West Virginia Bill Passes

April 15th, 2005

On April 9, HB 3002 passed the legislature. Among other election law changes, it deletes provisions held unconstitutional in 2003 that required circulators to tell people that if they sign a petition for a minor party or independent candidate, they can’t vote in that year’s primary.



Campaign Finance Institute Recommends Removing Caps on Contributions for Presidential Ballot Access

April 15th, 2005

On April 15, the Campaign Finance Institute released a set of recommendations for altering federal campaign finance. Included is a recommendation that individual campaign contributions to minor party and independent presidential candidates, for the purpose of ballot access, should not be limited. Under current law, individual contributions to federal candidates are limited to $2,150.

North Dakota Bill Signed Into Law

April 15th, 2005

On April 12, HB 1433 was signed into law by North Dakota’s Governor. It makes it easier for a party to remain on the ballot.

California, Alaska Release New Registration Data

April 7th, 2005

On April 7, California’s Secretary of State released registration totals for each party as of Feb. 10, 2005. The chart below compares each party’s share of the total, versus each party’s share of the registration at the last tally (October 2004).

Party

Oct. 2004 share of Registration

Feb. 2005 share of Registration

Democratic

43.00%

43.04%

Republican

34.70%

34.49%

Am. Indp. (Constitution)

1.97%

1.99%
Green
.97%
.95%

Libertarian

.54%

.54%

Peace & Freedom

.41%

.40%

Natural Law

.17%

.17%

Indp. & other

18.22%

18.43%

Alaska releases new registration data each month. Between March 2005 and April 2005, no party’s state total changed by as much as 150, except the Libertarians gained 412, due to their ongoing voter registration drive. They now have 8,646. If HB 94 passes, any party that didn’t poll as much as 3% of the vote for any statewide race will need 9,648 registrants.

Georgia Ballot Access Bill Introduced

April 6th, 2005

On March 31, 5 Georgia state representatives introduced HB 927. It would improve Georgia ballot access. Although it was introduced too late in the session to advance this year, it can advance next year, since Georgia has a 2-year legislative session.

HB 927 is sponsored by 4 Republicans (David Ralston, Ronald Forster, Robert Franklin and Burke Day), and one Democrat (William Mitchell). It lowers all district and county petitions from 5% of the number of registered voters, to 2% of the last vote cast.

It has no effect on the number of signatures now needed to create a new, ballot-qualified statewide party.

It actually makes ballot access somewhat more difficult for statewide candidate petitions in presidential election years (but slightly easier in gubernatorial election years), by changing their petitions from 1% of the number of registered voters to 2% of the last vote cast for that office.

Yale Law Journal Publishes Valuable Article

April 5th, 2005

The Yale Law Journal, vol. 114, #5, March 2005, carries an article “Judging Partisan Gerrymanders Under the Elections Clause” by Jamal Greene.

In 2001, the US Supreme Court struck down a Missouri law that said opponents of congressional term limits should have a label printed on the ballot, indicating that they had oppose that proposed constitutional amendment. That case, Cook v Gralike, said Article 1, sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution (the “Elections Clause”) forbids the states from discriminating for or against any class of candidates for Congress.

The Yale Law Journal article is focused on Cook v Gralike. This particular article says that under the Cook v Gralike theory, partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. That’s an interesting idea in its own right. The article looks into British history, and U.S. colonial history, to support its thesis.

When Cook v Gralike was decided in 2001, B.A.N. argued that the theory behind Cook v Gralike could also be used to overturn severe ballot access requirements for congress (see March 1, 2001 B.A.N.). Unfortunately, Cook v Gralike has been ignored, ever since it was written. The Yale Law Journal article may cause more judges and attorneys to think about Cook v Gralike.

Montana Initiative Petition Victory

April 1st, 2005

On March 28, a US District Court ruled the county distribution requirement for initiatives in Montana to be void. Montana Public Interest Research Group v Brown, cv03-183-M. The decision was no surprise. Ever since 2000, when the US Supreme Court issued Bush v Gore, lower courts have been ruling that county distribution requirements for statewide petitions of all kinds are unconstitutional. Requiring a certain number of signatures from each county gives more power to voters in low-population counties than in urban counties.

The only state that still has a county distribution requirement for candidate petitions is Pennsylvania, which imposes them on candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot for statewide state office.

Connecticut Bill Advances

April 1st, 2005

SB 1233, to set up a procedure by which a group can turn itself into a qualified party, passed the Connecticut Joint Administration and Election Committee on March 31. If the bill becomes law, a group that submits a petition signed by 1% of the last vote cast (currently 15,788 signatures) could then nominate by convention for any partisan office it wished, without further petitioning. The petition also has a distribution requirement.

Next Entries »

 

  

Paper Issues:

Blog Archives Syndication

Subscribe to Ballot Access News via PayPal. Subscriptions are $15 for 12 issues a year ($20 foreign). Additional donations are welcome.

Subscribe to Ballot Access News via PayPal.
If you use your credit card to pay via PayPal, use this button.
New Feature:
Search Ballot Access News

Search ballot-access.org
Search WWW

 
Access to this site is free. Your donations support this site and the activities of Richard Winger in lobbying for free and open elections.

To subscribe via mail, click here and print out the form to mail.

Welcome to the OFFICIAL online home of Ballot Access News, a non-partisan newsletter reporting on the trials and tribulations of folks trying to put candidates on the ballot in the United States of America. There are many surprisingly restrictive ballot access laws in this country, which the average voter has no knowledge or conception of; part of our purpose here (besides reporting on progress made) is to report on these restrictive ballot access laws so that more people are aware of them. I hope you find these materials interesting and exciting; if you do, you can support the newsletter by subscribing!

Ballot Access News is edited and published by Richard Winger, the nation's leading expert on ballot access legal issues.

Issues available:

2008:

2007:

2006:

2005:

2004:

2003:

2002:

2001:

2000:

1999:

1998:

1997:

1996:

1995:

1994:

1993:

  • 1993 Issues not yet available online

Essays by Richard Winger:

Additional articles/essays:

  • Politics, Soviet-style by S. Philip Gordon, regarding recent ballot access issues in Georgia – the US state, not the Russian territority!

Extra Features:

Other information:

  • Here's how to subscribe to Ballot Access News!

  • Here's information on Presidential Ballot Access as well as the vote totals of recent Presidential elections.

  • Here are some other sites which may also be of interest:

    Project Vote-Smart

    Project Vote Smart is a citizens' organization dedicated to serving all Americans with accurate and unbiased information for electoral decision-making. It was inaugerated in 1992 by former US Presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and other leaders. Its webpage offers information about all ballot-listed candidates for all federal and state office.
    [Added:040729]

    The ACE Project
    An interesting site concerning itself with the "Administration and Cost of Elections", including issues of fairness and regulatory approaches in various countries. They seem to be almost blind to the ways that third parties in the USA are harmed by campaign finance rules crafted for the problems characteristic of the larger parties, or the ways that third parties would be disenfranchised by various proposed rules, but this is nevertheless a useful resource, particularly for the international comparisons it makes.
    [Added:001206]

    "Unofficial" B.A.N. Page

    At first, it looks like there's not much here. But then you follow the "Charts" link, and click on one of the listed candidates, and you'll get some truly wonderful nationwide maps of voting patterns.
    [Checked:991014]

    ThirdPartyNews.net

    A site that covers news about minor parties.
    [Checked:060414]

    Third Party Central

    Collects lots of good information and links relating to various third parties into one convenient location. Nice set of writings on why one should vote third-party.
    [Checked:991014]

    Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

    A surprisingly complete listing of votes cast in Presidential elections, including numerous third-party candidates and nice maps of vote distribution by state and (on the individual state pages) by county.
    [New-URL:010309]

    D.C.'s Political Report

    Very good presentation of candidate and party information, including virtually every known third-party group in the USA. Election results, candidate information, etc.
    [Updated:991214]

    Initiative For Texas

    A group trying to establish the right to Initiative and Referendum in Texas. Their work has intriguing parallels and overlaps with ballot access work. Every page at the site seems to have some music on it, which can get annoying after awhile, but otherwise it's an interesting site.
    [Checked:991014]

    Center for Voting and Democracy

    Folks concerned with alternative voting systems, and related issues, from a moderately leftist perspective. Useful articles describing how better systems of voting and electing actually work.
    [Added:000823]

The newsletter is published by and copyright by Richard Winger.