|This issue was originally printed on white paper.|
Table of Contents
On December 22, U.S. District Court Judge Irene Keeley, a Bush Sr. appointee, issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of one of West Virginia’s ballot access laws, and curtailing a second such law. McClure v Manchin, 1:3cv-205, northern district.
The Oral Warning
The first law has existed since 1986. It says that circulators must advise everyone orally that if they sign a petition for a minor party or independent candidate, then that voter cannot vote in the upcoming primary. If the circulator fails to do this, he or she can be convicted of a misdemeanor criminal offense.
In 1999 the West Virginia legislature repealed the law that made it a crime for a petition signer to vote in the next primary election. Therefore, since 1999, voters have been able to do both acts (sign the petition and vote in the primary). However, the legislature had not repealed the law that (now, nonsensically) continued to require the oral warning. And a state court had upheld it in 1999, after the Democratic Party had intervened in the lawsuit to support the restriction.
The judge wrote, "The Court agrees with the State that section 3-5-23, reasonably interpreted, still technically prohibits voting in the primary after signing a petition." But, she went on to say, the state has shown that it really doesn’t have an interest in the prohibition. The state lets people do both, and considers the petition valid, and the primary vote valid. Judge Keeley said, "The State’s interest in proscribing this practice is undermined by the very statute that proscribes it." She also noted that no law prevents people from signing multiple petitions for different minor parties for the same office.
She concluded that since the oral warning requirement is a severe burden on minor parties, and seems to have no important state function, it violates the First Amendment. Although the restriction has not yet been held unconstitutional, the judge said there is "serious doubt" that the requirement is constitutional, so the injunction is justified.
Judge Keeley upheld a second requirement: that circulators must obtain a permit before beginning to work. However, she eased that process. In the past, the law had been interpreted to require potential circulators to appear before county elections officials in person, to obtain the permit. Now, circulators can request a permit with a telephone call, or an e-mail, or a fax, and the permit will be e-mailed, faxed, or mailed. Also, the permit need no longer carry either the name or the address of the circulator.
During December, minor parties won two lawsuits, giving them more control over who votes in their primaries.
Arizona: on December 8, the 9th circuit ruled that the Libertarian Party may prevent independent voters from participating in elections for Libertarian Party committeemembers. Arizona Libertarian Party v Bayless, 02-16535. This is the first time the 9th circuit has ruled in favor of a minor party since 1985 (except for lawsuits in which the Democratic and Republican Parties were also plaintiffs).
The 9th circuit was unable to decide whether the party also has a right to keep independent voters from helping choose its nominees for public office. The court sent the case back to the lower court for more fact-findings.
In the next part of the case, the party will argue that its hotly-contested 2002 gubernatorial primary is an example of how it is injured when independents are permitted to help select Libertarian nominees. In that primary, one candidate defeated the other by a vote of 1,414 to 1,358. Libertarians at the time were outnumbered by registered independents 33 to one. Arizona elections officials are unable to say how many independent voters voted in the Libertarian primary in 2002. However, it is very likely that independent voters held the balance of power. The 9th circuit did say, "Because of their smaller size, minor parties such as the plaintiff here are at a greater risk", so it seems likely the party will win the second half of the case in U.S. District Court.
The 9th circuit said since the Libertarian Party is the only party that sued, the judicial relief granted to that party is not now applicable to any other parties.
New York: on December 4, the Independence Party won its lawsuit to force the state to let independent voters vote in its statewide primaries. State Committee of the Independence Party v Berman, 03cv-4123, s.d. The outcome was no surprise, since in 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled the same way.
On December 19, the 11th circuit ordered a trial in Johnson v Bush, 02-14469. This case argues that Florida’s ban on ex-felon voting was created with racially discriminatory intent. The lower court had refused to even hold a trial.
More than one-sixth of Florida’s adult African-American males are not permitted to vote.
On December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. McConnell v FEC, 02-1674. The decision can be read at the Court’s own site, www.supremecourtus.gov.
The portion of the act that relates to political parties was upheld 5-4. However, the decision construed the Act favorably to parties, and especially minor parties, on a few points that have not been well publicized.
Donations to National Parties
The first section on parties, 323(a), makes it illegal for anyone to give more than $25,000 to the national committee of a political party in any calendar year, for any purpose whatsoever. On its face, this is a deathblow for any new political party that has a realistic hope of overtaking the Democratic and Republican Parties. Those two old parties have been the lucky recipients of multi-million dollar gifts in the past. They now each own elaborate headquarters buildings, sophisticated computer software and hardware, and extensive voter lists with detailed information about each registered voter. They have studio facilities for making audio-visual advertising.
A new party, hoping to compete, would not be similarly well equipped, and probably could not be, without the help of large donors. In the 20th century, virtually all minor parties that made a strong showing in presidential elections were backed by very wealthy individuals.
Justice Kennedy, dissenting, raised this point. He said on page 3, "BCRA would have imposed felony punishment on Ross Perot’s 1996 efforts to build the Reform Party. Compare the $25,000 limit with Perot’s $8 million founding contribution the to the Reform Party" (actually, the money was given in 1995).
But the majority opinion said, "Only when an organization has gained official status, which carries with it significant benefits for its members, will 323(a) apply."
"Official status" means recognition by the FEC that the group is a "national committee". The Reform Party did not have that status in 1995 or 1996. Typically, the FEC won’t grant that status until after a group has contested the presidential election as well as a number of congressional elections. So, by that logic, which is in the majority opinion, very wealthy individuals can still donate huge sums of money to brand-new political parties.
An older federal campaign act, Title 2, sec. 441a, says, "No individual shall make contributions aggregating more than $57,500" in the two-year cycle between congressional elections. "Contribution" is defined as "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." Since Perot didn’t get in trouble for donating $8 million to the Reform Party, presumably that older law also does not stand in the way of large donations. New nationally-organized political parties are always expected to contest federal elections, but until they have done so, one can argue that a founding donation is not necessarily "for the purpose of influencing" a federal election.
Minor parties that are already in existence are free to renounce their "national committee" status at any time, if they wish. The Libertarian Party gave up its "national committee" status sometime in the mid-1980’s, but asked for it back again in the early 1990’s. Individuals seeking the presidential nomination of a party that doesn’t have "national committee" status are still able to qualify for primary season matching funds. For example, Lenora Fulani qualified for $2 million in 1992, even though her party, the New Alliance Party, did not have "national committee" status.
Therefore, minor parties can escape the harmful effects of 323(a). But, without "national committee" status, they lose the ability to give unlimited sums of money to their state units, and to make large contributions to their presidential nominees.
Sec. 323(a) also makes it illegal for any corporation or labor union to make any payment whatsoever to a "national committee". Most minor parties have publications, and these publications frequently accept advertising. Now, they may no longer accept ads from unions or incorporated groups. Many corporations, such as the ACLU, do not exist to make a profit, but have their own political messages.
State Party Spending
Sec. 323(b) does not make it illegal for state parties to receive large contributions. Principles of federalism probably wouldn’t permit Congress to enact such a ban. But 323(b) does make it illegal for a state or local unit of a party to spend large contributions on "federal election activity". Again, though, "state committee" is defined as a state party that has received "state committee" status from the FEC. The FEC won’t grant that status until after the state party has run candidates for congress and president, so new parties never have any "state committees", as defined in the federal law. Therefore, 323(b) wouldn’t apply to new parties. More importantly, the FEC already construed sec. 323(b) not to apply in odd years (generally speaking). Specifically, 323(b) doesn’t apply until the primary filing deadline.
The FEC interpretation could always be challenged by those who feel it isn’t restrictive enough. But the majority opinion mentions the FEC ruling, and seems to approve of it (footnote 63, on page 61), so it probably will survive. Therefore, state parties are free to receive large donations, to be used for petitioning to get their federal nominees on the ballot, if this is done before the filing deadline for a primary. Even afterwards, if the petition is merely to qualify the party, and doesn’t name any federal candidates, 323(b) probably doesn’t apply.
Even if 323(b) does apply, the "Levin Amendment", 323(b)(2), permits state parties to spend donations of up to $10,000 on federal campaign activities that do not refer to specific federal candidates.
Speech Restrictions for National Party Officers
Sec. 323(a)(2) makes it illegal for any officer of a national committee to "solicit, receive, or direct to another person" any large contribution. This seems to mean that the national chair of a political party could not be the speaker at a fund-raising event. However, the FEC previously ruled that such national party officers can still raise money if they make it clear that they are speaking in their "individual capacities". Again, the FEC has been criticized for being too lenient, but since the majority opinion seems to approve of the FEC ruling, it probably will survive.
More Paperwork for State Parties
Sec. 323(b) seems to require that if a state or local unit of a political party sends checks of more than $1,000 to the national party during any calendar year, it must file reports with the FEC explaining where that money originated. Also, these reports must verify that none of the money came from contributions of over $2,000 from any individual. This part of the law will force state and local units of political parties to make complicated reports to the FEC, even if they never themselves engage in federal campaign activity. The very fact that a state party is sending money to a national party is deemed to be "federal election activity".
Contributions by Minors
The Court unanimously struck down sec. 320, which made it illegal for persons under age 18 to make any contributions to political parties or federal candidates.
Decision Discusses Minor Parties
The Court majority discusses minor parties on page 50. It notes the Libertarian Party’s argument that the government has no real need to apply financial restrictions to small parties. The party argued that the Act is to prevent the President, and Members of Congress, from giving special treatment in exchange for large campaign donations. So why should it apply to parties that have never come close to electing any federal office-holders?
The majority wrote, "In Buckley v Valeo we rejected a similar argument concerning limits on contributions to minor-party candidates, noting that ‘any attempt to exclude minor parties and independents en masse overlooks the fact that minor-party candidates may win elective office or have a substantial impact on the outcome of an election.’ We have thus recognized that the relevance of the interest in avoiding corruption is not a function of the number of legislators a given party manages to elect. It applies as much to a minor party that manages to elect only one of its members to federal office as it does to a major party whose members make up a majority of Congress. It is therefore reasonable to require that all parties and all candidates follow the same set of rules designed to protect the integrity of the electoral process."
(No nationally-organized minor party has elected even one member of Congress since 1948, so the paragraph above is somewhat pointless…the paragraph discusses minor parties with only one member of Congress, but what about parties with no members of Congress?).
"We add that nothing in 323(a) prevents individuals from pooling resources to start a new national party. Post, at 5 (Kennedy dissenting). Only when an organization has gained official status will 323(a) apply. Even then, a nascent or struggling minor party can bring an as-applied challenge if 323(a) prevents it from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy’".
Chief Justice William Rehnquist also mentioned minor parties, in his dissent. He said, on page 5, "For sure, national political party committees exist in large part to elect federal candidates, but they also promote coordinated political messages and participate in public policy debates unrelated to federal elections…Indeed, some national political parties exist primarily for the purpose of expressing ideas and generating debate (see declaration of Stephen L. Dasbach, describing Libertarian Party)."
Freedom of the Press Argument
The Court noted that Congressman Ron Paul and several other individuals had argued that the First Amendment’s "Freedom of the Press" provision ought to invalidate most of the Act. However, those plaintiffs also argued that the old law, passed in 1974, was also unconstitutional under the "press" provision (the old law restricts contributions to candidates, not to parties). The Court majority said that this lawsuit could not be used to try to invalidate the old law. But the several of the dissenting justices mentioned the "press" arguments favorably.
The same five justices who upheld the restrictions on political parties also upheld Title II of the Act. Title II makes it illegal for corporations or unions to run broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate, within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. The Court upheld these restrictions by a 5-4 vote. However, the Court exempted corporations with no business activities whatsoever, if they don’t accept contributions from corporations or unions and if they exist solely to propagate political ideas.
Impact on Debates
On numerous occasions, various minor parties have sued to gain admittance to the general election presidential debates. The Supreme Court has never heard one of those cases. Lower courts always failed to give relief. The Commission on Presidential Debates enforces a rule that presidential candidates without 15% support in the polls cannot appear in the debate. The philosophical idea behind this rule is that candidates who are below 15% cannot win and cannot even affect the election.
That philosophy is contradicted by the Supreme Court’s statements about minor parties in McConnell v FEC. The Court said minor parties can win and they certainly can impact elections. Some day the Court will grapple with this contradiction…if minor parties are too unimportant to be in the debates, how can they be so important that they must be subject to strict campaign finance regulation?
The Ohio Libertarian Party submitted 57,150 signatures on October 30, to qualify as a "party". The law required 32,290 valid signatures by November 4 (an entire year before the general election). No other group even attempted to qualify for "party" status in Ohio.
On November 26, the party received a letter from Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican. It says, "The petition you filed is invalid. Sec. 3517.011 requires a petition to form a party to be on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State. The form you filed is not on the form prescribed by me. Also, the form does not include the correct statutory penalty for election falsification."
The Ohio Libertarian Party had used the same form that they had used in 2000, when they succeeded in qualifying as a party. That petition says, "The Penalty for Election Falsification is Imprisonment for not More than Six Months or a Fine of Not More than $1,000 or Both."
The current form, which wasn’t created until August 2001, says "Whoever Commits Election Falsification is Guilty of a Felony of the Fifth Degree."
The Libertarian Party started circulating its 2004 petition in April 2001, before the new form was issued. The Libertarian form has six columns and the new state form has five columns. The difference is that the Libertarian form has a place for the signer to print his or her name. The state form has no place for a printed name. Many individuals have legible printing but illegible signatures, so the Libertarian form seems more rational.
In a few days, the party will file a lawsuit to overturn the Secretary’s decision. Ironically, the Secretary himself is circulating an initiative petition that contains a blank space for signers to print their names. Also, when some Republican legislators criticized the Secretary of State’s initiative, Blackwell responded by saying, on December 18, "The reality is, 150,000 people signed my petition. They matter."
Ohio’s entire procedure for qualifying new and minor parties will be attacked in the lawsuit. The deadline is almost surely unconstitutional. No reported court decision has ever upheld a petition deadline to create a new party, if that deadline was earlier than April of an election year. Courts in sixteen states have struck down such early deadlines for new and minor parties. Since the Libertarian Party has shown that it has support in Ohio (by submitting 57,000 signatures), and since the new party procedure is almost surely unconstitutional, the party is optimistic.
On December 24, the 11th circuit ruled that "527 organizations" must disclose their expenditures, over $500. Mobile Republican Assembly v USA, 02-16283. The lower court had upheld the contribution disclosure requirement, but had voided the expenditure disclosure requirement.
"527 organizations" are nicknamed for sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. They are "political organizations for the purpose of influencing a federal, state or local election". Their income is tax-exempt, but they must disclose their contributors and expenditures, if they try to influence federal elections. They cannot accept corporate or union money, but donations to them can be very large.
"527 organizations" have been in the news recently, since multi-millionaire George Soros had formed one, to make huge independent expenditures to defeat President Bush for re-election. The FEC says that it will now study whether "527 organizations" are subject to the federal campaign law that bars contributions to a "political committee" greater than $5,000.
Washington state abolished its 2004 presidential primary on December 5, when HB 2297 was signed into law. Other states that canceled 2004 primaries are Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota and Utah.
On December 9, Green Party member Matt Gonzalez was narrowly defeated for Mayor. He received 119,329 votes, 47.19%. The winner was Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who received 133,546 votes. If Gonzalez had won, he would have been the first Mayor of a large city who was a member of a nationally-organized minor party since the 1950’s, when Milwaukee had a Socialist Party mayor, Frank P. Zeidler.
The Missouri Democratic Party has changed its ballot logo (logos appear on ballots). The Statue of Liberty has been replaced with a kicking donkey.
Congressman Rush Holt’s HR 2239, to require an audit trail for electronic voting machines, now has 94 co-sponsors. Almost all are Democrats.
The co-sponsors are: Abercrombie, Allen, Baird, Baldwin, Bass, Bell, Berman, Blumenauer, Boucher, Brady (Pa.), Brown (Fl), Brown (Oh), Capps, Carson (In), Case, Clay, Cole, Conyers, Cooper, Cummings, Davis (Il), Davis (Va), DeFazio, Deutsch, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Eshoo, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Frank, Frost, Green (Tx), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings, Hinchey, Hoeffel, Honda, Hooley, Jackson (Il), Jackson-Lee, Jefferson, Johnson (Tx), Jones (Oh), Kaptur, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lantos, Larsen (Wa), Lee, Lewis (Ga), Lipinski, Lofgren, McCollum, McDermott, Maloney, Matheson, Millender-McDonald, Meehan, Michaud, Miller (Ca), Moore, Moran (Va), Nadler, Owens, Payne, Price (NC), Ross, Rothman, Sanders, Schakowsky, Schiff, Scott (Va), Shays, Slaughter, Smith (Wa), Snyder, Stark, Strickland, Stupak, Thompson (Ms), Tierney, Towns, Udall (Co), Udall (NM), Van Hollen, Velazquez, Watson, Wexler, Woolsey, and Wynn.
The Secretaries of State of California, Nevada, Washington, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, all support the idea behind the bill.
Colorado: on December 1, the State Supreme Court ruled that only one congressional redistricting per decade can be carried out. The decision is based on the state Constitution. Salazar v Davidson, 03SA133.
On December 18, attorneys for the legislature argued in federal court that the State Supreme Court decision violates the U.S. Constitution.
Pennsylvania: on December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Vieth v Jubelirer, 02-1580. The next B.A.N. will cover the argument, which seemed to go badly for the side that wants to outlaw gerrymandering.
Texas: a decision is expected soon in Session v Perry, 2:03-cv-354, over whether the congressional district plan passed in 2003 violates the Voting Rights Act. The case is in U.S. District Court, eastern district, and has three judges: Patrick Higginbotham, a Reagan appointee; Lee Rosenthal, a Bush Sr. appointee; and T. John Ward, a Clinton appointee. This panel already ruled that nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents a state from districting more than once per decade.
For 50 years, the America Votes series of books has been the premier source of election returns for federal and gubernatorial elections. Congressional Quarterly publishes a new volume every two years, and has just released America Votes 25, to cover 2001 and 2002 elections. This volume has greater detail on primary elections than past volumes. Many public libraries own the series. If your library doesn’t, and if you like election returns, ask your library to purchase America Votes 25.
The 2004 petitioning chart will re-appear in the February B.A.N. The only significant changes since the last chart are that the Constitution Party is finished in Delaware, Maryland, and Utah; and the Green Party is finished in Vermont.
California: the U.S. Supreme Court will probably announce on January 12 whether they will hear Van Susteren v Shelley, 03-601. The issue is whether a state can prevent congressional candidates from running in a primary if they changed parties during the two years before the election.
Georgia: on August 27, 2003, a State Superior Court judge upheld the state’s petition requirement for minor party and independent candidates for the state legislature. Dickson v Secretary of State, 2000-cv-27164. The law requires a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters. This was a Green Party case. The judge threatened to impose attorneys’ fees if the party appealed, so the case has been dropped. The judge only wrote two sentences on the merits of the case: "Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim is without merit. See Jenness v Fortson."
Louisiana: a federal court will hold a hearing in Rosenthal v McKeithan, 00-612, m.d., on April 29. This is the long-delayed lawsuit over whether a state can refuse to print any ballot labels for independent candidates, whereas it does print labels for members of qualified parties.
Maryland: on December 1, the Libertarian filed a lawsuit in state court, to validate signatures on petitions that include a month and day, but not a year, on the petition. Libertarian Party of Maryland v Board of Elections, 02-c-03-093828, circuit court, Anne Arundel County. At stake is the validity of 1,500 signatures on the party’s petition. If the lawsuit loses, the party still has time to get more signatures.
Montana: on November 10, a lawsuit was filed in federal court to overturn the state’s county distribution requirement for initiative petitions. Montana PIRG v Brown, 03-183-M.
Nevada: on November 19, a lawsuit was filed in federal court to overturn the state’s county distribution requirement for initiatives. Tiffiny v Heller, cv-S-03-1445.
North Carolina: on December 18, a hearing was held in DeLaney v Bartlett, 1:02-cv-741, m.d. The issue is whether the state can require more signatures for a statewide independent, than for a new party. The hearing went well.
Oklahoma: on January 24, a hearing will be held in the 10th circuit in Beaver v Clingman, 03-6058. The issue is whether a party may invite all registered voters to vote in its primary. The case was filed by the Libertarian Party, and lost in the lower court.
After the hearing is over, the Libertarian Party expects to file an entirely different lawsuit in state court, over the validity (under the State Constitution) of the state’s onerous ballot access laws for minor parties.
Puerto Rico: on July 21, 2003, a U.S. District Court refused to grant an injunction against a law that says petitions must be submitted no later than 7 days after they are collected. This is worse than it sounds, because the law also requires petitions to be submitted by precinct, and within each precinct, by alphabetical order. Ciudadana v Gracia, 01-2191.
Utah: on October 8, 2003, the State Supreme Court heard arguments in Safe Havens for Learning v Utah, 2003-563. The issue is whether the state can require that initiative petitions contain a large number of signatures in at least 26 of the state’s 29 State Senate districts.
Washington: on November 25, the state asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Reed v Democratic Party of Washington, 03-801. The issue is whether the state can force parties to let non-members help choose their nominees. The 9th circuit had invalidated that "blanket" primary.
Dennis Polhill and Douglas Campbell, supporters of the Initiative process, are circulating an initiative in Colorado to make it easier to qualify an initiative. See www.pra2004.com or telephone (303) 753-5050. A key goal of the initiative is to help with the "single subject" problem.
On December 22, Ralph Nader telephoned leaders of the Green Party to tell them that he will not seek its presidential nomination in 2004. He did not speak directly to the press about his decision, and he did not elaborate about the reasons for his decision. He seems to have left open the possibility that he would run as an independent candidate.
The previous week, Albert Hunt, who writes "Campaign Journal" for the Wall Street Journal, interviewed Nader. According to Hunt, Nader praised Howard Dean, though not unqualifiedly. Nader said, "Reading Dean’s position papers sounds eerily similar to what we’ve been saying…Dean speaks clearly…not in Senate-ese…and projects vigor"…but Dean’s record as governor is nothing to shout about." Hunt also said that Nader "waxes on about how preferable Mr. Dean is to President Bush."
Aaron Russo, who declared himself an independent candidate for President in October 2003, is now seeking the Libertarian Party nomination. Russo is somewhat famous for his involvement in the movie business. He was Bette Midler’s manager. He also directed two Oscar-winning movies, Trading Places and The Rose. In 1998 he sought the Republican nomination for Governor of Nevada. He placed second in a 4-person race, with 26%. He has qualified for the Libertarian presidential primary in California.
So far, only two individuals (other than President Bush) have qualified for Republican presidential primaries in as many as two states. Bill Wyatt, 43, of Los Angeles, has qualified in Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. Blake Ashby, 39, of St. Louis, has qualified in Missouri and New Hampshire.
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, see www.politics1.com.
The Democratic Party recognizes nine "legitimate" candidates for its nomination. These nine are permitted to debate each other at party forums. However, two of these candidates, former U.S. Senator Carol Mosley Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton, have not qualified for primary season matching funds. Braun failed to qualify for Democratic primary ballots in Delaware, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Virginia. Sharpton missed Rhode Island. Ten states and the District of Columbia have qualifying deadlines that have already passed.
The only person who has qualified for matching funds, and who is not on the party’s "legitimate" list, is Lyndon LaRouche. So far he has only missed ballot access in South Carolina and Georgia. The party, not the state pays for South Carolina’s Democratic primary, and the party won’t list "illegitimate" candidates. Georgia gives parties sole discretion over whom to list as presidential candidates.
Green: David Cobb is on in D.C., Calif., and R.I. Kent Mesplay is on in Calif. and R.I. Lorna Salzman and Peter Camejo are on in Calif. Camejo will not run in any other state and says he is not actually seeking the nomination.
Libertarian: Gary Nolan is on in Calif., Mo. and Wis. Michael Badnarik is on in Wis. Aaron Russo is on in Cal. Ruben Perez and Jeffrey Diket are each on in Mo.
Constitution: Michael Peroutka is on in California.
Peace & Freedom: Mumia Abu-Jamal, Walt Brown, and Leonard Peltier are on in California.
ERRATA: the list of November, 2003 minor party victories in the last B.A.N. omitted a Libertarian Ohio win for city council of Gahanna. Also, the American Party meeting to choose a new presidential candidate is January 9-10, not January 12-13.