June 1, 2004 Ė Volume 20, Number 2

This issue was originally printed on green paper.

Table of Contents

  1. MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES WIN IN ALABAMA AND GEORGIA
  2. LOUISIANA PROGRESS
  3. HIGH COURT SHOWS INTEREST IN REFORM PARTY BALLOT CASE
  4. N.C. ELECTIONS BOARD HELPING EASE ACCESS
  5. ALASKA TOUGHENS DEFINITION OF "PARTY"
  6. COFOE MEETING
  7. HIGH COURT DUCKS GERRYMANDERING
  8. NEW BOOK SKEWERS DEBATES COMMISSION
  9. NADER SUES TEXAS
  10. OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
  11. LEGISLATIVE NEWS
  12. JUNE AND LATE MAY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
  13. 2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  14. REFORM PARTY NOMINATES NADER
  15. VETERANS PARTY SUCCESS
  16. NY CONSERVATIVE PARTY
  17. MINOR PARTY VICTORIES
  18. MOUNTAIN PARTY
  19. ERRATA
  20. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL


MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES WIN IN ALABAMA AND GEORGIA

COURTS GIVE THEM MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN PRIMARIES

During May, two high-level courts ruled that political parties enjoy substantial control over their own nomination process. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that political parties may bar candidates from their own primaries, if the party feels those candidates are "disloyal" to the parties. And the 11th circuit ruled that the Voting Rights Act cannot be used to force the Georgia Democratic Party to use a closed primary instead of an open primary.

The Alabama decision, Republican Party of Alabama v McGinley, 1031166, was released on May 18. The candidate, Kelly McGinley, was barred from the June 1 primary ballot because she had criticized the Republican Party on her talk-show radio program. She had said that she supports the Republican platform (on abortion), but that the Republican Party ignores its own platform.

The Republican Party has no rules about candidate loyalty to the party. Candidates must sign a statement that says, "I am a Republican and am in accord with, and endorse, the principles and policies of the Republican Party", but there are no rules that they cannot criticize the party.

A neutral observer would probably say that there is no conflict between McGinleyís behavior, and the statement she was required to sign in order to run. However, the Republican Party felt there was a conflict.

On May 21, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to put McGinley on the ballot. In the U.S. Supreme Court, her case was 03-A-962. McGinley plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Alabama Court, since her failure to obtain a stay does not necessarily mean that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Alabama Supreme Court. However, she wonít be on this yearís primary ballot.

The Georgia case, Osborn v Cox and Georgia Democratic Party, 03-14349, was issued on May 17 by the 11th circuit. The judges were James Edmondson, Frank Hull and Susan Bucklew. The plaintiffs were supporters of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. They were unhappy that McKinney had lost the 2002 primary to another Democrat, Denise Majette. Georgia does not have partisan registration. Therefore, any voter is free to decide which partyís primary to vote in.

The plaintiffs argued that Georgiaís open primary law, and the Democratic Partyís acceptance of that open primary law, makes it possible for Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary. The plaintiffs believed that if only Democrats had been allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, McKinney would have been renominated.

However, the 11th circuit ruled that neither the Constitution, nor the Voting Rights Act, can be used to dictate to a political party that it must use closed primaries. The court said, "The Supreme Court in Tashjian held that a state may not limit who a party may invite to participate in its primary election. Therefore, the remedy sought by Plaintiffs imposing such a limit on the Democratic Party of Georgia would likely be unconstitutional."

Implications for Minor Parties

The Alabama decision may be very beneficial for minor party ballot access. A challenge to the stateís ballot access law for minor parties and independent candidates is pending in U.S. District Court (Swanson v State of Alabama, 02T-644-N. The case has been pending since 2002 and there is still no decision on the merits, a challenge to the 3% petition for minor parties and non-presidential independent candidates.

Plaintiffs in the Swanson case expect to file a supplemental brief, pointing out that since primary ballot access is now so restrictive for certain types of candidates, it is more important than ever that general election ballot access for alternative parties, and independent candidates, be tolerant.

Ironically, the lead plaintiff in the Swanson case tried to run in this yearís Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But the Democratic Party kept him off this yearís primary ballot, because he had tried to be an independent candidate in 2002.


LOUISIANA PROGRESS

On May 17, the Louisiana House passed HB 1605 by 61-34. Currently, independent candidates can never have any partisan label on the ballot next to their names, not even the word "independent". Members of parties that are not qualified also cannot have any label. A qualified party is defined as one that polled 5% for president in the last election, or which has registration of 5% of the state total. Only the Democratic and Republicans are qualified, so Democrats and Republicans are the only candidates who get party labels next to their names.

HB 1605 would let parties that have at least 1,000 registered members have party labels on the ballot, next to their candidatesí names. Such parties would also need to pay $1,000 in each election year. Libertarians are the only unqualified party with as many as 1,000 members, but the Green Party is close. The bill would also let independent candidates have "independent" next to their names.

If the bill passes, the lawsuit Rosenthal v McKeithen would become moot. It was filed in 2000 and still hasnít had a trial. It charges that the current policy, as least as to independent candidates, is discriminatory.


HIGH COURT SHOWS INTEREST IN REFORM PARTY BALLOT CASE

A few months ago, the Pennsylvania Reform Party lost a ballot access lawsuit, and then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the lower court. On May 7, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the state to present its side of the controversy. Normally, the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear 96% of all appeals brought to it, and doesnít even bother to ask the other side to respond. So, it is a good sign that the Court asked for a response from the state, because this shows that the Court thinks the case is perhaps worth hearing.

The case is Zulick v Wise, 03-1300. The issue is whether Pennsylvania may discriminate against small qualified parties, in the application of its "sore loser" law. The state lets Democrats and Republicans run in each otherís primaries for county judicial races. If a Democrat wins his or her own primary, but loses the Republican primary, the candidate will appear on the November ballot as the Democratic nominee. But nominees of qualified minor parties (which nominate by convention instead of primary) who run in major party primaries, and lose, canít appear on the November ballot as the nominees of their own parties.

After the state responds, then the Court will decide whether to accept the Reform Partyís appeal. The odds are probably 50-50. The Court hasnít accepted a ballot access cert petition brought by a minor party since 1991.


N.C. ELECTIONS BOARD HELPING EASE ACCESS

Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the North Carolina Elections Board, is working with the legislature to get a bill introduced. It will repeal language on the new party petition that says the signers "Intend to Organize a New Party". Many potential signers are willing to sign a petition that says, "I desire that the above-named party be put on the ballot", but they canít honestly sign a statement they are helping to "organize" it.


ALASKA TOUGHENS DEFINITION OF "PARTY"

On May 11, the Alaska legislature passed HB 414. Governor Frank Murkowski is expected to sign the bill soon. It requires a special election when a U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant. It also makes it more difficult for a party to remain on the ballot.

The old law provides two methods for a party to be recognized: (1) that is have registration membership equal to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote; or (2) that it poll 3% for Governor in the last election.

Alaska has three qualified minor parties: the Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Parties remain on because of their relatively high registration, while the Green Party (which doesnít have enough registrants) generally stays on the ballot via the vote test alternative.

HB 414 makes both of these alternatives more difficult. It changes the registration membership alternative, so that the formula is 3% of the last gubernatorial vote or presidential vote, whichever is more recent. This idea is irrational. Because turnout in Alaska is normally 20% higher in presidential years than in gubernatorial years, the requirements will fluctuate by approximately 20%. For example, below is the number of registrants a party would have needed if HB 414 had been in effect in the past:

1994 7,745
1996 6,403
1998 7,230
2000 6,606
2002 8,535
2004 6,937

Alaska has no rational interest in requiring a party to have more registered members to be on the ballot in a gubernatorial year than in a presidential year, but that is what HB 414 does. The billís effect will be to remove the Libertarian Party from the ballot after November 2004, unless the party increases its registration. It now has 6,929 members, virtually enough for 2004, but the 2006 requirement will probably be 9,000.

The other part of the bill makes the alternative vote test more difficult. Currently a party that uses the vote test must get 3% for Governor. Since Governor is up only every four years, such parties need not worry about a vote test in presidential years. But HB 414 requires a party to poll 3% for U.S. Senate in presidential years. In presidential years when no U.S. Senate race is on the ballot, then a party must poll 3% for U.S. House.

In 2002, the Green Party did not poll as much as 3% of the gubernatorial vote (although it did poll over 3% for both U.S. Senate and U.S. House). The Green Party sued, alleging that its voter support for two of the three statewide offices showed that it does enjoy voter support, and that it should not be removed from the ballot. A lower state court issued an injunction, leaving the party on the ballot until the lawsuit is settled.

If HB 414 had been in effect in 2002, the Green Party would still have been disqualified. HB 414 irrationally says that a partyís 3% vote for U.S. Senate does not help it to remain on the ballot in gubernatorial years, but that a 3% vote for U.S. Senate is mandatory in presidential years! One wonders why the Alaska legislature passed this bill, making party retention more difficult, when the old law is under legal attack for being too restrictive. According to one Alaska observer, the legislator who pushed for HB 414 has a vendetta against the Republican Moderate Party, a party that was disqualified in 2002 but that is trying to re-qualify.


COFOE MEETING

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) held its annual board meeting in Washington, D.C., on April 3. New officers are: chair, Patrick Davenport; vice-chair, Bill Redpath; secretary, Tom McLaughlin; treasurer, Alice Kelsey. A representative of the new Populist Party attended. Later, the Populist Party joined the COFOE board. COFOE is a loose coalition of the nationís nationally-organized minor parties, and persons who care about how minor parties and independents are treated.


HIGH COURT DUCKS GERRYMANDERING

On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an inconclusive opinion on gerrymandering. Vieth v Jubelirer, 02-1580. Pennsylvania Republicans controlled state government in 2002, and used that power to draw congressional district boundaries that hurt Democrats.

Four justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and OíConnor) voted that courts cannot act against partisan gerrymandering, even though these Justices agree that gerrymandering is socially harmful. They said it is impossible to figure out objective standards to determine which gerrymanders are severe enough to be invalid.

Four justices (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter) voted that courts can act against extreme gerrymanders. Breyer would evaluate a plan by comparing the number of seats won statewide to the percentage of voters voting for a particular partyís nominees. For example, if 60% of the voters voted for a Democratic nominee for U.S. House at least two elections in a row, but Republicans won a majority of seats from that state in those same two elections, the plan would violate the 14th amendment.

Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg would not use this approach. Instead, they would evaluate particular districts. Districts that are extremely irregular in shape, and which split counties and cities, and which were drawn for partisan purposes, would be invalid.

With four votes in each camp, Justice Kennedy was the determining vote. He wrote that extreme gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but that the court cannot invalidate the Pennsylvania plan, or any plan, until it comes up with a theory of how to tell a valid plan from an invalid plan. Kennedy said he himself could not yet do that.

The Justices may be more willing to invalidate gerrymandering in the year 2010. They realized that if they invalidated the Pennsylvania plan in 2004, an avalanche of new lawsuits would quickly be filed against the current plans in many states.

Since an election is in process, the disruption would be severe. In 2010, the country will be ready for a new census and a new round of districting anyway.

Justice Breyerís dissent is marred by an attack on proportional representation. He repeated the same tired charges against p.r. that were current in the 1950ís, that Italy and France are "unstable" because they use p.r. Breyer probably formed this opinion when was in college, and has learned nothing new since then. All nations in Western and Central Europe use p.r., except Great Britain and France, and no one would claim that the vast majority of Europe is "unstable".


NEW BOOK SKEWERS DEBATES COMMISSION

George Farah, director of Open Debates, has just released his first book. It is No Debate, 224 pages, published in hard cover by Seven Stories Press. The subtitle is, How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.

The book is a well-documented, accurate, scholarly attack on the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission was founded in 1987 to sponsor general election presidential debates. The founders were the Democratic and Republican national chairmen at the time, Paul G. Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf. Kirk and Fahrenkopf are still the co-chairmen of the Commission, even though neither one is now a party chairman.

Open Debates shows how the Commissionís policies have degraded the quality of the general presidential election debates:

a. When the "town hall" format is used (enabling members of the audience to ask a question of the candidates), such questions must be submitted in advance and screened by the moderator.

b. The presidential candidates do not actually debate each other. Instead, they respond to questions posed by a moderator or by a member of the audience.

c. Debates are sometimes scheduled on nights when a World Series baseball game, or an Olympics event, is occurring.

d. The moderator is almost invariably Jim Lehrer, who does not ask hard questions.

e. No one other than the major party nominees is allowed into the debates, unless that person is polling at least 15% in the polls. The only non-major party presidential candidates who polled that high in the last seventy years, in September or October, were George Wallace in 1968 and John Anderson in 1980.

It is true the Ross Perot was permitted into the 1992 debates, but Open Debates proves that the Commission was opposed to inviting Perot (who was only at 7% in the polls when he was invited in). Since the Commission generally does exactly what the Democratic and Republican nominees desire, and since those nominees overrode the Commissionís desires in 1992, Perot gained access. However, unlike the major party nominees, Perot was given no input in the debate details. In one of the 1992 debates, the candidates were positioned on stools that were so tall that Perotís feet dangled off the ground.

Open Debates prints the 1996 "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Clinton and Dole campaigns. It fills 15 pages of the book, and shows the extent to which the presidential candidates themselves negotiate the details of the debate format. After the two candidates come to an agreement, the Commission rubber-stamps it.

The book includes a history of bills that have been introduced in Congress on the subject of debates.

No Debate boosts the rival Citizensí Debate Commission, a new group that hopes to supplant the Commission on Presidential Debates. On May 24, the Citizensí Debate Commission announced its own sites and dates for proposed general election debates. The Citizensí Debate Commission will try to persuade President Bush and Senator Kerry to participate in its debates.


NADER SUES TEXAS

On May 10, Ralph Nader sued Texas, alleging that it is unconstitutional to force him to submit 64,077 signatures, since independent candidates for other statewide office, and new and minor parties, only need to submit 45,540 signatures. Nader v Connor, A04ca-264. The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin, who has only been a federal judge for six months.

The lawsuit also says it is unconstitutional to force independent candidates to submit signatures two weeks before new party petitions are due.

The hearing will be on July 22. In the meantime, Texas will check Naderís petition (which has 80,044 raw signatures) to see if it has 45,540 valid signatures.


OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS

Delaware: the plaintiff in Biener v Calio will ask for U.S. Supreme Court review. The issue is the fee to run for U.S. House ($3,000), for people who are not paupers. Only major party members pay the fee.

Florida: on May 7, a court ruled that Bonita Springs cannot require candidates for city council to have lived in their district for two years before running. Feeley v Bonita Springs, 04-804-ca, Lee County Circuit Court.

New Mexico: on April 27, the 10th circuit invalidated Albuquerqueís limit on expenditures for candidates for city office. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1976 that expenditure limits are unconstitutional, so the decision wasnít surprising. Homans v Albuquerque, 02-2244.

Ohio: briefs have just been filed in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell, the case in federal court over the exclusion of the party from this yearís ballot. Judge Gregory Frost has promised to rule by September 1.

Oklahoma: on June 11, a state court will hear Libertarian Political Organization v Clingman, on the validity of the 5% petition to put a new party on the ballot. If the case does not win, there will be no parties on this yearís ballot except the Democrats and Republicans. The case is based on the State Constitution.

Puerto Rico: on March 29, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Puerto Ricoís appeal in Gracia v Perez-Guzman. The 1st circuit had invalidated Puerto Ricoís stringent restrictions on who can circulate a petition to get a new party on the ballot.

Wyoming: on May 4, the State Supreme Court invalidated term limits for state legislators, since the initiative that created them was just a statute, not a constitutional change. Cathcart v Meyer, 04-32.


LEGISLATIVE NEWS

Alaska: is the only state that has no procedure for an independent presidential candidate to get on the ballot. The state Elections office asked the legislature to pass a procedure for independent presidential candidates. But the bills, HB523 and SB356, did not move, and now the legislature has adjourned.

California: AB 2949, the bill to provide public financing for candidates for state office, was killed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 19. Unlike other "Clean Elections" proposals, this one discriminated against independent candidates.

Louisiana: on May 6, HB728 passed the House. It moves state elections from odd years to presidential years. Since it is a constitutional change, if it passes the Senate, then the voters must approve it. On May 4, the Senate passed HB693, letting independents vote in presidential primaries.

Missouri: the legislature adjourned without passing HB1150. It would have clarified that a new party petition need not carry the names of any party nominees. Due to a drafting error made in 1993, the law seems to say that a new party needs to list its candidates for presidential elector on the petition, yet the law also says a party may choose all its nominees after the petition is submitted.


APRIL-MAY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

-
Kerry
Edwards
Dean
Clark
Sharpton
Lieberman
Kuchinich
LaRouche
uncommit.
Ark.
174,005
--
--
--
--
--
13,743
14,865
60,815
Indiana
230,491
35,592
21,441
17,485
--
--
6,973
4,584
--
Ky.
138,157
33,271
8,222
6,516
5,015
11,065
4,508
1,816
21,194
Nebr.
51,485
9,914
5,232
--
1,354
--
1,454
813
--
Oregon
283,534
--
--
--
--
--
58,268
8,365
--
Pennsy.
578,811
76,614
79,353
--
--
--
30,216
22,040
--
W. Va.
165,905
32,502
9.956
8,793
--
12,887
5,991
3,900
--

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES: President Bush polled 40,341 in Arkansas; 469,505 in Indiana; 108,034 in Kentucky; 119,874 in Nebraska; 287,019 in Oregon; 858,490 in Pennsylvania; and 64,935 in West Virginia. His only ballot-listed opposition in April and May primaries was "uncommitted", which received 1,145 in Arkansas and 8,588 in Kentucky.

LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY: in Nebraska, Gary Nolan received 101 and Michael Badnarik received 36.


2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
DEADLINE
later method
-
FULL PARTY
CAND.
LIB'T
GREEN
NADER
CONSTI.
NAT LAW

Alabama

41,012

5,000

300

0

0

*3,800

0

Sep 6

Alaska

(reg) 6,937

#2,845

already on

already on

0

already on

0

Aug 4

Arizona

16,348

14,694

already on

0

*1,000

0

0

Jun 9

Arkansas

10,000

1,000

900

*800

0

*250

0

Aug 2

California

(reg) 77,389

153,035

already on

already on

*0

already on

already on

Aug 6

Colorado

(reg) 1,000

#pay fee

already on

already on

*virtual on

already on

already on

July 5

Connecticut

no procedure

#7,500

*200

already on

250

*1,500

0

Aug 7

Delaware

(reg) 259

5,184

already on

already on

0

already on

already on

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

*virtual on

already on

already on

Sep 1

Georgia

37,153

#37,153

already on

5,000

*800

0

0

July 13

Hawaii

677

3,711

already on

already on

0

*50

already on

Sep 3

Idaho

10,033

5,017

already on

*5,100

0

already on

already on

Aug 31

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

*16,000

*5,000

*4,200

0

0

Jun 21

Indiana

no procedure

#29,553

already on

500

*6,000

0

0

Jul 1

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

*800

*200

0

25

0

Aug 13

Kansas

16,714

5,000

already on

0

0

*finished

0

Aug 2

Kentucky

no procedure

#5,000

*500

0

0

*1,100

0

Aug 26

Louisiana

est. (reg) 140,000

#pay fee

1,369

855

0

39

23

Sep 7

Maine

25,260

#4,000

0

already on

0

*700

0

Aug 9

Maryland

10,000

27,899

finished

already on

1,000

already on

0

Aug 2

Mass.

est. (reg) 38,000

#10,000

already on

already on

*200

33

1,469

July 27

Michigan

31,776

31,776

already on

already on

*2,000

already on

already on

July 15

Minnesota

112,557

#2,000

0

already on

canít start

0

0

Sep 14

Mississippi

be organized

#1,000

already on

already on

*virtual on

already on

already on

Sep 3

Missouri

undetermined

10,000

already on

0

0

*200

0

July 26

Montana

5,000

#5,000

already on

already on

*300

already on

already on

July 28

Nebraska

4,810

2,500

already on

*4,700

0

0

0

Aug 24

Nevada

5,019

5,019

already on

already on

0

already on

already on

July 9

New Hamp.

13,260

#3,000

0

0

*100

finished

0

Aug 11

New Jersey

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

*200

0

July 26

New Mexico

2,422

14,527

already on

already on

0

*disputed

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

100,532

already on

*0

*8,000

*0

0

Jul 6

North Dakota

7,000

#4,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

Sep 3

Ohio

32,290

5,000

in court

*200

0

*finished

0

Aug 19

Oklahoma

51,781

37,027

*in court

0

2,000

0

0

Jul 15

Oregon

18,864

15,306

already on

already on

0

already on

0

Aug 24

Penn.

no procedure

25,697

*4,000

*5,000

*1,500

*3,000

0

Aug 2

Rhode Island

16,592

#1,000

0

already on

*canít start

0

0

Sep 3

So. Carolina

10,000

10,000

already on

*already on

*200

already on

0

Jul 15

South Dakota

8,364

#3,346

*already on

0

0

already on

0

Aug 3

Tennessee

41,322

*275

0

0

0

0

0

Aug 19

Texas

45,540

64,077

*finished

*too late

*in court

*too late

*too late

May 24

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

already on

0

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

*8,500

*1,000

*1,000

0

0

Aug 20

Washington

no procedure

*#1,000

already on

can't start

can't start

can't start

can't start

Aug 25

West Va.

no procedure

#12,963

*finished

0

*500

0

0

Aug 2

Wisconsin

10,000

#2,000

already on

already on

canít start

already on

can't start

Sep 7

Wyoming

3,644

3,644

already on

0

0

0

0

Aug 23

TOTAL STATES ON
*28
23
*virtual 3
17
10
-

# allows partisan label.
* entry changed since last B.A.N.
- Prohibition is on in Colorado.
-
Socialist is on in South Carolina, finished in N.J. and has 1,100 in Michigan.
-
Socialist Equality has 700 signatures in N.J. and 2,000 in Ohio.
-
American has 50 in Arkansas.


REFORM PARTY NOMINATES NADER

On the evening of May 11, 41 members of the Reform Partyís national committee held a lengthy conference call, for the purpose of nominating a presidential candidate. On the third ballot, the group nominated Ralph Nader. Party rules require that the nominee receive two-thirds of the votes cast, and Nader had been two votes short in the first round and one vote short in the second round.

The previous night, the group had interviewed the six individuals seeking the partyís nomination, again in a conference call. Each candidate spoke and then answered questions for twenty minutes.

The first vote on May 11 was Nader 25, Michael Peroutka (likely Constitution Party nominee) 6, John Buchanan 3, Richard Green 3, others 4. The final vote was Nader 28, Peroutka 6, Green 4.

On the evening of May 12, the party chose Ted Weill of Mississippi as a back-up presidential nominee, in case Nader should cease to be a candidate, or in case he should refuse the Reform Party nomination. However, Nader seemed pleased to receive the nomination, and his campaign sent out a press release about it.

Some state units of the Reform Party are independent of the national Reform organization, or seem unorganized even though they are ballot-qualified, so it is unclear how many states Nader will gain via the Reform nomination.

The Reform Party had changed by-laws in April 2004, to permit presidential nomination by the national committee.


VETERANS PARTY SUCCESS

The Veterans Party has placed its nominee for U.S. Senate nominee, Dennis Bradley, on the Florida ballot. He will be the only ballot-listed opponent to the Democratic and Republican nominees. See www.veteransparty.com. For U.S. House races in Florida, there are two Libertarians and one Constitution Party nominee on the ballot.


NY CONSERVATIVE PARTY

On May 11, the Conservative Party leadership chose Marilyn OíGrady as its U.S. Senate nominee. OíGrady is not seeking the Republican nomination, so it is likely that the Republican and Conservative Parties will each have their own nominee for Senate this year. The likely Republican nominee, Howard Mills, could get the Conservative nod only by winning it as a write-in candidate in the Conservative Partyís primary in September.


MINOR PARTY VICTORIES

New York: on April 27, Albany County held County Legislative elections. Three minor party nominees who were not also major party nominees were elected: Lucille McKnight, a Working Families nominee; Michael Aidala, an Independence Party nominee; Shawn Morse, another Independence Party nominee. On May 18, the Green Party elected Rome Celli to the Monroe School Board.

New Jersey: on April 20, the Libertarian Party elected John Taylor to the Highlands School Board.


MOUNTAIN PARTY

The Mountain Party of West Virginia held its state convention on May 1. It chose candidates for state office and congress, but it didnít nominate anyone for president. The Mountain Party hadnít nominated anyone for president in 2000 either. Ralph Nader sought the nomination this year, but the delegates voted to have no nominee for president.


ERRATA

The May 1 B.A.N. said Baltimore had not had any minor party candidates on the ballot for city council for 50 years, but one Libertarian did qualify in 2001 (corrected in online edition).


SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com. If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.

Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger. Note: subscriptions are available!


Go back to the index.
Copyright © 2004 Ballot Access News