WILL OREGON IMPOSE A PRIMARY SCREEN-OUT ON INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE PETITIONS?

Some Oregon legislators seemed determined to pass HB 2614, which would make it illegal for someone who voted in the primary to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The bill passed the Senate Rules Committee on June 20, by a vote of 3-2, on a party line vote, with both Republicans voting "no".

The motive for the bill is anger that Ralph Nader even tried to get on the Oregon ballot last year as an independent candidate. Even though he failed to qualify in Oregon, the very idea that he tried seems to enrage some legislators. HB 2614 only makes independent candidate ballot access harder; it does not affect petitions to create new parties, and that is a clue as to the motivation of the bill’s sponsors.

In the past, many states had laws that made it illegal for primary voters to sign a petition for an independent candidate or for a new party. But all of these laws have been repealed, except for Texas’ law (also, Nebraska still doesn’t let primary voters sign for an independent presidential candidate, but Nebraska primary voters can sign for new parties and for non-presidential independent candidates).

States that have repealed the primary screen-out are Arizona in 1993, California in 1976, Colorado in 1975, Illinois in 1975, New York in 1984, Rhode Island in 1976, Washington in 1977, and West Virginia in 1999. These laws are a headache to administer. When petitions must be checked, it isn’t enough to see if the signer is registered; elections officials must also check to see if the voter voted in the primary.

Federal courts have ruled in seven cases that it is unconstitutional for a state to make it substantially more difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot, than for an entire new party to get on the ballot.

If the purpose of restrictive ballot access laws is to keep the ballot from being too crowded, it makes no sense to have more difficult barriers for a single independent candidate than for a new party. This is because when a new party qualifies, it potentially may run a nominee for every partisan office in the state. That activity has a far greater impact on ballot-crowding than a single independent candidate.

Since the number of signatures in Oregon for a new party and an independent candidate are almost exactly the same, and since the deadline is the same, Oregon now makes ballot access for new parties and independent candidates equally difficult. But HB 2614 upsets that. By imposing a primary screen-out on independent candidates, but not on new minor party petitions, Oregon places itself in legal jeopardy for discriminating against independent candidates, relative to minor parties.

When HB 2614 was introduced, it was more severe. It said that no registered member of a qualified party could sign an independent petition. However, when the sponsors realized that a similar law had been declared unconstitutional in a 1999 federal court decision in Arizona (Campbell v Hull), they amended the bill to provide that primary voters can’t sign for an independent candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’ primary screen-out law in 1974 (American Party of Texas v White). However, Texas applied the primary screen-out to both new party and independent candidate petitions.

At the hearing on HB 2614 in the Senate Rules Committee on June 14, a witness pointed out that seven federal courts, plus a State Supreme Court, had all ruled that states may not make it more difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot, than a new party.

However, only two of the five Senators on the Committee were present to hear that witness. Neither of those two Senators voted for HB 2614 when it passed that Committee on June 20. The only three Senators who voted for the bill on June 20 were those Senators who had not heard the testimony.

Another flaw in the bill is that Oregon has no law telling independent candidates when they may begin to circulate their petitions. Oregon’s primary is in late May. The bill doesn’t explain how to handle the situation in which a voter signs an independent candidate petition before voting in the primary.

The bill’s two sponsors, Rep. Derrick Kitts and Rep. Mary Nolan, say that they are guided by the principle that no voter should be allowed to nominate more than a single nominee for the same office. However, Oregon law explicitly permits voters to sign as many independent candidate petitions as they wish, even if the independent candidates are running for the same office. HB 2614 does not seek to amend this law, even though the sponsors are aware of the law. Nor does the bill prohibit any voter from signing as many primary nominating petitions for the same office as the voter wishes to sign, a practice that is currently legal.

The bill could receive a vote in the Senate at any time. If it passes, it then will get a House vote. If you live in Oregon, or if you have any association with any Oregon legislator, please ask that HB 2614 be defeated. See www.leg.state.or.us for a list of Oregon legislators. Point out that Oregon already has more difficult ballot access for independent candidates than the average state. Only one statewide independent candidate (Pat Buchanan in 2000) has qualified in Oregon since 1991.

Since the June 1 B.A.N., ballot access bills in five states have advanced:

Florida: HB 1567, which defines "national political party" to be a party on the ballot in at least one state besides Florida, was signed on June 20. Such parties may place their presidential nominee on the ballot with no petition and no fee. If this bill had been in place last year, the Reform Party probably would not have needed to win a lawsuit to place Ralph Nader on the ballot.

Illinois: HB 1968 passed the legislature on May 28. It lowers the number of signatures to get on the ballot for Mayor of Chicago (and the other two citywide offices, City Clerk and Treasurer) from 25,000 signatures, to 12,500 signatures.

Minnesota: HF 1481, which adds a new way for a group to attain or keep "qualified party" status, was signed on June 3.

Nevada: AB 455, which gives parties more flexibility as to whom they can nominate, was signed into law on June 13. It also moves the primary from September to August, although it does not affect the dates of minor party conventions.

North Carolina: there are two bills to lower the number of signatures for statewide independent candidates. H1115, backed by the Board of Elections, passed the House on May 17. It lowers the number from 2% of the registered voters, to 2% of the last vote cast. The better bill, H88, which lowers it to one-half of 1% of the last vote cast, has not made any headway since April, but could still pass.

Two other ballot access bills awaiting a Governor’s signature are HB 94 in Alaska, and HB525 in Missouri.

North Carolina: on May 18, HB 1024 passed the House. It lets ten counties try Instant-Runoff voting.

Vermont: on May 12, H505 was signed into law. It allows Burlington, the largest city in the state, to use IRV in Mayoral elections.

On June 1, Colorado Governor Bill Owens vetoed HB 1147, which would have made it legal for any adult resident of the state to circulate any type of petition. The Governor didn’t like the fact that the bill repeals the law saying that circulators must wear a badge, saying if they are being paid or not.

One consequence of the veto is that it is still illegal in Colorado for a circulator (for a candidate petition) to work outside his or her home district. Last year, a circulator who wanted to help get a legislative candidate onto the Democratic primary ballot sued against this restriction. The lawsuit had been on hold, but now that the bill has been vetoed, the lawsuit will move ahead. Koehler v Davidson, 04B-1377, U.S. Dist. Court.

Governor Owens signed SB206 on June 6. It moves the deadline for an independent presidential candidate to file, from July to June. As far as is known, this is the only restrictive ballot access bill so far that has been signed into law in any state this year.

Arizona: the legislature adjourned without passing SB 1228, which would have lowered the number of signatures for a new party in mid-term years.

Connecticut: the legislature adjourned without passing SB 1233, which would have set up a procedure for a group to turn itself into a qualified party, in advance of an election.

Texas: the legislature adjourned without passing HB 1721, which would have let primary voters sign minor party and independent candidate petitions.

The only state that has moved the date of its presidential primary so far this year is Arkansas. SB235 was signed into law on March 2, and it moves the primary from May to February. Bills to move New Jersey’s June primary to February are likely to pass this year.

California: on June 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he will not sign any bill to legalize write-ins in which the voter forgot to "x" the box next to the name written in. These bills are SB 1050 and AB 43. The author of SB 1050, Senator Debra Bowen, expects to pass her bill anyway, and hope that either the Governor changes his mind, or that his veto can be overridden.

Louisiana: on June 21, the legislature passed SB 53. It retains the state’s unique "top-two" system for congressional elections. The only change it makes is that the first round of congressional elections would be in late September, and if no one gets 50%, a run-off would be held in November. Current practice is to hold the first round in November, and any needed run-off is in December. In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the September-November system violates the federal law that tells the states to hold their congressional elections in November. If the Governor signs SB 53, the state will need to persuade federal judge Frank Polozola to lift his injunction against the September-November system.

Maine: the legislature went home without passing LD 329, but the bill is alive and legislative leaders have promised to bring it up the next time the legislature meets. The Governor may call a special session soon. LD 329 makes it easier for a party to gain and retain "qualified" status.

Ohio: HB 3, the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill, has a provision to let voters register into particular parties on the voter registration form. It passed the House on May 17 but the Senate won’t take it up until September or later.

Oregon: on May 20, SB 161 passed the State Senate by 20-10. It would make state elections non-partisan. However, the bill is not expected to pass the House.

Pennsylvania: a bill is being drafted to ease ballot access, in accordance with the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Election Code Revision.

Although many bills of interest have been introduced in Congress this year, only two of them seem to be advancing.

Special elections for U.S. House: earlier this year, Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) pushed HR841 through the House. It requires the states to hold special elections for U.S. House within 7 weeks of any event that causes the death of at least 100 members of the House. However, the U.S. Senate seemed disinclined to pass HR 841. Now, Congressman Sensenbrenner has amended the contents of his bill into HR 334. HR 334 is a bill that funds Congress’ operations, and is considered a "must-pass" bill. Sensenbrenner’s maneuver passed by a vote of 268-143.

Campaign finance: HR 1316 passed the House Administration Committee on June 8, and will probably receive a vote on the House floor this month. It makes it possible for a big donor to give large amounts of money to political parties, as long as the money is distributed to many different units of the party. Congressmen Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Albert Wynn (D-Md.) are the prime co-sponsors.

Kentucky: the Secretary of State is revamping the voter registration records, so that soon tallies will be available for the number of voters who are registered in various unqualified parties, as well as the number of independent voters.

New Jersey: the state Elections Department has finally stopped labeling all the minor party candidates as "independents" in the official election returns. The new format, in effect for the 2005 state elections, simply labels each minor party candidate with his or her ballot label. The importance of this is that national publications that gather election returns for each party had been classifying all the minor party candidates in New Jersey as independent candidates. This bad practice will now stop.

New Mexico: the Secretary of State ruled on June 2 that the Libertarian Party is not a qualified party, even though she had said back in February that it is. The law is worded badly. Some interpret it to mean that a party remains on until it runs for both Governor and President and fails to poll as much as one-half of 1% in both races. Others interpret it to mean that if it fails to poll one-half of 1% in either race, it is disqualified. The party did not run for Governor in 2002, but ran for president in 2004 and only polled .31%.

On June 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, reversed the lower court and said the Federal Election Commission need not investigate the Commission on Presidential Debates to see if it is biased against minor party and independent presidential candidates. The opinion is short and mostly concerns whether federal agencies like the FEC enjoy deference from the courts. Hagelin v FEC, no. 04-5312.

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections now has a web site, www.cofoe.org. Since the site is new, it isn’t too extensive yet.

Green Party Tempest, Weathering the Storm of 2004, by Greg Gerritt, 60 pages, $12.00, published 2005 by Moshassuck River Press, 37 Sixth St., Providence RI 02906.

This book tells the story of the Green Party in 2003-2004. It describes the party’s national convention in June from an insider’s perspective, since the author is a veteran party leader who was involved in planning and running that convention.

Even though the author is a long-standing activist in the Green Party, he does not hesitate to criticize the party, and he has some interesting ideas about why Greens sometimes have a difficult time getting along with each other.

On the Ballot in Louisiana, Running for President to Fight National Decay, by Bill McGaughey, 399 pages, $16.95, published 2004 by Thistlerose Publications, 1702 Glenwood Av., Minneapolis Mn. 55405.

The book is a first-person account of what it is like to declare oneself a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, and then to seek that nomination, if one is extremely motivated, yet has little fame or money.

The author, Bill McGaughey, ran in the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary. He visited 60 towns in his quest to maximize his vote total and to advance his ideas.

The book is funny, because anyone who sets out to run for president with no name recognition and little money, but with some cleverness and a lot of determination, invariably has funny experiences. McGaughey is a good writer, and he freely describes his own mishaps and mistakes. The best parts of the book describe his interactions with newspaper reporters and editorial writers. He polled 3,161 votes in the Louisiana primary, outpolling Dennis Kucinich and Lyndon LaRouche.

The chart on page four shows the most crowded presidential primary ballot that each state has ever experienced. This chart supplements the chart contained in the September 1, 2001 Ballot Access News, which shows the most crowded statewide regularly-scheduled general election ballot that any state has ever experienced.

When one examines both charts, one may deduce a law of behavior. If a state requires as few as 5,000 signatures, it will never experience a crowded ballot. In this case, "crowded ballot" is defined as one with more than nine candidates for a single office on the ballot. There are no instances, in either presidential primaries, or in any general elections, where a state with a requirement of 5,000 signatures (or more) had a race with more than nine candidates.

Alabama	1988	9 in Democratic primary	500 signatures + $2,000
Arizona	1996	20 in Republican primary	Just request to be on ballot
Arkansas	1988	10 in Democratic primary	Pay $5,000
California	2000	23 in blanket primary	Be mentioned in news media
Colorado	1992	18 in Democratic primary	Pay $500
Connecticut	1996	10 in Republican primary	Be mentioned in news media
Delaware	2004	9 in Democratic primary	Matching funds or 500 sigs.
District of Columbia	2004	11 in Democratic primary	Just request to be on ballot
Florida	1976	13 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Georgia	1976	17 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Idaho	1976	8 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Illinois	2004	9 in Democratic primary	3,000 signatures
Indiana	2004	6 in Democratic primary	5,000 signatures
Kansas	1980	13 in Republican primary	Pay $100
Kentucky	1988	11 in Democratic primary	Just request to be on ballot
Louisiana	1992	15 in Democratic primary	Pay $750
Maine	1996	9 in Republican primary	Pay $2,500
Maryland	2004	12 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Massachusetts	1976	13 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Michigan	1996	10 in Republican primary	Be mentioned in news media
Minnesota	1992	16 in Democratic primary	Pay $500
Mississippi	1996	11 in Republican primary	Be mentioned in news media
Missouri	1988	13 in Democratic primary	Pay $1,000
Montana	2004	6 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Nebraska	1976	11 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Nevada	1996	12 in Republican primary	Pay $1,000
New Hampshire	1992	36 in Democratic primary	Pay $1,000
New Jersey	1976	10 in Democratic primary	1,000 signatures
New Mexico	1996	8 in Republican primary	Be mentioned in news media
New York	2004	9 in Democratic primary	5,000 signatures
North Carolina	1984	9 in Democratic primary	Receive matching funds
North Dakota	1996	8 in Republican primary	Party approval or 300 sigs.
Ohio	1988	8 in Democratic primary	1,000 signatures
Oklahoma	1988	12 in Democratic primary	Pay $2,500
Oregon	1972	11 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Pennsylvania	1984	10 in Democratic primary	1,000 signatures
Rhode Island	1992	16 in Democratic primary	Just request to be on ballot
South Carolina	1992	11 in Democratic primary	Pay $2,500
South Dakota	1996	8 in Republican primary	Party approval or 1% pet.
Tennessee	2004	11 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media
Texas	1996	12 in Republican primary	Pay $5,000
Utah	2004	8 in Democratic primary	Pay $500 + party approval
Vermont	1996	7 in Republican primary	$2,000 + 1,000 signatures
Virginia	2004	9 in Democratic primary	10,000 signatures
Washington	1996	10 in blanket primary	Be mentioned in news media
West Virginia	1988	12 in Democratic primary	Pay $2,000
Wisconsin	1972	13 in Democratic primary	Be mentioned in news media

This chart identifies each state's most crowded presidential primary election ballot. See page 3 for more explanation. The four states not mentioned above (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Wyoming) never held a presidential primary.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED					Deadline
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	NAT LAW	REFORM
Alabama	41,012	41,012	1,200	0	0	0	0	in court
Alaska	(reg) 9,258	#3,128	already on	in court	0	0	0	Aug. 22
Ariz.	26,835	est. #20,000	already on	0	0	0	0	June 14
Arkansas	10,000	10,000	*400	0	0	0	0	May 1
Calif.	(reg) 77,389	165,573	already on	already on	already on	already on	39,328	Aug. 11
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	534	337	July 10
Connecticut	no procedure	#7,500	already on	0	already on	0	0	Aug. 11
Delaware	est. (reg) 280	est. 5,600	already on	already on	already on	257	211	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	est. #3,800	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug. 30
Florida	be organized	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 18
Georgia	42,676	#42,676	already on	0	0	0	0	July 11
Hawaii	648	25	already on	already on	0	already on	0	July 25
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	0	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	June 26
Indiana	no procedure	#29,553	already on	*4,000	0	0	0	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	0	Aug. 18
Kansas	16,477	5,000	already on	0	0	0	already on	July 31
Kentucky	no procedure	#2,400	0	0	0	0	0	Aug. 8
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay fee	already on	virtual on	47	20	*already on	Sep. 7
Maine	24,798	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	0	May 25
Maryland	10,000	est. 29,400	already on	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 7
Mass.	est. (reg) 41,000	#10,000	23,900	9,509	56	44	1,168	Aug. 1
Michigan	31,731	31,731	already on	already on	already on	already on	0	July 20
Minnesota	141,420	#2,000	0	0	0	0	0	July 18
Mississippi	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	April 7
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	0	0	0	July 31
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	0	*550	0	0	May 30
Nebraska	4,735	2,500	300	*3,500	0	0	0	Aug. 29
Nevada	7,915	7,915	already on	0	already on	0	0	July 7
New Hamp.	20,299	#3,000	0	0	0	0	0	Aug. 9
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	0	June 6
New Mex.	3,782	14,079	*50	already on	already on	0	0	July 11
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug. 22
No. Car.	69,734	law is void	25,200	8,900	0	0	0	June 30
No. Dakota	7,000	1,000	0	0	0	0	0	Sep. 8
Ohio	56,280	5,000	in court	0	0	0	0	May 1
Oklahoma	73,188	pay fee	in court	0	0	0	0	June 21
Oregon	18,381	18,356	already on	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 29
Penn.	no procedure	#66,827	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	21,815	#1,000	can't start	can’t start	can't start	can't start	can't start	July 20
So. Caro.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	already on	July 15
So. Dakota	8,364	#3,346	already on	0	already on	0	0	*June 6
Tennessee	41,314	25	0	0	0	0	0	April 6
Texas	45,253	45,253	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	May 11
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	*1,800	already on	0	0	Mar. 17
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	0	0	0	Sep. 21
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	June 13
Washington	no procedure	*in court	can’t start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	July 7
West Va.	no procedure	#8,724	0	0	0	0	0	May 8
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	0	0	July 11
Wyoming	4,774	4,774	already on	0	0	0	0	Aug. 28
TOTAL STATES ON			*27	15	16	6	*5	-

3 states (Ky., La., N.C.) have no statewide race, so chart shows requirement for a party to run a full slate for U.S. House.
*change since the June 1 chart.
#partisan label is permitted (other than "indp.").
"Deadline" means the procedure with the latest deadline.

Virginia is one of two states that elects its governor and state legislature this year. Three candidates are on the ballot for Governor: independent H. Russell Potts, Jr. (a Republican State Senator), Republican nominee Jerry Kilgore, and Democratic nominee Tim Kaine. Kilgore has already announced that he will not participate in any debate if Potts is invited; by contrast, Kaine favors 3-person debates.

In legislative races, the only minor parties with any nominees are the Libertarian Party, which has five nominees, and the Constitution Party, which has one nominee.

New Jersey, the other state electing a governor this year, has ten candidates on the ballot. They are the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, and Socialist Workers Parties, and four independents.

In legislative races, Greens have ten nominees, Libertarians have seven, and the Socialist Party has three. Also, each of these parties has one legislative nominee: Constitution, Conservative and Socialist Workers.

The June 1 Ballot Access News listed elections won by minor party members during May, but failed to include Libertarian Oregon results. On May 17, these Libertarians were elected: Charles Radley, Tigard Water Board; Marty Soehrman, Colton School Board; and these six to various School Committees in Beaverton: Christi Feldewerth, Inessa Hamilton-Lee, Christianna Mayer, Adam Mayer, Stephen Pearson, and Greg Rohde.

Ohio will hold a special congressional election in the 2^nd district on August 2. The only candidates who will be on the ballot are Republican Jean Schmidt and Democrat Paul Hackett. The district comprises eastern Cincinnati.

In April, members of the Reform Party’s national committee called a national convention, which was held June 3-5 in Tampa, Florida. Thirteen state parties sent delegates, and two other state parties sent observers. Forty-five persons attended. The convention adopted a new party constitution. Pursuant to the new constitution, the national committee elected new officers. They include chair Charles Foster of Texas, treasurer Beverly Kennedy of Texas, and assistant treasurer Sue Harris DeBauche of Virginia.

The old national party officers do not recognize the Tampa convention, and are planning their own national convention in October; the city has not yet been chosen. On June 23, the new party officers won control of the web page www.reformparty.org.

In November 2001, James Hedges of Fulton County, Pennsylvania became the first Prohibition Party candidate to win a partisan election since 1959. Hedges is running for a second term this year. Earlier this year he qualified by petition as the Prohibition nominee for Assessor of Thompson Township. Then on May 17, via write-ins, he won the Democratic and Republican primaries for the same office.

New York city Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who is running for re-election this year as a Republican, received the nomination of the Independence Party on May 28. Assuming he wins the Republican primary in September, he will then be listed on the November ballot as the nominee of each of those two parties. Bloomberg had also been the nominee of those two parties in November 2001.

The Liberal Party of New York was a ballot-qualified party 1946 through 2002. It is still organized, and it has indicated it intends to also nominate Bloomberg. However, in order for Bloomberg to appear on the ballot as the Liberal Party nominee, the Liberal Party must submit a petition of 7,500 names by August 23.

---

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.