Ohio Ballot Labels Bill to be Introduced Soon

June 25th, 2006

Ohio state representative Jim Trakas has promised to introduce a bill in the next 10 days to let petitioning candidates choose a partisan label, to be placed on the November ballot next to the name of that candidate. A slight majority of other states already have such a law. These laws typically require that the label be no longer than 3 words, and not mimic the name of a fully-qualified party.

Since virtually all minor parties in Ohio place their nominees on the November ballot by petition, this bill, if passed, would make a huge improvement in Ohio ballot access laws for minor parties. Ohio law permitted such labels between 1891 and 1947. The label was repealed at the same time that the Ohio legislature made other hostile changes, such as eliminating write-ins, eliminating procedures for independent presidential candidates, and sharply increasing the number of signatures needed for independent candidates.

Representative Trakas is a Republican from Cuyahoga County.



Anti-Electoral College Bills

June 22nd, 2006

The only “National Popular Vote” bills that have already been introduced, and that could still pass this year, are California’s AB 2948, and New York’s AB 11563. The Louisiana bill failed to pass before the legislature went home for the year. The California bill has a hearing in the State Senate Elections Committee on June 28. Bills will probably be introduced in Pennsylvania and Ohio this year, and in most states in 2007.

Federal Court Hearing (on whether Congressman DeLay may withdraw) Set for June 26

June 22nd, 2006

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks will hold a hearing at 9:30 am, Monday, June 26, in Austin, Texas, in Democratic Party of Texas v Benkiser. The issue is whether Tom DeLay is ineligible to run for re-election. DeLay won the March 2006 Republican primary for US House, 22nd district. After the primary, he sought to withdraw. If he withdraws, the Republican Party may choose a new nominee. However, Texas law does not permit anyone to withdraw unless there is a public record proving that the candidate is ineligible.

Texas election officials accepted DeLay’s withdrawal, because he said that he had moved out of Texas and become a resident of Virginia. However, the Democratic Party sued elections officials, saying that DeLay may not withdraw because there is no public record that he is ineligible. Article One of the U.S. Constitution says that members of Congress must be residents of the state they are representing “when elected” (which would be November 2006). Furthermore, the Constitution says that each house of Congress shall be the sole judge of who is validly elected to that house. Courts and state officials have no voice in the matter.

The Democratic lawsuit was originally filed in state court, but the Republican Party successfully intervened to get the case moved into federal court.

Texas Independent Gubernatorial Candidates on Ballot

June 22nd, 2006

On June 22, the Texas Secretary of State said both Kinky Friedman and Carole Strayhorn are on the November ballot. The news was no surprise, since they each turned in four or five times the legal requirement. It took the Secretary of State six weeks to examine the signatures.

Alaska Elections Department Will Try to Show that Alaska Greens are not a “Real” Party

June 22nd, 2006

Ever since 2004, the Alaska Green Party has been in state court, arguing that the state’s definition of “party” is too stringent. As the case moves toward a trial, the state has asked the party to provide this information: (1) how many members of the Green Party are voter registrars; (2) what efforts the party has made to increase its registration; (3) how many people have attended its state conventions; (4) how many regional conventions it has held; (5) a list of all political activity the party has engaged in over the past 15 years; (6) how much money the party has raised in each year since 1996; (7) the physical address of the party’s office ever since 1990, and the phone numbers of such offices. There are other questions as well. The state also wants to see a copy of each mailing the party has made to its members over the last 10 years.

It is obvious that the state is attempting to show that the Alaska Green Party is not a “real” political party. Similar attempts were made in court in Florida in 2004 against the Reform Party, and in Arkansas in 1996 against the Reform Party. However, the Reform Party won both lawsuits.

Pennsylvania Government Files Defense of State’s Ballot Access Law

June 21st, 2006

On June 20, the state of Pennsylvania filed its brief in the pending 3rd circuit ballot access case, Rogers v Cortes, 06-2241.

The minor parties’ strongest argument is that since they already meet the definition of “political party” (a group that polled 2% of the highest vote-getter’s vote in the previous election), they have already proved they have a modicum of support. Therefore, as to them, the requirement for 67,000 signatures this year is redundant.

The state brief barely even acknowledges this argument. The state fails to mention the only on-point precedent, the decision of Maryland’s highest state court in 2003, which ruled that since the qualified parties of Maryland had already shown a modicum of voter support, it was unconstitutional to require them to submit petitions for their nominees.

The state argues that if the political party-plaintiff’s argument were accepted, then the state would unconstitutionally be discriminating against unqualified parties and independent candidates. This is logically unsound. It is not discrimination to give ballot access advantages to parties that have already shown they have a modicum of voter support. Indeed, all of the U.S. ballot access jurisprudence is built on this principle.

The state claims that every state has a “safe harbor”; that no petition requirement at or below 5% of the number of registered voters is vulnerable to constitutional attack. It is true that in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s ballot access laws. But since then, the Court has taken a more pragmatic approach. For example, in 1974 and again in 1977, it said that ballot access laws should be judged according to how often they are used. In 1979 it said that Illinois’ petition of 5% of the last vote cast, for Mayor of Chicago and for Cook County office, was unconstitutional, because it was obvious that it wasn’t needed.

The state also claims that a 1986 ruling of the 3rd circuit said that states may not constitutionally provide primaries to small parties. This is wholly inaccurate. The Consumer Party case struck down a ballot access law for members of small qualified parties to get on their own party’s primary ballots. In that case, the Consumer Party was entitled to its own primary, and it needed 2,000 signatures of party members for an individual to get on the Consumer Party primary (for statewide office). The Consumer Party complained that since it only had 7,000 registered members, this was too difficult. The 3rd circuit agreed with the Consumer Party.

In response, the state could have eased the number of signatures needed for a member of a small qualified party to get on his or her own primary ballot. It could have said the number of signatures is 2,000 or 5% of the party’s membership, whichever is smaller. Instead, the 1986 legislature created the present system, which treats qualified parties as though they weren’t qualified, unless they have registration of 15% of the state total (approximately 1,000,000 voters).

The plaintiff-political parties now have a chance to rebut the state’s brief. The hearing will be in mid-July.

Independence Party of N.Y. State Chair Tries to Expel 83 Activists

June 21st, 2006

The state chairman of the New York Independence Party has called hearings June 21 and June 22 to revoke the voter enrollment of least 83 members of the party. New York state law says, “The chairman of the county committee of a party with which a voter is enrolled in such county, may, upon a written complaint by an enrolled member of such party in such county and after a hearing held by him, determine that the voter is not in sympathy with the principles of such party.” All of the 83 voters are presumed by the complaining member to be political allies of Lenora Fulani.

Rare Attempt to Use North Carolina Independent Candidate Procedure

June 20th, 2006

On June 19, the chairman of the Republican Party of Durham County, North Carolina, said he will try to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Durham County District Attorney. He needs approximately 6,000 signatures, by June 30. The law requires independent candidates in district and county races to collect signatures of 4% of the number of registered voters.

The number of signatures for statewide independents was held unconstitutional in 2004, and the legislature still hasn’t written a new law for statewide independents (there are no statewide independent races in North Carolina this year anyway). But the number of signatures for district independents was not affected by the 2004 court ruling.

The independent procedure for district office is so difficult, no one has ever qualified to be on a North Carolina government-printed ballot as an independent candidate for U.S. House, ever. In the past, the state required 10% of the registered voters. Even earlier, during the years 1935-1973, independents needed a petition signed by 25% of the last vote cast.

Working Families Party of Massachusetts

June 20th, 2006

The Working Families Party of Massachusetts is about to start petitioning to get Rand Wilson on the ballot as its candidate for State Auditor. No Republican is running for that office, so it is very likely that Wilson will get more than 3% of the vote, and the Working Families Party will then be ballot-qualified in Massachusetts for 2008.

Kansas Reform Party May be Only Reform Party on Statewide Ballots this Year

June 20th, 2006

The Kansas Reform Party has nominated several candidates for statewide office and placed them on the ballot. It is possible Kansas will be the only state in November 2006 with statewide nominees for the Reform Party, although there are still other states where the deadlines haven’t passed.

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries
Next Entries » — Next Page »

 

  

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.

 

Search Ballot Access News

Loading

 
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:

2012:

2011:

2010:

2009:

2008:

2007:

2006:

2005:

2004:

2003:

2002:

2001:

2000:

1999:

1998:

1997:

1996:

1995:

1994:

1993:

1992:

1991:

1990:

1989:

1988:

1987:
   

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.