Comments on: Old News, But Newly Noticed (Vermont & South Dakota) http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/09/21/old-news-but-newly-noticed-vermont-south-dakota/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:34:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=469 By: Steve Moyer http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/09/21/old-news-but-newly-noticed-vermont-south-dakota/comment-page-1/#comment-16754 Steve Moyer Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:35:53 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/09/21/old-news-but-newly-noticed-vermont-south-dakota/#comment-16754 I think you have the wrong information. It used to be 500 signatures, not 1000, to run for U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Reps. My understanding is that this was done for the benefit of Bernie Sanders who is running as an independent. Another little tidbit about Vermont ballot petitions. NONE of the signatures are verified. Only the names on the petitions are checked to see if they are registered voters and only for independent candidates, not primary ( party ) candidates. How can you have a valid signature on a petition if the signature is not checked against the file copy? All they check are the names. I think you have the wrong information. It used to be 500 signatures, not 1000, to run for U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Reps. My understanding is that
this was done for the benefit of Bernie Sanders who
is running as an independent.

Another little tidbit about Vermont ballot petitions.
NONE of the signatures are verified. Only the names on the petitions are checked to see if they are registered voters and only for independent candidates, not primary ( party ) candidates.

How can you have a valid signature on a petition if the signature is not checked against the file copy? All they check are the names.

]]>