TWO STATES EASE BALLOT ACCESS FOR 2004 ONLY
REDISTRICTING = SERENDIPITY IN GEORGIA AND NORTH CAROLINA

Georgia and North Carolina still have not drawn legislative district boundaries. Therefore, both states have been forced to ease requirements for minor parties, or independent candidates, or both, but only for 2004.

North Carolina: on February 9, the Board of Elections postponed the primary from May 4 to July 20, because the legislative district boundaries aren’t drawn yet. The Board also canceled the presidential primary. And the Board moved the independent candidate petition deadline, for all office, from June 11 to July 6.

The State Board had also postponed the primary in 2002, for the same reason (the legislative district boundaries weren‘t drawn yet). However, in 2002, the Board had not extended the independent candidate petition deadline (except they had extended it for candidates for the legislature). The reason the Board extended the independent deadline for all office this year is that an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate, Paul DeLaney, had sued the Board over its failure to extend the deadline in 2002.

DeLaney’s brief pointed out that the 4^th circuit has repeatedly said independent petition deadlines cannot be earlier than primary day. Although DeLaney’s lawsuit is still pending, it is obvious that the Board of Elections didn’t want to get sued again. The DeLaney lawsuit was sponsored by the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE). COFOE members’ dues made this lawsuit possible.

Although July 6 is still early, it is the latest independent deadline in North Carolina history. In the 1920’s, almost all states had independent petition deadlines in September or October of the election year. But North Carolina never had an independent petition deadline in the second half of the year, until now.

The change will help Ralph Nader if he attempts to get on the North Carolina ballot as an independent.

Although the Board did not lower the number of signatures needed for an independent candidate, it is likely that an independent candidate for the legislature could sue for a reduction, if the district boundaries aren’t settled quite soon. Obviously, independent candidates for the legislature can’t circulate their petitions until the boundaries are known. The independent petition for legislative office is 4% of the number of registered voters, a severe burden.

Georgia: on February 10, a 3-judge U.S. District Court overturned the state’s legislative district boundaries. Larios v Cox, 1:03-cv-693. On February 20, the same three judges refused to reconsider their decision. On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the decision.

The implications for ballot access are that the state must now lower the number of signatures, for legislative candidates, in proportion to the amount of time lost. Georgia only permits petitions for district and county office to be circulated from mid-January to mid-July. If the new districts aren’t in place until mid-April, for example, the number of signatures must be cut 50%, since 50% of the available petitioning time was lost. This principle was set by the 11t^h circuit, in an unreported 1981 case, Citizens Party of Georgia v Poythress. It was re-iterated in a U.S. District Court decision in 2002, Parker v Barnes, also unreported.

The Georgia reduction will have no effect on statewide or U.S. House petitioning. Georgia petitions for U.S. House and state legislature are 5% of the registered voters, such a severe burden that no minor party has qualified for U.S. House since the law was created in 1943.

One Libertarian, Philip Bradley, is determined to qualify this year for U.S. House, in the 13^th district. He already has 500 signatures, but needs 11,874. The average petition requirement for U.S. House in Georgia this year is 14,452 signatures. Bradley is lucky to be living in the district with the smallest requirement. The 13^th district encompasses outer suburbs of Atlanta.

The basis for the last month’s judicial decision was that the Democratic-controlled legislature had created districts in which Democratic-leaning districts were underpopulated, and Republican-leaning districts were overpopulated. The spread was 10%. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has let state legislative districts vary in population by as much as 10% in the past, the purpose was to keep towns and counties together, if possible. The judges in the Larios case said the 10% leeway rule couldn’t be used if the motivation is simply partisan advantage. The judges gave the state until March 1 to draw new boundaries, but the legislature has failed to meet that deadline.

The judges just appointed a special master (a retired federal judge) to draw new boundaries. Then the U.S. Justice Department must approve the new lines.

---

SIMILAR BREAK MAY OCCUR IN MASS.

On February 24, a 3-judge U.S. District Court invalidated legislative district lines in Massachusetts. Black Political Task Force vGalvin, 02-11190. Massachusetts also has difficult petition requirements, particularly for members of qualified minor parties seeking a place on their own party’s primary ballots. If new districts are not drawn quickly, some relief from normal petitioning requirements may be won here also.

---

BLANKET PRIMARIES

Alaska: last year, the Green and Republican Moderate Parties won a lawsuit, saying they may have a blanket primary if they wish. Although the Republican Moderate Party is no longer on the ballot, the decision will have a great effect on this year’s primary anyway. Recently, the Democratic, Alaskan Independence, and Libertarian Parties decided to participate in a blanket primary as well.

This means that, unless last year’s decision is overturned by the State Supreme Court, Alaska will again print two primary ballots. One will contain only Republican candidates. This ballot can be chosen by Republican and independent voters.

The other primary ballot will contain the names of all candidates seeking the nomination of the Democratic, Alaskan Independence, Green or Libertarian Parties. The top vote-getter from each party will advance to the November election. Any voter may choose this ballot.

Washington: on February 23, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal in Reed v Democratic Party of Washington State, 03-801. The 9^th circuit had ruled that if the state’s qualified political parties don’t’ want to nominate by blanket primary, they can’t be forced to use that system.

The Washington State Grange (a farmers’ organization) has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to save the blanket primary. Since the Grange filed its appeal with the Supreme Court later than the state did, the Supreme Court hasn’t acted on the Grange’s appeal yet. But it is virtually certain that the Supreme Court won’t hear the Grange’s appeal either. Washington State Grange v Democratic Party, 03-1040.

The Washington state legislature will probably pass a new form of primary by March 12. One proposal, SB 6226, would let each voter vote one party’s primary ballot only. The voter would be given primary ballots of all the qualified parties, and in the privacy of the voting booth would choose one.

SB 6226 passed its first committee hurdle on February 25. It would end the requirement that the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, must appear on primary ballots. Current law puts them on the blanket primary, and requires them to poll 1% of the primary vote, in order to appear on the general election ballot. However, to compensate, SB 6226 would make increase the statewide petition requirement from 200 signatures to 1,000.

---

GOOD BILLS GAIN

Georgia: HB 355, which makes it easier for minor parties candidates to run for the U.S. House, passed the House Government Operations Committee on February 19, 2004. The bill provides that if a party is qualified statewide, it is also qualified automatically for U.S. House. It also eases the legislative petitions somewhat.

Illinois: SB 2123, which would let a qualified party wait until September 2 to certify the names of its presidential and vice-presidential candidates, passed all committee hurdles on February 26. The Republican Party needs this bill to place its national ticket on the ballot this year. The bill only applies to 2004.

Kentucky: HB 428 passed the House on February 26. It exempts minor party and independent presidential candidates from a restriction passed last year. That restriction is that independent and minor party candidates must file a declaration of candidacy by April 1 of an election year. If such a restriction were applied to presidential candidates, it would probably be held unconstitutional.

---

INDIANA BILL LOSES

On February 2, the Indiana House voted down an amendment to HB 1360 that would have lowered minor party and independent candidate petitions from 2% of the last vote for Secretary of State, to one-half of 1%. Democrats were almost evenly split on the idea (22 yes; 24 no). But Republicans were strongly against it (4 yes, 40 no).

---

NEW ACCESS BILLS

Alabama: SB 100, by Senator Hank Sanders, would let the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, obtain a place on the November ballot with no petition, if they pay the filing fee.

Alaska: HB 429 would expand the definition of "party", from one which polled 3% for Governor (or which has registration of the same number), to one which polled 3% for any statewide office in a gubernatorial election year.

Connecticut: bill 123 would provide that if a minor party polls 2% for Governor, it is qualified to nominate for all offices in the state in the next election, with no petitions needed. Currently, until a party polls 20% for Governor, it is only on the ballot automatically for those particular offices for which it polled 1% at the last election.

Connecticut (2): bill 127 would provide that a party doesn’t lose its qualified status in a particular district race, just because the boundaries of that district changed due to redistricting.

Connecticut (3): bill 5173 would reduce petitions from the lesser of 7,500 or 1% of the last vote cast, to the lesser of 7,500 or one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. The bill would have little effect on statewide petitions, but would ease petitioning for congressional and legislative districts.

Tennessee: HB 3043 and SB 3233 would let candidates who use the independent petition procedure, choose a partisan label that would be printed next to their names on the ballot. Currently they can only have the label "independent".

---

VOTING MACHINE AUDIT TRAIL BILL

HR 2239, the Congressional bill that would require an audit trail for touch-screen voting machines, now has 118 co-sponsors: 109 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and one independent. However, Congressman Bob Ney (R-Ohio) still refuses to hold hearings.

---

INSTANT-RUNOFF GAINS

California: In 2002, the voters of San Francisco passed a measure for Instant-Runoff Voting in city elections. The city was under legal obligation to use the new system in November 2003, but it did not do so because the voting technology wasn’t ready for it.

During the second week of March, the manufacturer of San Francisco’s vote-counting technology, ESS, will demonstrate that the machines are now ready. California elections officials will visit the company’s factory in Rockford, Illinois, for these tests. Assuming the machines pass the tests, IRV will be in place for the city’s supervisoral elections in November 2004.

Minnesota: the State Senate passed SF 1613 on February 23. It lets one city, Roseville, use IRV for city elections in 2004. The vote was 38-26.

Washington: HB 2669, which would let Vancouver use IRV, passed the House on February 13, and passed the Senate Government Operations Committee on February 25.

Canada: the Law Commission will soon send a recommendation to the House of Commons that Canada adopt the type of proportional representation now used in Germany.

---

FLORIDA PETITION WIN

On February 4, a State Appeals Court ruled that the Florida Constitution protects petitioning in shopping malls. State of Florida v Wood, 1D03-1553. However, the mall is asking the State Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that each state’s state courts may decide this issue for their own state. Nothing in the free speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution protects First Amendment activity on private shopping mall property. But a state’s own Constitution may do so. When petitioning or leafleting rights are won in state courts, it is always on the theory that shopping malls have become the equivalent of old-time publicly-owned town squares and parks.

---

MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

California: on February 18, a State Superior Court refused to restrain the use of touch-screen voting machines. Plaintiffs had charged they are vulnerable to hackers. March v Diebold Election Systems.

District of Columbia: on February 10, a registered Green Party voter filed a lawsuit against the Board of Elections, for refusing to count write-in votes in the Green Party’s presidential primary held in January. Best v D.C. Board of Elections, D.C. Court of Appeal, 04-AA45.

Florida: on February 11, a state Circuit Judge ruled that Congressman Robert Wexler does not have standing to challenge the use of touch-screen voting machines that have no audit trail. Wexler will appeal. Wexler v Hood, 50-2004-ca-491, 15^th jud. Circuit.

Illinois: on February 18, an independent candidate for the legislature filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the state’s petition requirements for independent candidates. Illinois requires independent candidates for the legislature to submit a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast, by December of the year before the election. Lee v Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 04-3042, central district. This lawsuit is sponsored by the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE).

Louisiana: on February 19, a State District Court refused to place Al Sharpton on the Democratic presidential primary ballot. Sharpton v McKeithen, 516773J, 19^th dist. The law required a certified check for $1,125 for ballot access. Sharpton’s check wasn’t certified. His campaign manager had then tried to file a new check, but he arrived at the State Capitol Building ten minutes too late.

New York: on February 3, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff refused to require the state to hold a presidential primary for the Independence Party. State Committee of the Independence Party v Berman, 03-4123, sou. dist. The judge did not reach the merits of the case; he found that the case was flawed procedurally.

Ohio: on February 5, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost denied an injunction to require elections officials to hold a primary for the Libertarian Party, on the basis that the party filed the lawsuit too late for that kind of relief. Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell, c2:04-08. The party still hopes to win declaratory relief and an order putting its nominees on the November ballot. The lawsuit challenges the state’s early petition deadline for new parties, its mandatory primary for newly-qualifying parties, and its hyper-technical rules for petition format.

Oregon: on February 11, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee, upheld a law banning paying initiative petition circulators on a per-signature basis. She said the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence showing that paying circulators per hour injures proponents. Prete v Bradbury, 03-6357.

national: on February 11, several presidential candidates from 2000 sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to rule on their complaint against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Plaintiffs include John Hagelin, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. The FEC has not acted in the complaint, which was filed in June 2003. Hagelin v FEC, 04-202HHK. The case was assigned to Judge Henry Kennedy, a Clinton appointee. In the meantime, on February 19, still another complaint was filed with the FEC, against the Commission on Presidential Debates, by the new Open Debates Commission.

---

COFOE MEETING

The annual Board meeting of the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (COFOE) will be April 3, in the Green Party hq in Washington, D.C.

---

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Kentucky: U.S. House, 6^th dist., Feb. 17: Democratic 55.14%; Republican 42.92%; Libertarian 1.94%.

Maine: State House, Biddeford, Feb. 3: Democratic 62.30%; Green 32.90%; Republican 4.80%.

---

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

	Kerry	Edwards	Dean	Clark	Sharpton	Liebermn	Kucinich	Gephardt	Braun	LaRouche
Arizona	101,809	16,596	33,555	63,256	1,177	15,906	3,896	755	325	295
Delaware	16,787	3,674	3,462	3,165	1,888	3,706	344	187	- -	78
D.C.	- -	- -	17,738	- -	14,248	- -	3,435	- -	4,824	507
Michigan	84,214	21,919	26,994	10,986	11,270	682	5,183	944	163	- -
Missouri.	211,776	103,206	36,292	18,323	14,309	14,726	4,876	8,284	1,085	1,019
N.Hamp.	84,377	26,487	57,761	27,314	347	18,911	3,114	419	81	90
N.Mex.	43,553	11,440	16,747	20,883	- -	2,578	5,638	653	- -	- -
Okla.	81,073	89,310	12,734	90,526	3,939	19,680	2,544	1,890	- -	689
So.C.	82,668	125,944	13,029	19,999	26,755	6,712	1,277	786	567	- -
Tenn.	151,393	97,837	16,104	85,241	6,107	3,710	2,278	1,400	2,463	280
Utah	19,432	10,486	1,343	492	- -	407	2,602	124	- -	- -
Virginia	204,129	105,483	27,634	36,606	12,863	2,871	5,013	580	- -	1,042
Wisc.	327,672	283,327	150,682	12,687	14,685	3,910	27,232	1,264	1,630	1,630
TOTAL	1408,883	895,709	414,075	389,478	107,588	93,799	67,432	17,286	11,138	5,630

State governments administered, and paid for, nine of the primaries mentioned above. The Democratic Party administered and paid for the primaries in Michigan, New Mexico, South Carolina and Utah. The 13 primaries mentioned above were all held in January and February. There will be more primaries in March, April, May and June. The chart above lists only primaries, not caucuses. The Democratic Party does not recognize Lyndon LaRouche as a Democrat, so he was barred from the primaries that the Democratic Party administered.

---

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

	Bush	uncommitted	Wyatt	Ashby	Bosa	Buchanan	Rigazio	w-i for Dem
Missouri	117,165	3,831	1,269	981	- -	- -	- -	- -
N.Hamp.	53,962	- -	153	264	841	836	803	9,274
Oklahoma	59,577	- -	6,621	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Tenn.	94,406	4,494	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Wisconsin	158,677	1,207	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
TOTAL	483,787	9,532	8,043	1,245	841	836	803	9,274

All of these Republican primaries were administered by state governments. The far-right column "w-i for Dem" means "write-in votes for Democratic presidential candidates". In Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin, voters were free to vote in any primary they desired. In New Hampshire, registered Republicans could only vote in the Republican primary, but registered independents could vote in either primary. In Oklahoma, independents could not vote in any presidential primary, and registered Republicans could not vote in any primary except the Republican primary. Oklahoma bans write-in votes. Therefore, the only means by which registered Republicans in Oklahoma could vote against President Bush, was to vote for Bill Wyatt. This explains why Wyatt polled over 10% in Oklahoma, despite his very limited campaign.

---

LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

	Nolan	Badnarik	uncommitted	Perez	Diket
Missouri	875	- -	740	160	147
Wisconsin*	1,490	1,414	401	- -	- -
TOTAL	2,363	1,497	1,133	160	147

*The Wisconsin totals have been updated from the print edition of BAN.
In both of these primaries, any voter was free to choose any party’s primary ballot. 1,922 voters cast a valid vote in the Missouri Libertarian primary. In 2000, 1,049 voters did so. In Wisconsin, no Libertarian presidential primary was held in 2000.

---

2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED					DEADLINE later method
	FULL PARTY	CAND.	LIB'T	GREEN	NAT LAW	CONSTI.	REFORM
Alabama	41,012	5,000	300	0	0	*800	0	Aug 31
Alaska	(reg) 6,937	#2,845	already on	already on	0	0	0	Aug 4
Arizona	16,348	est #10,000	already on	*4,500	0	0	0	Jun 9
Arkansas	10,000	1,000	*600	*125	0	*50	0	Aug 2
California	(reg) 77,389	153,035	already on	already on	already on	already on	can’t start	Aug 6
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 5
Connecticut	no procedure	#7,500	0	already on	0	*200	*0	Aug 7
Delaware	(reg) *259	5,184	already on	already on	already on	already on	227	Aug 21
D.C.	no procedure	est. #3,600	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 17
Florida	be organized	93,024	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	Sep 1
Georgia	37,153	#37,153	already on	*3,500	0	0	0	July 13
Hawaii	677	3,711	already on	already on	already on	*50	0	Sep 3
Idaho	10,033	5,017	already on	*2,600	already on	already on	0	Aug 31
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Jun 21
Indiana	no procedure	#29,553	already on	0	0	0	0	Jul 1
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	425	0	0	*25	0	Aug 13
Kansas	16,714	5,000	already on	*200	0	*100	already on	Aug 2
Kentucky	no procedure	#5,000	0	0	0	*120	0	Aug 26
Louisiana	est. (reg) 140,000	pay fee	1,369	855	23	39	2,900	Sep 7
Maine	25,260	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	0	Aug 9
Maryland	10,000	est. 28,000	in court	already on	0	*finished	0	Aug 2
Mass.	est. (reg) 38,000	#10,000	already on	already on	0	*33	1,469	July 27
Michigan	31,776	31,776	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 15
Minnesota	112,557	#2,000	0	already on	0	0	0	Sep 14
Mississippi	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	Sep 3
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	0	0	0	July 26
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	already on	already on	*3,100	already on	July 28
Nebraska	4,810	2,500	already on	4,350	0	0	0	Aug 24
Nevada	4,805	4,805	already on	already on	already on	already on	0	July 9
New Hamp.	13,260	#3,000	0	0	0	*finished	0	Aug 11
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	0	July 26
New Mexico	2,422	14,527	already on	already on	0	*50	0	Sep 7
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 17
No. Carolina	58,842	est 100,000	already on	*9,100	0	100	0	*Jul 6
North Dakota	7,000	#4,000	0	0	0	0	0	Sep 3
Ohio	32,290	5,000	in court	0	0	1,500	0	Aug 19
Oklahoma	51,781	37,027	*6,000	0	0	0	0	Jul 15
Oregon	18,864	15,306	already on	already on	0	already on	0	Aug 24
Penn.	no procedure	*25,697	*0	*0	*0	*0	*0	Aug 2
Rhode Island	16,592	#1,000	0	already on	0	*0	0	Sep 3
So. Carolina	10,000	10,000	already on	*already on	*0	already on	already on	Jul 15
South Dakota	8,364	#3,346	*1,500	0	0	*finished	0	Aug 3
Tennessee	41,322	25	0	0	0	0	0	Aug 19
Texas	45,540	64,077	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	May 24
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	*already on	0	Sep 3
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	0	already on	0	Sep 16
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	0	0	0	0	0	Aug 20
Washington	no procedure	#200	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 25
West Va.	no procedure	#12,963	*2,200	0	0	0	0	Aug 2
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	0	already on	can't start	Sep 14
Wyoming	3,644	3,644	already on	0	0	0	0	Aug 17
TOTAL STATES ON			27	*23	*11	*13	7	-

# allows partisan label.
* entry changed since last B.A.N.
"(reg.)" means a party must have a certain number of registered voters.
All dates in "deadline" column are 2004.
Prohibition Party is on in Colorado.
Socialist Party has 100 signatures in New Jersey.

---

ADLAI STEVENSON AND RALPH NADER

Most Americans aren’t old enough to remember the 1952 presidential election. Therefore, most Americans have no idea that a political party sometimes nominates a candidate who has not sought its nomination. This, in turn, leads to confusion about Ralph Nader’s current relationship with the Green Party. As has been reported in the press, Nader announced on February 22 that he intends to run for president as an independent this year.

In 1952, President Harry Truman resolved not to seek re-election, and he asked Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson to seek the Democratic nomination. On March 17, Stevenson told him, "No". Instead, Stevenson filed to run for re-election as Governor of Illinois. Stevenson was renominated for that office on April 16, 1952. The day after the primary, he said that since he had just been renominated for Governor, "I could not possibly accept the nomination for any other office." Truman, believing that Stevenson could not be persuaded to run for president, then endorsed Vice-President Alben Barkley for president.

Certain individuals continued to promote a "draft" for Stevenson, but on July 20, Stevenson urged the draft committee to cease its activity. However, a few days later, the Democratic National Convention opened in Chicago. As the host Governor, Stevenson addressed the convention. His speech was so well received, and the other potential presidential candidates seemed so much less appealing, Stevenson changed his mind and let himself be nominated. The Democratic Party did, of course, nominate him, but he lost the general election to General Dwight Eisenhower.

Even though Ralph Nader announced last October that he would not seek the Green Party nomination, this is no barrier to his receiving that nomination. Many leaders of the party are working to draft him. Peter Camejo, who has twice been the Green candidate for Governor of California, is on the Green presidential primary ballot in California, and holds himself out as a placeholder for Nader.

The Green Party’s webpage says, "Mr. Nader announced his independent candidacy on February 22, but there remains a possibility he could win the Green nomination at the party’s National Convention in Milwaukee, June 23-28." Of course, the party’s website also acknowledges that other individuals are seeking the nomination. Of the others, the individual who is campaigning the hardest is David Cobb, of Eureka, California.

Theresa Amato, Nader’s campaign manager, says on the Nader campaign website, "We are aiming to be on the ballot in every state. In 2000, Ralph was identified on ballot access lines: as the candidate of Greens in some places, as an independent in others and as the nominee of small parties in others to make it as easy as possible to get on the ballot. We plan to do the same this year. We want people from all over the country to have more choices and voices in this election and that means being on the ballot in as many states as possible in any legal manner."

Besides the Greens, other parties that might nominate Nader include the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party, and several one-state parties such as the Mountain Party of West Virginia and the Independence Party of New York.

Nader has not started petitioning anywhere yet, and he has not announced who his stand-in vice-presidential candidate will be. On February 26-27, he campaigned in Texas, which has the earliest independent presidential petition deadline of any state. However, petitions cannot start to circulate in Texas until March 9.

---

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY

On January 30, the Socialist Equality announced that it had nominated Bill Van Auken for president, and Jim Lawrence for vice-president. See the party’s website at www.wsws.org for more information. The Socialist Equality ran a presidential candidate in 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996, but not 2000. Before 1996 it was called the Workers League.