| This issue was originally printed on pink paper. |
Table of Contents
NORTH CAROLINA EASES WORDING ON PARTY PETITION
FIRST TIME THIS STATE HAS EVER VOLUNTARILY EASED BALLOT ACCESS
On July 26, North Carolina HB 1119 was signed into law. It makes it easier for minor parties to get on the ballot, by deleting this sentence on the petition: "The signers of this petition intend to organize a new political party to participate in the next succeeding general election."
This improvement may seem like a small matter. However, circulators of minor party petitions in North Carolina say that this sentence has long made their work more difficult. North Carolina doesn’t have the initiative process. Furthermore, virtually all Republican and Democratic candidates get themselves on North Carolina primary ballots by paying a filing fee, instead of submitting a petition. Therefore, North Carolina voters aren’t used to signing petitions. When they are asked to sign for a minor party, they typically read the petition first. Then they sometimes balk, saying they want to help that party get on the ballot, by why should they sign something that says they are "organizing"it? Even when they do sign, it wastes time to explain it to people.
Furthermore, minor parties need 58,842 signatures in North Carolina, more than in any other state except California.
This is the first time the North Carolina legislature has ever voluntarily changed the election law to help minor parties. The former Speaker of the House, Rep. Leo Daughtry, killed a helpful bill in 2001. He said on the floor, "It is working well by having a Republican Party and a Democratic Party. I don’t think having the most restrictive rule is a bad thing." Another bill to help minor parties was killed in 2003.
Credit for HB 1119 goes to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Green Party, and the State Elections Board.
The Green Party collected affidavits from voters who said they didn’t want to sign the petition with the old wording on it. The ACLU explained that these affidavits would be used as evidence in a new lawsuit, if the law weren’t changed. The State Board of Elections also asked for the change.
Federal courts in Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, and West Virginia have ruled that similar wording on petitions is unconstitutional. Lawsuits filed in North Carolina on this point in 1993 and 2000 did not succeed because of a lack of evidence.
HB 1119 also clarifies the number of signatures needed for independent candidates. The bill doesn’t change the old formula (2% of the number of registered voters). However, it specifies that the registration tally to be used for calculating the number of signatures is the January 1 tally for that election year. Previously, neither the State Board of Elections, nor anyone else, ever knew for sure exactly how many signatures are required.
Any day now, a ruling is expected in a North Carolina federal lawsuit (DeLaney v Bartlett) that challenges the number of signatures needed for an independent candidate for statewide office. The lawsuit charges that it is unconstitutional to require more signatures for an independent candidate than for a new party.
The legislature could have settled this lawsuit by lowering the number of signatures for an independent candidate, to match the minor party requirement. But, the legislature chose to gamble, and it has now adjourned for the year. If the federal court strikes down the law this year, there will be no valid law in place, and any independent candidate who can show a modicum of support may get on the ballot by court order.
NEVADA INITIATIVE DEADLINE VICTORY
On June 15, a Nevada state court in Las Vegas extended the deadline for one initiative petition and one referendum petition, on the grounds that state employees had illegally prevented petitioning on state property. Nevadans for Sound Government v State of Nevada, A486345. Rarely do courts ever extend petitioning deadlines on the grounds that its circulators were mistreated.
The initiative petition would prevent public employees from running for the legislature, and normally would have been due on June 15. The referendum petition would repeal a tax increase passed recently by the legislature, and normally would have been due May 18. The court extended both deadlines to July 20. It is not yet known if either petition turned in enough valid signatures to qualify.
The court heard three days of testimony. It found that the Motor Vehicle Department, the Regional Transportation Commission, and the University of Las Vegas all prevented petitioning on their property. Nevada law permits petitioning on this kind of property, so this precedent is not necessarily useful in other states.
On July 12, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco signed HB 1605, the bill that vastly eases the definition of "political party." See the July 1 B.A.N. for more about this bill.
On July 15, the Kentucky Attorney General ruled that presidential candidates who get on the ballot by petition need not sign any declaration of candidacy, in advance of the petition deadline.
REPUBLICAN BILL PASSES IN ILLINOIS
On July 8, SB 2123 was signed into law. For 2004 only, it lets a qualified party certify its presidential candidate later than August 27. The bill solves the Republican Party’s problem, since that party won’t nominate for president until September 2, 2004.
For the last eighteen months, the national committee of the Republican Party has worked to persuade state legislatures to alter the deadline for a qualified party to certify the names of its national candidates. The party succeeded in changing laws in Alabama, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Utah and Virginia. The California, Illinois and Virginia changes only apply to 2004, but the other changes are permanent and will assist political parties in the future, if they also wish to hold a late national convention.
Oddly enough, the Republican Party didn’t alter Montana’s law, and it requires certification by August 18. Montana will require official notice from the national Republican Party, not the state party, as to who its presidential and vice-presidential candidates are, two weeks before the convention! The Republican national committee says it didn’t try to get Montana’s deadline changed, because in 1996 the Democratic convention was also beyond Montana’s deadline, but the state simply accepted a pre-convention certification from the Democratic national committee.
The Delaware Election Commission is permitting the Libertarian and Independent Parties to jointly nominate the same person for Governor this year. The right of two political parties to engage in "fusion" has been unclear in Delaware. An Attorney General Opinion in 1998 had disallowed "fusion" between a party that nominates by primary, and a party that nominates by convention. But it seems that the state does permit fusion between two parties that both nominate by convention.
FREEDOM SOCIALISTS WIN DISCLOSURE CASE
On July 14, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the City of Seattle may not force a Freedom Socialist Party candidate for city council to disclose the names of her contributors. Averill v City of Seattle, C03-2508L.
Back in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court had exempted minor political parties from disclosure laws, if those parties could show that their contributors were likely to be harassed if their identity were known. In this case, the election was non-partisan. The City of Seattle tried to persuade the judge that Marxists are no longer subject to harassment. The city even hired a former FBI agent who is now a consultant in threat assessment, and paid him $350 per hour for his testimony. The city hasn’t decided whether to appeal.
Other parties that have won disclosure exemptions are the Communist, Socialist Workers, and Socialist Action Parties.
On July 26, the D.C. Board of Elections eased petitioning rules. D.C. law requires petitioners to be registered voters in the District. However, in 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require circulators to be registered voters, and the Board is aware of this decision.
The Board ruled that initiative circulators need not be registered voters in D.C. Unfortunately, the Board did not make a similar relaxation for candidate petitions.
The Board also ruled that circulators may use "assistants." "Assistants" may be anyone, regardless of residence. Assistants may ask members of the public to sign petitions, and may carry clipboards, but only while a petitioner is watching.
D.C. restrictions on circulators have a severe impact. In 2000, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips and John Hagelin all failed to get on the ballot there, even though all three were on in most states.
RON PAUL BOOSTS BALLOT ACCESS BILL
Congressman Ron Paul introduced HR 1941 over a year ago, to outlaw restrictive ballot access laws for U.S. House of Representatives candidates. On July 15 he made a short speech on the floor of Congress, advocating support for his bill.
D.C. FINALLY COUNTS GREEN WRITE-INS
The D.C. Board of Elections has finally obeyed the court order in Best v D.C. Board (see July B.A.N.) and counted the write-ins in the Green Party’s presidential primary. The results: Dennis Kucinich 37, Al Sharpton 24, Howard Dean 22, Ralph Nader 13, Carol Moseley Braun 3, Peter Camejo 2.
This month’s Alaska primary will be complicated. Registered Republicans will be asked if they want a Republican primary ballot, or a ballot containing only the Alaskan Independence, Green and Libertarian candidates.
Registered members of other qualified parties will be asked if they want a ballot containing Democratic candidates and candidates of the three minor parties, or just the minor party primary ballot.
Registered independents may have any ballot they wish.
Alaska: briefs have been filed in Sykes v FEC, 04-cv-293, federal court, DC. Sykes and the Green Party argue that out-of-state contributions should be banned.
Alaska: on July 12, the Republican Moderate Party filed a lawsuit to regain its place on the ballot. Metcalfe v State of Alaska, 3AN-04-8804. The party failed to poll 3% for Governor in 2002, and it doesn’t have registration of 3% of the last vote. However, it did elect a State Senator in 2002, and it has almost as many registrants as the Green Party. The Green Party won an injunction putting it back on the 2004 ballot last November. The hearing is August 9.
Arizona: on July 2, a hearing was held in state court to determine if Ralph Nader’s independent petition had enough valid signatures. Schulz v Nader, cv04-11968. However, since the Secretary of State had checked the signatures just before the hearing, and had found that Nader was 549 short, Nader conceded at the onset of the hearing that he didn’t have enough, and no court action was needed.
California: on July 16, a candidate who was defeated in the 2004 primary filed a lawsuit, demanding a meaningful recount. This lawsuit is noteworthy because Riverside County used a touch-screen system, and the county says there is nothing tangible to recount. The candidate believes that election code provisions on recounts require the county or the vendor to reveal audit logs, chain-of-custody records, and logic and accuracy test results. Soubirous v County of Riverside, Superior Ct, 415443.
California (2): on July 6, a U.S. District Court upheld the right of the Secretary of State to ban certain electronic vote-counting devices. American Association of People with Disabilities v Shelley, 04-1526, c.d.
Delaware: the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in September whether to hear a challenge to the filing fee of $3,000 to run for Congress (for people who aren’t paupers). Biener v Calio, 03-1650.
Florida: on July 20, the 11th circuit decided to rehear Johnson v Governor of Florida. 02-14469. The issue is whether the state’s ban on ex-felon voting violates either the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution. The outcome was a setback for ex-felons. The original 11th circuit opinion had ordered a trial, but the full 11th circuit is likely to dismiss the case.
Georgia: on June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed Cox v Larios, 03-1413. Justice Antonin Scalia was the only dissenter. The lower 3-judge federal court in this case had invalidated Georgia’s legislative districts. It had ruled that when state legislative districts have a population deviance up to 10%, and the legislature seems to have deliberately drawn them that way to help any particular group, the plan is invalid. On the other hand, if the districts deviate in population by up to 10% just to make it easier to keep entire cities, counties or regions in a single district, that is still permitted.
Illinois: on July 27, Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit in federal court against the June petition deadline. Nader v Keith, 04-c-4913, Chicago. For president, Illinois has the third earliest deadline.
Kansas: on July 7, a state court ruled that the Republican state chair has no authority to decide whether the party wants to let independent voters vote in its primary. Instead, a vote of the state committee is needed. As a result, in this month’s primary, Republicans will not let independents vote in their primary, but Democrats will. Estes v Thornburgh, Shawnee Co., 04-c-813. On July 24, the State Committee voted to let independents vote in the Republican primary, but this action came too late for this year.
Michigan: on July 27, Ralph Nader and the faction of the state Reform Party that desires to nominate him filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State. Nader v Land, U.S. Dist. Ct., Detroit, 04-cv-72830. The Reform Party is on the ballot, but the state says the faction that nominated Nader is not the recognized faction, and therefore the state won’t recognize the Nader nomination.
Ohio: on August 3, a federal court in Cincinnati will hear arguments over whether the state’s March 1 petition deadline for independent candidates for congress is constitutional or not. Lawrence v Blackwell, 1:04-cv-398
Ohio (2): the State Supreme Court will soon decide whether polling place officials must enforce a state law that controls who can vote in primaries. The law says people who voted in one party’s primary last year cannot vote in a different party’s primary currently, unless they filled out a special form in the interval. The lower court had said the law is not mandatory. Maschari v Tone, 2004-977.
Oklahoma: on June 25, Judge Bryan Dixon, a superior court judge in Oklahoma City, refused to issue an injunction putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot. Libertarian Political Organization v Clingman, 2004-2949. The issue is whether the state’s 5% petition requirement for new parties violates the State Constitution. Judge Dixon said that he was influenced by the fact that the 10th circuit had upheld the law back in the 1980’s. Of course, the point of the case is to show that the State Constitution provides more protection for ballot access than the U.S. Constitution. The party will present new evidence and seek declaratory relief.
Oklahoma (2): on July 2, the state asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal in Clingman v Beaver, 04-37. The 10th circuit had ruled that a party may open up its primary to all voters, if it wishes.
West Virginia: on July 15, a state court ruled that if petitions to put minor party and independent candidates on the ballot are mailed to the Secretary of State, they must arrive by the deadline. The Reform Party had petitioned to place two legislative candidates on the ballot, and had mailed them on the deadline. The party will appeal. Balogh v Manchin, 04-misc-259, Kanawha County.
National: on June 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., upheld a decision of the Federal Election Commission that the Reform Party owes the FEC $335,000. O’Hara v FEC, 04-1106.
"TOP TWO" ARGUMENTS SET IN CALIFORNIA
In both Washington and California, the voters in November will be voting on whether to provide for a "top two" election system. All candidates would run on a single primary ballot. Then, in November, only the top two vote-getters would be on the ballot.
Both states send a Voter Pamphlet to each registered voter, which contains arguments for and against. The California pamphlet is now on-line. To read the Prop. 62 arguments, see ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm. Choose the button "Voter Info Guide" and then choose Prop. 62.
The Washington pamphlet isn’t ready yet, but will be in a few weeks.
Opponents of California’s Prop. 62 are pleased that the ballot will not label the proposal an "open primary." In 1996, the initiative to establish the blanket primary was on the ballot this way: "Elections. Open Primary." But this year, Prop. 62 will be on the ballot as: "Elections. Primaries."
The California ballot pamphlet mentions that U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona supports Prop. 62. However, McCain’s support seems confused. The press release sent out by McCain’s Reform Institute, announcing his support for Prop. 62, quotes him: "In my home state of Arizona, we have an open primary system that’s working well."
Ironically, the current California system is already identical to Arizona’s system. In both states, voters who are registered members of a particular party can only vote in the primary of that party. Also, in both states, independent voters may vote in the Democratic or Republican Parties, if they wish. Since California already has the same system that McCain says works well, one wonders why he is trying to persuade California voters to change to a system that is radically different from Arizona’s.
Last month, the FEC sent each of the two major parties $14,924,000 to pay for their national conventions.
Also, the FEC sent Ralph Nader another $298,759, in addition to the $100,000 he had received in June. He is the only minor party or independent presidential candidate who has received federal matching funds this year.
BOOK
REVIEW: GUIDE TO THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
by Michael L. Goldstein, published in mid-2003 by Congressional Quarterly. Paperback, 136 pages. $19.95.
Guide to the 2004 Presidential Election is a textbook, but it is also a reference book. Although most of the pages are text, the book has also tables covering virtually every bit of statistical data that one can imagine, concerning this year’s presidential election. It is especially useful for the detail on major party candidate selection processes. However, the author gave a fair share of the book to minor party and independent candidate procedures as well. Goldstein prepares a similar book before each presidential election.
PARTY REVENUE FROM STATE INCOME TAX "CHECK-OFF"
|
-- |
Demo. |
Rep. |
Green |
Lib’t. |
Nat. Law |
Constitutn |
Reform |
Independence |
|
Alabama |
4,759 |
7,603 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Arizona |
18,540 |
18,213 |
- - |
2,214 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Idaho |
24,421 |
24,666 |
- - |
1,738 |
493 |
1,409 |
324 |
- - |
|
Iowa |
79,972 |
63,165 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Kentucky |
114,782 |
110,848 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Maine |
15,995 |
5,951 |
4,902 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Minn. |
46,318 |
34,702 |
6,063 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
5,467 |
|
No. Caro. |
357,195 |
336,322 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Ohio. |
73,221 |
73,221 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Rhode I. |
7,892 |
4,854 |
416 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Utah |
52,358 |
87,618 |
4,928 |
3,332 |
2,862 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
Virginia |
32,683 |
19,027 |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
- - |
|
TOTAL |
828,136 |
786,190 |
16,309 |
8,446 |
3,355 |
1,409 |
324 |
5,467 |
The twelve states named above give state income tax-payers a chance to direct a small contribution to the political party of the taxpayer’s choice. The chart above lists the amounts received by each party. Ohio does not let taxpayers decide which party to help, and only lets taxpayers help parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election. North Carolina only lets taxpayers help parties that have registration of 10%. All the other states include all qualified parties.
This is the first time Rhode Island included the Greens in the tax check-off, even though the party has been qualified since 2000.
2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
| STATE |
|
|
later method |
|||||
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
41,012 |
5,000 |
*550 |
*550 |
*4,000 |
*6,000 |
0 |
Sep 6 |
|
Alaska |
(reg) 6,937 |
#2,845 |
already on |
already on |
*2,500 |
already on |
0 |
Aug 4 |
|
Arizona |
16,348 |
14,694 |
already on |
0 |
*too late |
*too late |
too late |
Jun 9 |
|
Arkansas |
10,000 |
1,000 |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
0 |
Aug 2 |
|
California |
(reg) 77,389 |
153,035 |
already on |
already on |
*90,000 |
already on |
0 |
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 |
*4,500 |
already on |
*8,000 |
*7,000 |
0 |
*Aug 4 |
|
Delaware |
(reg) 259 |
5,184 |
already on |
already on |
*finished |
already on |
0 |
Aug 21 |
|
D.C. |
no procedure |
*3,567 |
*500 |
already on |
*200 |
*0 |
300 |
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 |
*too late |
*too late |
*too late |
*too late |
July 13 |
|
Hawaii |
677 |
3,711 |
already on |
already on |
*500 |
*1,200 |
0 |
Sep 3 |
|
Idaho |
10,033 |
5,017 |
already on |
5,500 |
*2,500 |
already on |
0 |
Aug 31 |
|
Illinois |
no procedure |
#25,000 |
*already on |
too late |
*in court |
too late |
too late |
Jun 21 |
|
Indiana |
no procedure |
#29,553 |
already on |
*too late |
*too late |
*too late |
too late |
Jun 30 |
|
Iowa |
no procedure |
#1,500 |
*1,200 |
*1,100 |
*500 |
*300 |
500 |
Aug 13 |
|
Kansas |
16,714 |
5,000 |
already on |
0 |
*3,000 |
finished |
0 |
Aug 2 |
|
Kentucky |
no procedure |
#5,000 |
*1,500 |
*100 |
*600 |
*3,000 |
0 |
Aug 26 |
|
Louisiana |
(reg.) 128,120 |
#pay fee |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Sep 7 |
|
Maine |
25,260 |
#4,000 |
*3,500 |
already on |
*1,200 |
*finished |
0 |
Aug 9 |
|
Maryland |
10,000 |
27,899 |
*already on |
already on |
*finished |
already on |
0 |
Aug 2 |
|
Mass. |
est. (reg) 38,000 |
#10,000 |
already on |
already on |
*finished |
*too late |
too late |
July 27 |
|
Michigan |
31,776 |
31,776 |
*unsettled |
already on |
*finished |
already on |
0 |
July 15 |
|
Minnesota |
112,557 |
#2,000 |
0 |
already on |
*400 |
*already on |
0 |
Sep 14 |
|
Mississippi |
be organized |
#1,000 |
already on |
already on |
*already on |
already on |
200 |
Sep 3 |
|
Missouri |
undetermined |
10,000 |
already on |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
0 |
July 26 |
|
Montana |
5,000 |
#5,000 |
already on |
already on |
*virtual on |
already on |
0 |
July 28 |
|
Nebraska |
4,810 |
2,500 |
already on |
*finished |
*500 |
*already on |
300 |
Aug 24 |
|
Nevada |
5,019 |
5,019 |
already on |
already on |
*already on |
already on |
0 |
July 9 |
|
New Hamp. |
13,260 |
#3,000 |
*2,800 |
0 |
*500 |
finished |
0 |
Aug 11 |
|
New Jersey |
no procedure |
#800 |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
0 |
July 26 |
|
New Mexico |
2,422 |
14,527 |
already on |
already on |
*3,500 |
already on |
0 |
Sep 7 |
|
New York |
no procedure |
#15,000 |
*8,000 |
*2,500 |
*12,000 |
0 |
10,000 |
Aug 17 |
|
No. Carolina |
58,842 |
100,533 |
already on |
*too late |
*too late |
*too late |
too late |
Jul 6 |
|
North Dakota |
7,000 |
#4,000 |
*900 |
*0 |
*400 |
*1,600 |
300 |
Sep 3 |
|
Ohio |
32,290 |
5,000 |
in court |
*700 |
*2,000 |
*already on |
0 |
Aug 19 |
|
Oklahoma |
51,781 |
37,027 |
in court |
*too late |
*too late |
*too late |
too late |
Jul 15 |
|
Oregon |
18,864 |
15,306 |
already on |
already on |
*2,000 |
already on |
0 |
Aug 24 |
|
Penn. |
no procedure |
25,697 |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
*finished |
0 |
Aug 2 |
|
Rhode Island |
16,592 |
#1,000 |
*200 |
already on |
*50 |
*150 |
0 |
Sep 3 |
|
So. Carolina |
10,000 |
10,000 |
already on |
already on |
*already on |
already on |
too late |
Jul 15 |
|
South Dakota |
8,364 |
#3,346 |
already on |
0 |
*1,000 |
already on |
0 |
Aug 3 |
|
Tennessee |
41,322 |
*275 |
*300 |
0 |
*50 |
*250 |
60 |
Aug 19 |
|
Texas |
45,540 |
64,077 |
*already on |
too late |
in court |
too late |
too late |
May 24 |
|
Utah |
2,000 |
#1,000 |
already on |
already on |
*100 |
already on |
300 |
Sep 3 |
|
Vermont |
be organized |
#1,000 |
already on |
already on |
*200 |
already on |
50 |
Sep 16 |
|
Virginia |
no procedure |
#10,000 |
*already on |
*1,200 |
*5,000 |
*11,000 |
0 |
Aug 20 |
|
Washington |
no procedure |
*#1,000 |
already on |
*already on |
*1,000 |
*finished |
already on |
Aug 24 |
|
West Va. |
no procedure |
#12,963 |
finished |
0 |
*finished |
0 |
0 |
Aug 2 |
|
Wisconsin |
10,000 |
#2,000 |
already on |
already on |
*100 |
already on |
200 |
Sep 7 |
|
Wyoming |
3,644 |
3,644 |
already on |
0 |
*0 |
*3,000 |
0 |
Aug 23 |
| TOTAL STATES ON |
*31
|
*24
|
*5
|
*21
|
3
|
-- | ||
An asterisk (*) means
the entry has changed since the last issue.
# means the state permits a partisan label other than "independent."
The new Louisiana law, requiring 1,000 registrants, doesn’t take effect until
2005.
On June 26, the Green Party national convention nominated David Keith Cobb of California for president, and Patricia La Marche of Maine for vice-president. The convention was in Milwaukee. La Marche was the Green nominee for Governor of Maine in 1998; she polled 6.8%.
C-SPAN broadcast the candidate debate live, but did not broadcast the roll-call vote. See page five for the two roll call votes by state. The second round was limited to candidates who declared in writing that they really wanted the nomination. Therefore, delegates who favored Ralph Nader voted "no nominee." If "no nominee" had won, then in later business the convention might have endorsed Nader. A Nader endorsement at the national convention would have let ballot-qualified state Green Parties nominate Nader. Below is a state-by-state tally.
| -- |
|
|
||||||||
|
-- |
Cobb |
Camejo |
Nader |
no nom |
NOTA |
Salzmn |
other |
Cobb |
no nom |
other |
|
Ala |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Az |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
Ark |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cal |
13 |
83 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
12 |
2 |
35 |
90 |
7 |
|
Colo |
16 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
17 |
5 |
0 |
|
Ct |
4 |
1 |
7 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
8 |
0 |
|
Del |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
|
DC |
6 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
0 |
|
Fla |
2 |
1 |
8 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
3 |
20 |
1 |
|
Ga |
11 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hi |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
|
Id |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
Ill |
9 |
5 |
2.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1 |
1.5 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
|
Ind |
5 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
3 |
0 |
|
Iowa |
7 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
|
Kan |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
La |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Me |
7 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
1 |
0 |
|
Md |
5 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
|
Mass |
9 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
14 |
10 |
8 |
18 |
|
Mich |
8 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
11 |
14 |
7 |
|
Minn |
9 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
18 |
10 |
0 |
|
Miss |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
Mo |
6 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
|
Mont |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
|
Neb |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nev |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
|
NJ |
4 |
0 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
NM |
2.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6.5 |
4 |
6 |
0 |
|
NY |
8 |
2 |
26 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
8 |
34 |
2 |
|
No C |
8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
|
Ohio |
9 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
12 |
4 |
6 |
|
Okla |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Ore |
14 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
17 |
2 |
0 |
|
Pa |
16 |
0 |
12 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
19 |
1 |
|
RI |
6 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
|
So C |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Tenn |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
Tex |
25 |
0.5 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
.5 |
34 |
1 |
0 |
|
Utah |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
Vt |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
|
Va |
1.5 |
0.5 |
1 |
0 |
2.5 |
1 |
1.5 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
|
Wash |
10 |
0 |
7 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
9 |
0 |
|
Wis |
25 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
31 |
1 |
1 |
|
TOT |
308 |
119 |
117.5 |
74.5 |
42 |
40 |
68 |
408 |
308 |
55 |
In the first round, the "other" vote was Mesplay 24, Beemon 14, Miller 9.5, Kucinich 9, Glover 5.5, Farley 3, Bilyeu 2, Debs 1. In the second round, the "other" vote was Mesplay 43, Beemon 8, abstain 4. The seven states not mentioned sent no delegates.
On June 25, the Constitution Party chose Michael Peroutka of Maryland for president. The next day, it chose Charles Baldwin of Florida for vice-president. Peroutka is an attorney and Baldwin is a minister. Neither has run for office before. They were both nominated unanimously. The national convention was in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. C-SPAN carried Peroutka’s nominating speech.
Although the Socialist Workers Party had nominated Roger Calero for president in June, ballots will show that the Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate is James Harris. Calero is not a U.S. citizen, although he is a resident, so Calero cannot be placed on the ballot in most states. Harris was the party’s presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. The Socialist Workers Party national ticket will apparently be on the ballot in more states than the national tickets of any of the other socialist parties running this year. The other socialist tickets this year are those of the Socialist, Socialist Equality, and Workers World Parties.
D.C. FINALLY COUNTS GREEN WRITE-INS
The District of Columbia has counted write-in votes in the January presidential Green Party primary. The results: Dennis Kucinich 37, Al Sharpton 24, Howard Dean 22, Ralph Nader 13, Carol Moseley Braun 3, Peter Camejo 2.
The New York Independence Party organization in Staten Island has changed it by-laws, to provide that registered independents can vote in its primary for all partisan offices. This is beyond what the state party has done, which is to let independent voters vote only in statewide primaries.
Here is a .pdf file showing what the San Francisco’s Instant-Runoff ballot for city office will look like this November.
BOTH PROHIBITION PARTY TICKETS ON IN COLORADO
Both Prohibition Party tickets are on in Colorado. Earl Dodge has the "Prohibition" label; Gene Amondson has "Concerns of People." Neither is on anywhere else.
North Carolina: on July 20, First District voters filled a vacancy on Congress. Butterfield, Dem., 71.0%; Dority, Rep., 27.2%; Eisenmenger, Lib’t, 1.8%. In 2002 the same district had voted 63.7% Dem., 34.8% Rep., 1.4% Lib’t.
Minnesota: on July 13, in State Senate district 37, the vote was Gerlach, Republican, 59.0%; Hamann-Roland, Independence Party, 40.9%. In November 2002 the vote had been Republican 60.9%, Democratic 39.1%.
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 don’t 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!