
  5. PEACE & FREEDOM SUES
  6. CALIFORNIA PRIMARY
  7. WITNESSES NEEDED
  8. DEMOCRATIC PARTY
  9. PUERTO RICO TWIST
  10. OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
  11. BOOK REVIEW: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN WHIG PARTY
  12. PENNSYLVANIA PETITION
  13. TEXAS VOTERS LIMIT THEIR OWN POWER
  14. CANDIDATE APPEARS IN DEBATE, LOSES JOB
  15. TOP MINOR PARTY U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATES 1948-2000
  16. NOVEMBER 2001 ELECTION RESULTS
  17. FEC RECOGNIZES GREEN PARTY OF US
  18. MANY MINOR PARTIES WIN ELECTIONS
  19. INDEPENDENTS ELECTED
  20. WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL RACE
  21. Subscription Information

REP. JESSE JACKSON, Jr INTRODUCES DEBATES BILL

RESOLUTION ASKS INCLUSION OF CANDIDATES POLLING 5%

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago, introduced HCR 263 on November 6 ("HCR" is "House Concurrent Resolution). It urges the Commission on Presidential Debates to lower its threshold for participation in presidential debates. It reads:

"Whereas the private Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) will require presidential candidates to post a level of support of at least 15% in national public opinion polls before they may join the debates, a requirement which is deeply problematic;

"Whereas the CPD places the cart before the horse by basing the exclusion of outsider candidates on the preferences of a public who has not yet seen or heard from these candidates in a debate, while at the same time many voters will still be uncommitted to a single candidate at the time of the debates;

"Whereas the 15% rule is both arbitrary and too high, and there is no basis in law for the 15% threshold;

"Whereas the American people do not agree with the CPD, as revealed in a poll which said that a majority of Americans believe that CPD's 15% threshold is inappropriate;

"Whereas polls often underestimate the role of independents because polling firms regularly base their opinion surveys on 'likely voters' as determined by past voting practice, and such determinations ignore the possibility that the debates may, in fact, create new likely voters;

"Whereas general election debates serve a greater purpose for voters than merely contrasting the two candidates who stand the best chance of winning the presidency;

"Whereas general election debates also can provide meaningful political discourse, advance and crystallize the ideas and issues which are important to the American public, and force the candidates to address the issues about which Americans care most deeply;

"Whereas the debates should be an opportunity for voters to see a serious discussion among the candidates from whom they wish to hear and about issues they care to hear discussed, not just among the candidates they may choose to vote for;

"Whereas voters should have an opportunity to hear candidates before they decide whom they will support;

"Whereas the public will get the benefit of a candidate's views which are important to the political dialogue even if that candidate does not have enough support to win;

"Whereas a 5% level of support is based in federal law, mirroring the 5% level of support required for eligibility for federal campaign funding;

"Whereas while past electoral performance should not be the sole criteria for guaranteeing debate participation, deference is due to the only national legislative standard regarding candidate seriousness; and

"Whereas the criteria which should be used to determine participation in debates should be those which respect the opinion of the entire electorate, and a criterion based on the opinions of all eligible voters (not just those deemed by a pollster to be likely to vote) will allow for voices representing all potential voters to be heard and will recognize the possibility that the debates can have an important impact on who chooses to go to the polls in November: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that any presidential candidate should be permitted to participate in debates among candidates if (1) at least 5% of respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support the candidate's election for President; or (2) if a majority of respondents in such polls support the candidate's participation in such debates.

Please ask your member of the House of Representatives to become a co-sponsor of HCR263. The resolution is currently pending in the Committee on House Administration. If your member of Congress happens to sit on that Committee, please ask him or her to hold a hearing on HCR263. Members of the Committee are Republicans Robert Ney (Ohio), Vernon Ehlers (Michigan), John Mica (Florida), John Linder (Georgia), John Doolittle (Calif.) and Thomas Reynolds (N.Y.) Democrats are Steny Hoyer (Maryland), Chaka Fattah (Penn.) and Jim Davis (Fla.).

If the standard for getting into presidential election debates had always been 5% polling support (or the desire of 50% that the candidate be invited into the debate), it is likely that these candidates (who were actually excluded) would have been included in past debates: independent Eugene McCarthy in 1976, independent John Anderson in 1980, Reform nominee Ross Perot in 1996, and Green Ralph Nader in 2000. Possibly others would also have qualified. Presidential general election debates were held in 1960 and all years 1976 through the present. The Commission on Presidential Debates has existed since 1987.


HIGH COURT TURNS DOWN MORE CASES

The last B.A.N. reported that 2001 (so far) has been the first calendar year since 1987 that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused all election law cases. This generalization is still true; the Court turned down two more election cases during November. One of them had been filed by the state of Utah over congressional reapportionment; the other concerned initiatives in Oregon. The Court will probably say on December 3 whether it will hear the Minnesota Republican Party's case concerning party endorsements of judicial candidates.


CONGRESS

On November 14, the U.S. House Administration Committee introduced and passed HR 3295, which would provide money to states for buying new vote-counting equipment. It would also set up a federal Election Assistance Commission, to help the states choose equipment. See http://thomas.loc.gov/and enter "HR3295" to read the bill.


LEGISLATIVE NEWS

1. Alabama: Rep. Bob McKee will probably introduce a bill next year to lower the definition of "party" from a group that polled 20% for any race, to one that polled 10%.

2. Alaska: Senator Jeannette James will probably introduce a bill next year to establish a procedure for independent presidential candidates to get on the ballot. Alaska has never had such a procedure; it only has a procedure for minor party presidential candidates. In the past, independent presidential candidates have created artificial parties in Alaska, just to get on the ballot. In 1992 Ross Perot created the "No Party-Party" and in 1980 John Anderson created the "Independents for Anderson Party".

3. Arizona: Rep. Christine Weason will probably introduce a bill next year to delete two pages of the election code which describe the "international Communistic conspiracy" and conclude by banning the Communist Party from the ballot. The law was passed in 1961 and declared unconstitutional in 1973, but it is still in the code.

4. Iowa: minor parties are working together to get a bill introduced next year to make it possible for voters to register as members of unqualified parties. Contact either Holly Hart, hhart.AT.blue.weeg.uiowa.edu or Rich Moroney, rkmoroney.AT.hotmail.com

5. Kentucky: the County Clerks Association is working to enact BR261, which would authorize them to keep track of how many registered members there are in each minor party. "BR261" is the designation of a bill that has already been pre-filed for the 2002 legislative session; the bill number itself isn't known yet.

6. Michigan: on November 8, the Senate passed SB 173, which would eliminate the straight-ticket device on general election ballots. The vote was 20-15. The House will take up the bill in December. Minor party candidates generally do better in the absence of a straight-ticket device.

7. New Hampshire: HB 1158, by Rep. Richard Brewster, would lower the definition of "party" from a group which polled 4%, to one that polled 3%. HB 1188, also by Brewster, would add "political belief" to the state laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. HB 1181, by Rep. Jeb Bradley, would eliminate numerical requirements for qualified parties, and provide that any organized group may be a party.

8. North Carolina: the legislature is about to adjourn, without passing SB 70. The bill would have provided that each congressional district elect its own presidential elector. North Carolina had been the only state where it was thought this idea might pass in 2001. Similar bills had been introduced in a dozen states, early in the year, but none passed. Nebraska and Maine already use this method.


PEACE & FREEDOM SUES

On November 19, the Peace & Freedom Party filed a lawsuit to require California to recognize it as a qualified party. Peace & Freedom Party v Jones, 01-cs-01629, Superior Court, Sacramento.

California law requires a new party to have 86,212 registered members. The party has over 100,000 registered voters, if inactive voters are counted. But it has only 66,796, if inactive voters are not counted. Inactive voters are those who haven't voted recently, and (according to the post office) have moved. Inactive voters may sign petitions, but the Secretary of State says they don't count for purposes of computing the number of registered voters.

The party charges that the state's policy is not only unlawful under state law, but that it violates the federal Voter Registration law. The hearing is December 4.


CALIFORNIA PRIMARY

Any day now, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Moskowitz, a Clinton appointee, will make a decision in a lawsuit against a California law which makes it illegal for anyone to enter a partisan primary if that candidate had been a member of another qualified party in the preceding year. Van Susteren v Jones, 01-1777-BTM, San Diego. The case was filed by a Libertarian who wishes to run for U.S. House.

In the meantime, the Libertarian Party filed another lawsuit on this point, in federal court in Los Angeles. Olivier v Jones, 01-cv-9902. This case is stronger, because the party is a co-plaintiff. The party couldn't be a party in the Van Susteren lawsuit because in that lawsuit, the candidate (who is not an attorney) is representing himself, and pro se litigants cannot represent anyone but themselves.


WITNESSES NEEDED

The Initiative & Referendum Institute would like to hear from anyone who could testify that petitioning in post offices was normal activity back in the 1960's and earlier. The Institute is suing the U.S. Postal Service over a fairly recent ban on petitioning on post office sidewalks. It would help the case if there were evidence that petitioning on post office sidewalks has been common throughout history. So far, the Institute has witnesses who can testify about the period since 1970, but would like witnesses who know something even earlier. Contact attorney David Klein at dfklein.AT.swidlaw.com


DEMOCRATIC PARTY

On November 10, the national rules committee of the Democratic Party voted to relax a party rule on presidential primaries. The old rule says the party will not recognize any presidential primary held earlier than March of the election year (except in New Hampshire). The new rule would permit them as early as the first Tuesday in February. The full national committee will make a final decision early in 2002. Republicans already permit February primaries.


PUERTO RICO TWIST

A citizen of the U.S. who leaves the U.S. permanently to live in another country may continue to vote in federal elections, with an absentee ballot from the state he or she last lived in. This is true even if the citizen has not set foot in that state, or any other part of the U.S., for decades.

However, if a U.S. citizen moves to any other U.S. territory, he or she loses the right to vote via absentee ballot from the state of former residence. This disparity in treatment has lead to many lawsuits, although the policy is always upheld. On September 6, the 2nd circuit upheld the law. Romeu v Cohen, 265 F 3d 118. The case had been filed by a New Yorker who had moved to Puerto Rico. He was denied a New York absentee ballot.

However, this decision has a new twist. Judge Pierre Leval, a Clinton appointee, said in the decision that if Congress has the power to tell states that they must let residents of foreign countries (who are U.S. citizens) vote in state elections for federal office, then Congress also has the power to tell the states that they must accept votes of their former residents who now live in U.S. territories.

Even more radically, Leval wrote that Congress could also require the states to include (in their popular vote for president) votes cast in U.S. territories for president, on a proportional basis. That is, if U.S. citizens in the territories cast one million votes for president, and if New York state cast 6.6% of the popular vote for president, then 66,000 territorial presidential votes should be added into New York's vote totals for each presidential candidate.

Judge John Walker wrote separately to say he disagreed. Of course, the Leval idea has no impact on policy, but it is interesting. Leval noted that the inability of Puerto Ricans to vote for president is the cause of "immense resentment", and that it causes "annual attacks on the United States in hearings at the United Nations, at which the U.S. is described as hypocritically preaching democracy to the world while practicing colonialism at home."


OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS

1. California: on October 30, the State Court of Appeals ruled that San Francisco must permit write-in candidates in city run-off elections. Edelstein v Fado, A93007, 1st dist. The city charter doesn't say anything about write-ins, but the city believes that write-ins are implicitly barred by language that says the top two vote-getters' names shall be placed on the run-off ballot (if no one got at least 50% in the first election). The city plans to appeal to the State Supreme Court.

2. Illinois: James Tobin (Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in 1998) plans to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review of the 7th circuit opinion which said that state election board members have absolute immunity (as individuals) from civil lawsuits.

3. Maryland: the state's highest court, which is called the Court of Appeals, heard oral arguments on November 29 in Green Party of Maryland v Board of Elections, 27158. The next B.A.N. will describe the hearing. The issue is whether the state can require qualified parties to submit candidate petitions for their nominees.

4. Massachusetts: on November 14, federal judge Patty Saris dismissed a case which had sought to force the legislature to fund the public campaign law. The voters of the state had passed an initiative providing for public funding of candidates for state office, but since the legislature refuses to provide funding, the law is effectively void. The judge said the matter doesn't belong in federal court. Tolman v Finneran, 01-10756-pbs.

5. New Mexico: on November 6, the State Supreme Court refused to hear the Green Party's lawsuit on whether it is a major party. Green Party of New Mexico v Vigil-Giron, 27158. The party will probably file a new lawsuit in a lower state court. No court has yet heard this case.

6. Oklahoma: there will be a trial this month in Beaver v Ward, over whether a party can invite all registered voters to vote in its primary.

7. Ohio: on October 29, the State Court of Appeals again refused to hear the Libertarian Party's case on whether it is qualified or not. State ex rel Hartman v Cuyahoga Co. Bd. of Elections, 80276. The party has appealed to the State Supreme Court. As in the New Mexico case above, no court has yet heard this case.

8. Oregon: on November 6, the State Supreme Court heard Lehman v Bradbury, S48771, over whether the term limits law (for state office) is invalid for breaking the rule that initiatives can only consist of a single subject. A decision is expected early in 2002.

9. Utah: on November 2, a 3-judge U.S. District Court upheld census procedures for "imputing" the existence of individuals whose identity is not known. The vote was 2-1. If a household resolutely refuses to respond to the census, the Census Bureau assumes that the number of people living in that household is similar to the number living in neighboring homes. Without this method, Utah would have gained a seat in Congress at North Carolina's expense. The state will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Utah v Evans II, 2:01-cv-292G.

10. national: a trial will start on March 4, 2002, in Nader v Commission on Presidential Debates, 00-12145 (US District Court, Boston). Nader is suing for damages, because even though he had a valid ticket to sit in the audience at the October 2000 presidential debate in Boston, he was barred from his seat. The Commission had said it was afraid the TV cameras would occasionally focus on Nader.

In another matter involving 2000 presidential debates, on October 11 the U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed the lawsuit Committee for a United Independent Party v FEC, 00-3476. Judge Barbara Jones held that none of the plaintiffs had standing. Earlier, the magistrate in this case had ruled that some of the plaintiffs did have standing. This had been the last case concerning exclusion from debate participation in last year's election.


BOOK REVIEW: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN WHIG PARTY

The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, by Michael F. Holt, was published in June 1999 by Oxford University Press. By now it should be in most medium-sized libraries. It can be purchased from amazon.com for $38.50 (the original price was $55). It is 1,248 pages, hardcover.

If you ever wondered what U.S. elections would be like, in the complete absence of government regulation of political parties, this is a book for you. The Whig Party was formed, for the most part, by people who were opposed to the very idea of political parties. However, the Democratic Party had become a well-organized machine, and citizens who were opposed to the policies of the Democratic Party organized the Whig Party because they saw no other recourse, in order to defeat the Democrats.

In the years covered by the book, 1835-1861, there were no primary elections, no government-printed ballots, no restrictions on patronage, no constitutional restrictions on whether congressional or legislative districts had equal populations, no popular election for U.S. Senators, and not even a national uniform election day for U.S. House of Representatives elections. All these characteristics of the election system placed great power in the hands of party leaders. Back then, citizens interested in politics were well-advised to become active in political parties.

Minor parties were influential. Local minor parties (not well known today) organized to oppose immigration, or the Catholic Church, influenced statewide elections by their freedom to either place major party nominees on their own tickets, or run their own candidates. The right of a minor party to engage in "fusion" also gave considerable power to the Free Soil Party, which opposed slavery.

The book is a good source of information about the 1854-1855 period, when there were four major parties (Democratic, Republican, Whig and American).

Major party presidential conventions of the time were riotously unpredictable. With no presidential primaries, anything could happen. The account of each of the Whig nominating conventions is gripping.

The author, chair of the History Department at the University of Virginia, mentions modern ballot access requirements on page 772. He notes, "During the 20th century, American electoral politics has always been organized around the same two major parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- in large part because the adoption of state-printed ballots in the 1890s measurably increased the difficulty of launching a third party to challenge them. Since those major parties had an automatic slot on the ballots and since the legal hurdles for other parties to get on those ballots were so high, Republicans and Democrats effectively monopolized voters' choice...

In the 1850s and for most of the 19th century, however, the rules of the political game encouraged rather than inhibited the creation of new parties. Instead of state-printed ballots that gave legally recognized major parties pride of place and disadvantaged other groups who sought to be listed on them, political parties printed and distributed their own ballots. As a result, it was far easier for new parties to challenge the old ones. As Whigs would learn to their dismay, therefore, politics in the 1850s was not a zero-sum game. Animosity towards Democrats did not translate automatically into support for Whigs. Voters had other options... Whigs could not monopolize opposition to Democrats, and that simple, if easily overlooked, fact more than anything else explains the death of the Whig Party."


PENNSYLVANIA PETITION

Pennsylvania will require 20,900 signatures for statewide minor party and independent candidates in 2002. This is the lowest requirement in this state since 1970. The formula is 2% of the most popular winner's vote for judicial office (at the election held November 6, 2001). Turnout last month in Pennsylvania was very low.


TEXAS VOTERS LIMIT THEIR OWN POWER

On November 6, 2001, Texas voters voted to shrink their own power. They voted by 62%-38% in favor of a constitutional amendment which lets the legislature choose presidential electors, if the popular vote for president is so close that there is uncertainty as to who won. It would seem more logical for Texans to improve their voting technology, to make sure they can get a speedy and accurate count.


CANDIDATE APPEARS IN DEBATE, LOSES JOB

Michael Italie, Socialist Workers candidate for Mayor of Miami, appeared in a debate on October 18. Newspapers covered his remarks, which included a defense of Cuba's government, and criticism of U.S. actions in Afghanistan. Four days later, Italie's employer, Goodwill Industries, fired him, telling him, "Because of your views on the U.S. government, you are a disruptive force."


TOP MINOR PARTY U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATES 1948-2000

The chart below show the most successful minor party candidates for U.S. House of Representatives, for each state, for the period 1948 through 2000. "Minor party" means any party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. "Most successful" means the candidate who got the highest percentage of the vote.

The decade with the most "best" entries is the 1990's, with 28 of the 50 data points. Tied for second was the 1970's (with 8) and the year 2000 alone (also with 8). By stark contrast, the 20 years before 1970 only had two "bests".

The Libertarian Party has the most "best" entries, with 18 out of the 50.

Georgia has not had a minor party candidate on the ballot for U.S. House in a regularly-scheduled election since 1942. This is because of the state's prohibitive 5% petition requirement. However, in special elections, no petition is required; the Georgia entry on the chart is a special election.

Year Party Candidate & District Vote Percentage
Alabama 1970 National Democratic T. Y. Rogers, 5th 24,863 24.08%
Alaska 1994 Green Joni Whitmore, at-large 21,277 10.23%
Arizona 1978 Libertarian Kathleen Cooke, 3rd 19,813 15.05%
Arkansas 1998 Reform Ralph Forbes, 3rd 36,917 19.26%
California 1990 Libertarian Joe Shea, 45th 46,068 27.15%
Colorado 2000 Libertarian Kerry Kantor, 5th 37,719 12.31%
Connecticut 1994 A Connecticut Barbara Kennelly, 1st 49,691 26.30%
Delaware 1992 Libertarian Peggy Schmitt, at-large 5,661 2.05%
Florida 1998 Reform Jack Gargan, 5th 67,147 33.72%
Georgia 1977 Socialist Workers James Harris, 5th 108 .14%
Hawaii 1988 Libertarian Lloyd J. Mallan, 2nd 18,006 11.06%
Idaho 1972 American John Thiebert, 2nd 5,560 3.75%
Illinois 1990 Libertarian Robert Marshall, 8th 18,529 20.89%
Indiana 1998 Libertarian Joe Hauptmann, 6th 21,032 11.20%
Iowa 1992 Natural Law Larry Chroman, 3rd 10,181 3.96%
Kansas 2000 Libertarian Jack Warner, 1st 25,581 10.66%
Kentucky 2000 Reform Gatewood Galbraith, 6th 32,436 11.98%
Louisiana 1982 Libertarian James D. Agnew, 6th 19,354 22.87%
Maine 1992 Green Jonathan Carter, 2nd 27,526 8.84%
Maryland 2000 Constitution Brian D. Saunders, 8th 7,017 2.34%
Massachusetts 1988 Communist Louis R. Godena, 2nd 38,446 19.75%
Michigan 1992 Libertarian Kenneth L. Proctor, 7th 18,751 12.27%
Minnesota 2000 Independence Tom Foley, 4th 55,899 20.59%
Mississippi 1998 Libertarian William Chipman, 2nd 32,533 28.84%
Missouri 1970 American Gerald G. Fischer, 1st 6,078 9.47%
Montana 1996 Natural Law Jim Brooks, at-large 17,935 4.43%
Nebraska 1998 Libertarian Jerry Hickman, 3rd 27,278 15.38%
Nevada 1998 Constitution Christopher Horne, 2nd 20,738 8.34%
New Hampshire 1996 Libertarian Gary A. Flanders, 1st 8,176 3.30%
New Jersey 1990 Populist William Kanengiser, 2nd 13,120 11.84%
New Mexico 1997 Green Carol A. Miller, 3rd 17,101 16.78%
New York 1948 American Labor Leo Isacson, 24th 22,697 55.88%
North Carolina 1998 Libertarian Deborah Eddins, 10th 19,970 14.42%
North Dakota 1968 Taxpayers R. M. Landsberger, 1st 2,166 1.72%
Ohio 2000 Natural Law Regina Burch, 3rd 36,516 17.04%
Oklahoma 1996 Natural Law Karla Condray, 1st 8,996 4.28%
Oregon 1976 U.S. Labor Martin Simon, 3rd 28,245 15.98%
Pennsylvania 1998 Green William Belitskus, 5th 17,734 15.13%
Rhode Island 1998 Reform James C. Sheehan, 1st 6,202 4.47%
South Carolina 1978 American Independent Harold Hough, 5th 13,251 17.26%
South Dakota 1996 Reform Stacey Nelson, at-large 10,397 3.22%
Tennessee 2000 Libertarian Kevin Rowland, 2nd 22,304 10.65%
Texas 1998 Libertarian Vince Hanke, 11th 15,161 17.57%
Utah 1994 Independent Party Merrill Cook, 2nd 34,167 18.31%
Vermont 1980 Liberty Union Peter Diamondstone, at-large 15,218 7.83%
Virginia 1976 American Warren D. Saunders, 6th 55,115 37.76%
Washington 2000 Green Joe Szwaja, 7th 52,142 19.62%
West Virginia 1998 Libertarian Richard Carr, 1st 19,013 15.32%
Wisconsin 1998 U.S. Taxpayers Timothy Farness, 6th 11,267 7.25%
Wyoming 1994 Libertarian David Dawson, at-large 10,749 5.48%

This chart has the minor party candidate for U.S. House who received the highest share of the vote, 1948-2000. See above.


NOVEMBER 2001 ELECTION RESULTS

Special congressional election result, November 20:

Arkansas 3rd: Republican 52,894 (55.55%); Democratic 40,137 (42.15%); Green 1,774 (1.86%); Freedom 418 (.44%). In November 2000, only a Republican had appeared on the ballot for this office.

State elections, November 6:

New Jersey Governor: Democratic 1,229,818 (56.23%); Republican 915,314 (41.85%); independent, Schluter 23,640 (1.08%); Green 6,132 (.28%); Libertarian 4,626 (.21%); independent, Watson 2,550 (.12%); Conservative 2,106 (.10%); Socialist 1,710 (.08%); Socialist Workers 1,069 (.05%).

Virginia Governor: Democratic 984,177 (52.19%); Republican 887,234 (47.05%); Libertarian 14,497 (.77%).

Virginia Lt Gov.: Dem. 925,974 (50.36%); Rep. 883,886 (48.07%); Libertarian 28,783 (1.57%).


FEC RECOGNIZES GREEN PARTY OF US

On November 8, the Federal Election Commission unanimously recognized the Green Party of the U.S. (formerly the Association of State Green Parties) as the Green Party National Committee. There are now 7 national committees recognized by the FEC. The others are Democratic, Republican, Constitution, Libertarian, Natural Law and Reform. Recognition confers no concrete advantage other than the ability to receive larger contributions than would otherwise be allowed.


MANY MINOR PARTIES WIN ELECTIONS

On November 6, voters elected members of the Communist, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law and Prohibition Parties to public office.

Communist: Denise Winebrenner-Edwards, a member of the party's newspaper editorial board, was re-elected to the city council of Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Although she was listed on the ballot as a Democrat, her opponent publicized that she is a leader of the Communist Party.

Green: the party won partisan elections in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and non-partisan elections in California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington. These included the Mayor of Windber, Pennsylvania; two city council seats in Minneapolis; two city council seats in New Haven, Ct.; and a city council seat in Hartford, Ct. http://www.greens.org/elections/has more detail. At last count, 38 Greens won on November 6.

Libertarian: the party won partisan elections in Pennsylvania and non-partisan elections in California, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Washington. These included the Mayor of Sumas, Washington; and city council seats in Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina and Washington. For more detail, see http://www.lp.org/At last count, 76 Libertarians won on November 6.

On November 9, San Miguel County, Colorado Coroner Robert Dempsey switched his registration from "Republican" to "Libertarian". Coroner is a partisan elected position in this county.

Natural Law: Ed Malloy, a party leader, was elected Mayor of Fairfield, Iowa, defeating an incumbent who had served 28 years.

Prohibition: the party won its first partisan election since 1959. Jim Hedges was elected Assessor of Thompson Township, Fulton Co., Pa. He was listed on the ballot as "Republican-Democratic-Prohibition". He had won the major party nominations by write-ins at this year's primary.


INDEPENDENTS ELECTED

Two independent candidates were elected to the Virginia legislature on November 6. There had not been any independents in that body, prior to the election.


WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL RACE

On November 15, Ed Thompson announced that he will run as the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Wisconsin next year. Thompson is Mayor of Tomah. He is endorsed by Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota.


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) 2001 Bob Bickford