|This issue was originally printed on white paper.|
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on November 13 that signtures on initiative petitions can't be invalidated just because the signers aren't on the list of registered voters. And a federal court ruled on November 30 that Idaho cannot require a certain number of signatures (for initiative petitions) from each of 22 counties. Both decisions, if they are not overturned, will make much easier to qualify initiatives in those two states. Furthermore, the decisions may eventually apply to petitions concerning candidates and new political parties.
Idaho: the decision, called Idaho Coalition United for Bears v Cenarrusa, 00-0668, is by U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee. Idaho hasn't decided whether to appeal. This was the first time any court had ever invalidated a county distribution requirement for initiatives. Arkansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and Utah have similar requirements for initiatives.
County distribution requirements for statewide minor party and independent candidate petitions were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 in an Illinois case, Moore v Ogilvie. The county distribution requirement for statewide minor party and independent candidates in Illinois had been 200 signatures from each of 50 counties. In practice, statewide petitions which were challenged in Illinois were always invalidated. Even former U.S. vice-president Henry Wallace was kept off the Illinois ballot in 1948 because of the distribution requirement. Thus it was a great victory when the Supreme Court invalidated the Illinois requirement in 1969.
Unfortunately, some courts have tended to doubt that Moore v Ogilvie is still good law. No county-based distribution requirement had been declared unconstitutional since 1984.
Pennsylvania still has a county distribution requirement for candidates for statewide state office seeking a place on a primary ballot, and Pennsylvania state courts have upheld it.
At oral argument in the Idaho case, Judge Winmill noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had spoken approvingly of Moore v Ogilvie in its Bush v Gore decision of December 12, 2000. However, the Judge did not mention Bush v Gore in his opinion. He did, of course, base his opinion on Moore v Ogilvie.
The basis for striking down any county distribution requirement is "one man, one vote". Counties are vastly dissimilar in population. County distribution requirements tend to give small-population counties a veto power over petitions. For example, if a state requires a statewide petition to contain a substantial number of signatures from half the counties in the state, and if the subject of the petition is something that is very popular in urban areas but is unpopular in rural areas, a county distribution requirement can block the success of the petition.
Assuming that the Idaho decision is not overturned on appeal, it is likely that similar challenges will be mounted to county distribution requirements for candidates in Pennsylvania, and for initiatives in the other six states which have such requirements.
Oklahoma: the State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that signatures on an initiative petition can't be invalidated just because the signer's name isn't on the state's computerized list of registered voters. A request for rehearing is pending. If the request for rehearing is denied, in the future, any petition submitted in Oklahoma which has on its face enough signatures to meet the signature requirement will be valid.
The case is In re Initiative Petition No. 365, no. 94155. Other methods to disqualify initiative petitions will still exist, of course. The circulators must be Oklahoma residents and the circulator's statement at the bottom of a petition must continue to be notarized. However, these are trivial requirements, in comparison with the validity check that can no longer be carried out.
The Court noted, "We take note that petitioners produced voter registration cards for individuals whom opponents alleged were 'not found' in their database." Oklahoma elections officials pride themselves on their state's centralized computer database of voters. No database is perfect, and it is not surprising that mistakes were made. Nevertheless, it is dramatic that the Court ruled that a signature is presumed valid unless "clear and convincing evidence" is presented that a particular signature is not valid. In practice, it now seems virtually impossible to invalidate a signature on a petition in Oklahoma.
In Oklahoma, the Secretary of State checks initiative petitions, whereas the State Election Board checks new party petitions. The State Board of Elections has not yet said whether the ruling will be applied to petitions for new parties.
On December 3, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Republican Party of Minnesota v Kelly, 01-521. The Court is only interested in one of the two issues: may a candidate for judge mention his or her attitudes on political issues? The Court doesn't want to hear the other issue in the case: may a candidate for judge mention that he or she is endorsed by a political party? However, it is likely the decision on the first issue will indirectly answer the second question.
The Alabama legislature passed SB 36 on December 21. It changes the deadline for petitions (except independent presidential candidate petitions) from July to June. It also tells qualified parties that nominate by convention that they must nominate no later than the date of the first primary, in early June (before the Democrats and Republicans have held their run-off primaries). Activists will try to persuade the Governor to veto the bill.
The bill also makes it illegal for convention parties to nominate anyone who lost a major party primary, but since the minor party deadlines are now before the final primary, that point is moot.
SB 36 originally also increased the number of signatures needed for new parties and for non-presidential independents from 3%, to 5%, of the last gubernatorial vote. However, that was amended out of the bill before it passed the Senate.
This bill was introduced in the 4th special session, which had been called to deal with education funding. That session didn't take any action on education, but did take the time to pass this election law bill.
On December 12, the U.S. House passed HR 3295, which would give money to states for buying new vote-counting equipment. The vote was 362-63. Twenty Republicans voted "No": Barr, Barton, Bonilla, Coble, Culberson, Flake, Hefley, Jones (NC), Kingston, Paul, Petri, Pombo, Putnam, Rohrabacher, Schaffer, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Smith (Mi) and Toomey.
42 Democrats voted "No": Baldwin, Becerra, Blagojevich, Bonior, Brown (Oh), Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Davis (Il.), Doggett, Frank, Gutierrez, Hilliard, Hinchey, Jackson (Il.), Jackson-Lee, Jones (Oh), Kilpatrick, Kleczka, Kucinich, McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meehan, Mollohan, Murtha, Napolitano, Olver, Pastor, Payne, Pelosi, Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Sanchez, Scott, Shows, Solis, Waters, and Watt (NC). Virgil Goode, independent, also voted "no".
1. Iowa: Senator Mary Lundby will soon introduce a bill making it possible for voters to register as members of unqualified parties.
2. Michigan: on December 11, SB 173 passed the legislature. It abolishes the straight-ticket device on ballots (also known as a "party lever" or "party circle"). Pennsylvania is now the only populous state which still uses such a device.
3. Oklahoma: Representative Sue Tibbs will probably introduce a bill to ease ballot access. If she does so, and if it passes the House, Senator Mark Snyder will carry it in the Senate.
4. Tennessee: Senator Tim Burchett will probably introduce a bill, letting candidates who use the independent petition method choose a partisan label, to be printed on the general election ballot. Somewhat similar legislation passed in 2000, but it basically was for the 2000 election only.
On December 6, federal Judge Barry Moskowitz upheld California law that bars candidates from a partisan primary, if they have been a member of another qualified party during the year before filing. Van Susteren v Jones, 01-1777-BTM, San Diego.
The judge did not mention a quotation from a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, which says that a state cannot tell a political party that it cannot nominate a non-member. It is likely that the judge didn't even read the Tashjian case. Even if he felt that he wasn't bound by it, his decision is incomplete without discussing Tashjian.
A similar Libertarian case is pending in federal court in Los Angeles, Olivier v Jones, 01-cv-9902. That case has a hearing on January 14. The object of that case is to get Art Olivier on the Libertarian primary ballot for Governor. However, since the ballots are printed January 10, even if Olivier wins the case, he won't get any practical relief, unless the judge orders the ballots re-printed.
On December 5, a State Superior Court refused to order the Peace & Freedom Party placed back on the ballot. Peace & Freedom Party v Jones, 01-cs-01629, Superior Court, Sacramento. The issue is whether the party had the needed 86,212 registered members. The party does have this number if inactive voters are counted. The state argued that inactive voters shouldn't count for this purpose. The judge agreed, although he didn't explain why. The party is appealing.
1. California: on December 20, the 9th circuit ruled that a trial must be held to settle the constitutionality of Irvine's campaign finance law. Lincoln Club of Orange County v City of Irvine, 00-56444. The preamble to the city's limit on campaign contributions says the purpose of the restriction is to ensure that all candidates are placed on an equal plane relative to the amount of campaign contributions received by them. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has said this is not sufficient to justify restrictions on contributions; contribution limits can only be justified to stop bribry or the appearnce of bribery.
2. Florida: a trial will begin on March 18 in Johnson v Bush, 00-3542 (federal court in Miami). This is over the state's ban on ex-felons voting.
Florida (2): on November 28, the 11th circuit struck down a state law making it illegal for a candidate to make a contribution to any religious, charitable, civic or other cause, from either personal or campaign funds (except that three exceptions are allowed: (1) memorial contributions when someone dies; (2) when the candidate had previously been making gifts to the charity for more than 6 months; (3) to buy tickets). Florida Right to Life v Lamar, 00-14140.
3. Idaho: on December 13, the State Supreme Court upheld term limits for state and local offices. Rudeen v Cenarrusa, 2001-99. The lower court ruling of 2000 was reversed.
4. 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 hearing went well. The state couldn't seem to explain why qualified parties (who need their own petition) must submit separate petitions for each of their nominees.
5. Massachusetts: on October 4, the National Voting Rights Institute filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court, to force the legislature to fund the public financing law passed by the voters in 1998. Bates v Sullivan, 08677. The Court accepted the case and briefs have been filed.
6. New Mexico: on December 28, the Green Party filed a new lawsuit to restore its primary election. Green Party v Vigil-Giron, Santa Fe District Court.
7. Ohio: on October 4, the State Supreme Court ruled that initiative petitioners need not be registered voters. State ex rel Oster v Lorain Co. Bd. of Elections, 01-1639.
8. Oklahoma: the last B.A.N. said that there would be a hearing in Beaver v Ward this month. This is over whether a party may invite all registered voters to vote in its primary. The hearing has been postponed until April.
1. Alaska: it is already set that, on August 27, Alaskans will vote on whether to use Instant Runoff in state elections. The Anchorage city government may authorize a similar referendum for city elections; that city referendum would be in April.
2. California: on March 5, San Franciscans will vote on Instant Runoff for city elections. The Democratic Party endorsed the proposal on December 19.
3. Texas: IRV supporters will file a lawsuit to overturn a ruling by the Secretary of State that no city may use IRV. The Texas Constitution says city elections must be based on majority vote. The Secretary thinks this provision bars IRV.
4. Vermont: the League of Women Voters is helping in an effort to get endorsements for IRV from as many town meetings as possible. The endorsements will be used to persuade the legislature to authorize IRV.
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has introduced HJR 72, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote to citizens (age 18 and above). It would enfranchise ex-felons and felons, and give the voters a right to choose presidential electors. It would also give congress control over election procedures.
|Year||Party||Candidate & District||Vote||Percentage|
|Alabama||1970||National Democratic||James Paulk, rep 31(1)||8,624||47.75%|
|Alaska||1980||Libertarian||Dick Randolph, rep 20||11,163||55.01%|
|Arizona||1980||Libertarian||Robert A. Stirn, rep 10||3,113||32.92%|
|Arkansas||1970||American||Mr. Serio, rep 40(1)||2,180||22.02%|
|California||1999||Green||Audie Bock, asm 16||14,674||50.55%|
|Colorado||2000||Libertarian||Russ Haddad, rep 50||3,208||25.11%|
|Connecticut||1994||A Connecticut||Andrea Stillman, rep 38||2,997||48.42%|
|Delaware||1994||Libertarian||John M. Reda, rep 13||784||18.30%|
|Florida||1992||Libertarian||Janet Hawkins, rep 35||10,073||28.13%|
|Georgia||1994||Libertarian||Larry Bolin, rep 86||2,503||31.91%|
|Hawaii||1994||Green||Toni Worst, rep 23||3,571||40.73%|
|Idaho||1972||American||Werner Brammer, rep 7||1,988||38.31%|
|Illinois||1992||Harold Washington||Cynthia Taylor, sen 12||18,312||28.54%|
|Indiana||1978||American||June Osterman, rep 38||1,681||19.56%|
|Iowa||1964||Conservative||Reuben Rustad, rep Worth||1,992||25.38%|
|Kansas||1948||Prohibition||J. W. Bathurst, rep 84||1,309||35.97%|
|Kentucky||1973||American||E. M. McElroy, rep 59||729||16.90%|
|Louisiana||1995||Prudence||Verna Bradley-Jackson, rep 61||1,592||17.20%|
|Maine||1998||U S Taxpayers||Jesse Crandall, rep 76||1,322||44.77%|
|Maryland||1982||Libertarian||Gerald Schneider, del 19||5,262||22.28%|
|Massachusetts||1992||Independent Voters||Wayne Campos, rep Bristol 6||4,218||34.40%|
|Michigan||1996||Libertarian||Jon Coon, rep 24||5,042||15.74%|
|Minnesota||2000||Independence||Cy Thao, rep 65A||2,517||23.13%|
|Mississippi||1975||American||Bob Norman, rep 31G||763||11.37%|
|Missouri||1996||U S Taxpayers||Ray Rowland, sen 25||18,582||36.91%|
|Montana||2000||Constitution||Rick Jore, rep 73||1,818||49.27%|
|Nebraska||1988||New Alliance||Ernie Chambers, sen 11||2,084||66.79%|
|Nevada||2000||Libertarian||James Dan, asm 28||990||45.27%|
|New Hampshire||1994||Libertarian||Don Gorman, rep Rocking 8||2,563||99.50%|
|New Jersey||1991||Populist||John L. Kucek, sen 22||9,153||21.78%|
|New Mexico||1992||Green||Abraham Gutmann, rep 42||3,703||39.20%|
|New York||1986||Liberal||Albert Vann, asm 56||8,511||63.59%|
|North Carolina||2000||Libertarian||John Evans, sen 18||10,147||20.48%|
|North Dakota||1996||Libertarian||Roland Reimers, rep 33||232||4.52%|
|Ohio||1996||Natural Law||Karen Schultz, rep 29||11,178||23.50%|
|Oklahoma||1976||Libertarian||Porter Davis, rep 85||2,867||36.35%|
|Oregon||2000||Constitution||Bob Ekstrom, rep 1||7,368||31.16%|
|Pennsylvania||1994||Libertarian||Joseph Lisowski, rep 155||4,749||27.12%|
|Rhode Island||2000||Green||Paul DeGaitas, rep 19||515||34.68%|
|South Carolina||2000||United Citizens||James E. Dunn, rep 106||6,365||34.97%|
|South Dakota||1982||Libertarian||Emmett Elrod, rep 26||2,228||37.23%|
|Tennessee||1970||American||William J. Davis, sen 27||12,659||58.27%|
|Texas||1992||La Raza Unida||Albert Pena, rep 57J||4,205||34.35%|
|Utah||1992||Independent Party||Bart Grant, rep 26||2,083||34.62%|
|Vermont||2000||Progressive||David Zuckerman, rep Chit 7-3||2,090||100.00%|
|Virginia||1999||Reform||Bradley Evans, del 27||2,466||30.45%|
|Washington||1998||Reform||Gregory Lemke, rep 38(2)||9,527||29.08%|
|West Virginia||1998||Libertarian||Wallace Johnson, del 27||3,149||31.85%|
|Wisconsin||1974||American||Cyril Rada, asm 67||1,827||18.05%|
|Wyoming||1986||American||Howard O'Connor, sen Fremt||2,534||24.27%|
This chart shows the most successful minor party candidates for state legislature, for each state, for 1948 through 2000. "Minor party" means any party other than the Democrats and Republicans. "Most successful" means the candidate who got the highest percentage.
The decade with the most "best" entries is the 1990's, with 23 of the 50 data points. Tied for second is the 1970's (with 9) and the year 2000 alone (also with 9). The 20 years before 1970 only had two "bests".
Ten states have had at least one minor party member of the legislature during this period, but some of them were never elected under a minor party label; they switched while in office. The ten are Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont.
In states which permit fusion, but which don't let the voter choose which label to vote for, the candidate's party membership determines which party gets "credit" for that candidate's vote.
A similar chart in the last B.A.N. for U.S. House has two errors: (1) the entry for West Virginia is Richard Kerr, not Richard Carr; (2) the Oklahoma entry should have been the Southern Party candidate in 2000, Argus Yandell, in the 3rd district. He polled 14,660 votes, 9.21%.
|New Jersey Assembly||1,543||1.60%||2,166||1.33%||1,716||1.88%||865||1.49%|
|New Jersey Senate||6,053||7.09%||563||1.20%||616||.91%|
This chart shows election returns for minor parties in the November 6, 2001 elections. New Jersey and Virginia are the only states which hold regularly-scheduled legislative elections in the odd years that follow a presidential election year.
|FULL PARTY||CAND.||LIB'T||GREEN||CONSTIT'N||REFORM||NAT LAW|
|Alabama||39,536||39,536||already on||0||0||0||0||July 1|
|Alaska||(reg) 6,606||#2,879||already on||already on||5||58||7||June 1|
|Arizona||20,427||est. #9,800||*already on||*2,500||*0||*0||*0||*May 18|
|California||(reg) 86,212||157,073||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||*Aug 9|
|Colorado||(reg) 1,000||#1,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||May 1|
|Connecticut||no procedure||#7,500||already on||*0||already on||*0||*0||Aug 7|
|Delaware||est. (reg) 250||est. 5,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Aug 17|
|D.C.||no procedure||est. #3,500||can't start||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||Aug 28|
|Florida||be organized||pay fee||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Sep 1|
|Georgia||38,600||#38,600||already on||*4,000||0||0||0||*Aug 5|
|Hawaii||638||25||*550||already on||0||0||already on||Apr 24|
|Idaho||10,033||5,017||already on||0||already on||already on||already on||Aug 31|
|Illinois||no procedure||#25,000||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||Jun 24|
|Indiana||no procedure||#30,717||already on||0||0||0||0||Jul 15|
|Iowa||no procedure||#1,500||*200||already on||0||0||0||Aug 16|
|Kansas||14,854||5,000||already on||0||already on||already on||0||June 1|
|Kentucky||no procedure||#5,000||*0||*0||*0||*0||*0||Aug 6|
|La.||est. (reg) 140,000||pay fee||1,016||393||17||2,408||23||July 1|
|Maine||21,051||#4,000||0||already on||0||0||0||*May 25|
|Maryland||10,000||est. 26,000||*12,000||0||0||0||0||Aug 5|
|Massachusetts||est. (reg) 37,500||#10,000||already on||already on||17||2,594||73||July 30|
|Michigan||30,272||30,272||*already on||already on||0||already on||0||July 18|
|Minnesota||104,550||#2,000||0||already on||0||0||0||June 1|
|Mississippi||be organized||#1,000||already on||0||already on||already on||already on||March 1|
|Missouri||10,000||10,000||already on||0||0||0||0||July 29|
|Montana||5,000||#5,000||already on||already on||*1,100||already on||already on||Mar 14|
|Nebraska||5,453||2,500||already on||0||0||0||0||Aug 1|
|Nevada||5,867||5,867||0||already on||already on||already on||already on||July 7|
|New Hampshire||16,931||#3,000||0||0||0||0||0||Aug 6|
|New Jersey||no procedure||#800||0||0||0||0||0||July 31|
|New Mexico||2,994||17,958||*3,500||already on||0||0||0||Apr 2|
|New York||no procedure||#15,000||can't start||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||Aug 20|
|North Carolina||58,842||est. 102,000||already on||0||0||0||0||May 17|
|North Dakota||7,000||4,000||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||Apr 5|
|Ohio||45,753||5,000||in court||5,200||0||0||4,500||Jan 7|
|Oklahoma||61,712||pay fee||0||0||0||0||0||May 31|
|Oregon||16,663||15,306||already on||already on||already on||0||already on||Aug 27|
|Pennsylvania||no procedure||*20,900||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||Aug 1|
|Rhode Island||15,323||#1,000||*0||already on||*0||*0||*0||Jul 18|
|South Carolina||10,000||10,000||already on||0||already on||already on||already on||July 17|
|South Dakota||6,505||#2,602||already on||0||0||already on||0||April 2|
|Texas||37,381||37,381||already on||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||May 28|
|Utah||2,000||#1,000||already on||*1,100||0||0||already on||Mar 15|
|Vermont||be organized||#1,000||already on||0||already on||0||already on||Jan 1|
|Virginia||no procedure||#10,000||*0||*0||*0||*0||*0||Jun 11|
|Washington||no procedure||#200||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||Jul 6|
|West Virginia||no procedure||#11,864||0||0||0||0||0||May 13|
|Wisconsin||10,000||#2,000||already on||already on||already on||can't start||can't start||Jun 1|
|Wyoming||4,247||4,247||already on||0||0||0||0||Jun 1|
|TOTAL STATES ON||*28||*20||13||12||13|
"Deadline" is procedure with earliest petition deadline, except in the states where the earliest deadline has already passed. #Candidate procedure allows partisan label. Other nationally-organized parties on a statewide ballot are Socialist, Socialist Workers, Southern, and Workers World, in Florida. * -- means a change, compared to the Oct. 2001 BAN.
|Michael Bloomberg, Republican||685,666||46.31%|
|Mark Green, Democratic||676,717||45.71%|
|Michael Bloomberg, Independence||59,091||3.99%|
|Mark Green, Working Families||32,551||2.20%|
|Alan Hevesi, Liberal||8,027||.54%|
|Julia Willebrand, Green||7,155||.48%|
|Terrence Gray, Conservative||3,577||.24%|
|Tom Leighton, Marijuana Reform||2,563||.17%|
|Alan Hevesi, Better Schools||2,304||.16%|
|Kenny Kramer, Libertarian||1,408||.10%|
|Bernard Goetz, Fusion||1,049||.07%|
|Ken Golding, American Dream||474||.03%|
The November 6, 2001 New York city Mayoral election saw historic low levels of support for both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party had never before polled less than 2.6% of the vote for Mayor of New York city in its 57-year history. Its high point had been in 1969, when its nominee, John Lindsay, had won the election on Liberal Party votes alone.
The Conservative Party had never before polled less than .51% of the vote for Mayor in its 36-year history. Its high point had been its first Mayoral campaign, in 1965, when its nominee William F. Buckley, Jr., had polled 13.35%.
The candidate who placed last, who used the ballot label "American Dream", made legal history by becoming the first candidate on the ballot anywhere in New York state to use the word "American", since 1954. In 1955, New York outlawed the use of "American" and "U.S." in party names. No one has ever challenged this ban, although it is probably unconstitutional. Neither the Board of Elections, nor any private individual, challenged Golding's label, so Golding has set a useful precedent. In the past, the ban has harmed the American Party (the party formed by George Wallace's supporters in 1968), and the U.S. Labor Party of the 1970's. The American Party used the label "Courage" in New York, and the U.S. Labor Party simply called itself the Labor Party, in New York state only.
The 2001 election boosted the Independence Party, since it supplied Bloomberg's margin of victory.
On December 1, newly-elected Green Party city councilwoman Elizabeth Sheff played a decisive role in reorganizing the City Council of Hartford, Connecticut.
The city council is elected on a partisan basis and has 9 members. The November 2001 elections were won by 6 Democrats, two Republicans (one of them elected as an independent), and one Green. The 6-member Democratic caucus consists of 4 members who are not loyal to the city's newly-elected Democratic Mayor, and two members who are. The 4 Democrats who are not loyal to the Mayor expected to control the City Council. However, in a surprise, the two Republicans, the Green, and the two Democrats who support the Mayor, formed a coalition. As a result, a Republican is the new Deputy Mayor, and the Green is the new Council Majority leader.
On October 6, the national committee of the Constitution Party voted to sue the FEC, to overturn the federal campaign act of 1974. Proponents of the lawsuit believe that the donation limit of $1,000, the campaign reporting laws, the partisan make-up of the FEC, and the presidential public funding, are all subject to challenge. Although all these provisions have been upheld before, proponents of the new lawsuit say that previous lawsuits did not have the benefit of a trial on how these laws all actually work; and that if evidence can be presented showing how the laws work in practice, there is hope that they can be overturned.
Recently, Michael Harrington, a city councilman in Davis, California, changed his registration from "Democrat" to "Green". Davis has a population of 50,000 and is a few miles west of Sacramento.
The last B.A.N. said that no independents had been elected to the Virginia legislature in 1999. Actually, one independent had been elected. Also, the printed version of the last B.A.N. said 40 Libertarians had won elections on Nov. 6, 2001; actually there were 72 who won elections that day.