ARKANSAS 3% PARTY PETITION STRUCK DOWN

NOW, ONLY 2 STATES HAVE PETITIONS ABOVE 2.5%

On August 23, U.S. District Court Judge George Howard, Jr., struck down the Arkansas petition requirement for new parties. That law requires 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. For 2004 and 2006, it required 24,171 signatures. Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 4:06-758, e.d.

On August 25, the Secretary of State said he will not appeal. Officials of the two major parties, as well as the their gubernatorial candidates, said they are pleased that the Green Party will be on the ballot. The party’s gubernatorial candidate is Jim Lendall, who has served in the legislature for four terms, once as an independent, and three times as a Democrat.

This was the first time since July 2004 that a federal court had invalidated the number of signatures needed to get on a general election ballot. In that 2004 case, North Carolina’s statewide independent petition was struck down.

As a result of the decision, only two states have mandatory petitions to put a new party on the statewide ballot that exceed 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. They are Oklahoma (5% of the last vote cast) and Alabama (3% of the last gubernatorial vote). Lawsuits against the Alabama and Oklahoma petitions are pending, and the Arkansas decision will assist those cases.

A few additional states have petition procedures for statewide new parties that exceed 2.5%, but those procedures are not mandatory. For example, in Minnesota, a group can qualify as a party with a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast (currently 141,420 signatures). But it can also qualify by submitting 2,000 signatures for a candidate for any statewide office, and if the candidate polls 5%, the group becomes a qualified party for four years. Therefore, the 5% petition isn’t mandatory.

States that formerly had mandatory statewide petitions in excess of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, but no longer do, are Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Lawsuits had overthrown the old Alaska, North Dakota, Ohio and South Dakota laws. In Florida, the voters had eased the law. In the other twelve states, legislatures had voluntarily eased the law.

It isn’t easy to win a lawsuit against a high number of signatures, because in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld Georgia’s law, which was 5% of the number of registered voters. However, the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld it because it had been successfully used in 1966 and again in 1968.

Later decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1974 and again in 1977, said that states should evaluate ballot access barriers by looking at how many times the requirements had been used. Barriers that were seldom used were unconstitutional. However, it has been difficult to persuade lower courts to pay attention to the 1974 and 1977 rulings. Instead, lower courts have had a tendency to say that since the 1971 ruling upheld a 5% petition, therefore all 5% petition laws are automatically valid.

Judge Howard did not make that mistake. His decision notes that the Arkansas 3% petition requirement for new parties had been in place since 1977, but ever since then, only one party had qualified (the Reform Party in 1996).

The decision also noted that Arkansas only requires 10,000 signatures for a non-presidential statewide candidate, and only two such candidates have qualified since that law was passed in 1977.

Also, the decision says that the presidential petition is only 1,000 signatures, and yet Arkansas has not had more than seven presidential candidates on the ballot since that law was passed in 1997.

The ACLU national Voting Rights Office represented the Green Party in this case with great skill.

August was filled with key developments in ballot access, beyond just the Arkansas decision.

The movement for the "top-two" election system suffered two blows. On August 22, the 9^th circuit ruled that "top-two" is unconstitutional if party labels are printed on the ballot. Also, on August 2, the Oregon Secretary of State said that the initiative to impose "top-two" failed to gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The "top-two" system would leave only two choices on November ballots, and would obliterate minor parties if it were to gain a foothold.

Pennsylvania ballot access also suffered a double blow. Coincidentally, both blows occurred on the same day, August 23. First, the 3^rd circuit ruled that it is constitutional to deprive qualified parties of automatic ballot status, an unprecedented development in U.S election law. Second, the State Supreme Court ruled that if a candidate or group submits a petition, and it is successfully challenged, the individual or group that submitted the petition can be forced to pay the costs of the challenge procedure.

Finally, for only the third time since the U.S. Supreme Court term limits decision in 1995, a court used that precedent to expand eligibility for candidates for Congress to be on the November ballot. See pages 2-4 for more on Pennsylvania and Texas.

On August 23, the 3^rd circuit ruled in Rogers v Cortes, 06-2241, that states may deprive parties of automatic ballot status, even if those parties got enough votes in the last election to meet the state’s definition of "party". As a result, Pennsylvania will be one of only two or three states with no statewide minor party or independent candidates on the ballot. Pennsylvania has three qualified minor parties, but none of them could obtain the required 67,070 valid signatures.

Previous precedents always justified keeping certain parties off the ballot on the grounds that those parties had not shown a modicum of support. This decision says it is constitutional to keep a party off the ballot, even if it has met the state’s own definition of "modicum of support". Why? Because the state has a duty to keep candidates off the ballot if they are not "viable", and because the state must guard against "ballot clutter".

The Pennsylvania ballot will not be cluttered if the qualified parties are placed on the November ballot automatically. In the last 80 years, there has never been a time when Pennsylvania had more than five qualified parties on the ballot at one time. The 3^rd circuit did not mention this, nor did the 3^rd circuit define "cluttered ballot". However, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Lubin v Panish (1974) that a cluttered ballot is one with a dozen or more candidates for a single office; and a concurring opinion in Williams v Rhodes (1968) said eight candidates for a single office are not so many as to cause voter confusion.

As to the 3^rd circuit’s opinion that states have an interest in ensuring that all candidates on the ballot are "viable", no U.S. Supreme Court ballot access case ever upheld that idea, or even used that word in a ballot access case. "Viable" is defined in dictionaries as "capable of existence" or "capable of growth" or "capable of life outside the mother’s womb". It is not a term that courts have used to describe candidates or parties.

If the 3^rd circuit meant "viable" to mean "capable of winning", the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically condemned the idea that states can block all parties that are unlikely to win. Sweezy v New Hampshire says, "All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the program of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted." Williams v Rhodes, Illinois State Bd. of Elections v SWP, Anderson v Celebrezze, and Norman v Reed all support this conclusion.

The 3^rd circuit appears to have copied "viable" from the U.S. District Court that handled this case. The U.S. District Court, which also upheld the law, apparently avoided the term that has been used by the U.S. Supreme Court, "modicum of support", because it would be embarrassing to use it. Obviously the qualified minor parties in Pennsylvania have a modicum of support, since they met the 2% vote test in November 2004.

The 3^rd circuit said that just because the parties met the vote test in 2004 doesn’t prove that its 2006 nominees enjoy public support. However, recent polls, available before the decision came out, had shown the Green Party nominee for U.S. Senate with either 4%, or 5%, voter support.

Furthermore, the entire foundation of U.S. election law for political party ballot status depends on the idea that a party’s support can be measured by how many votes it got in the previous election. In every state except Delaware, Florida and Mississippi, election officials place a party on the ballot automatically if it polled a certain share of the vote in the last election. If the 3^rd circuit is correct, then logically all parties, even the Democratic and Republican Parties, should be required to submit petitions for their nominees before each election. However, no state has ever required those two parties to do so (except that in 1916, Louisiana required the Republican Party to do so, but a state court overrode that law).

Pennsylvania does not require the major parties to submit petitions for their nominees to be on the November ballot, because a separate law exempts parties with 15% registration membership. If that law were in effect in Massachusetts or Utah, even one of the major parties would be forced to petition for its nominees.

The 3^rd circuit decision made two factual errors. It said that the qualified minor parties benefit from their status, because they can list multiple nominees (for different offices) on the same petition, whereas unqualified parties may not do so. Actually, both unqualified parties and qualified minor parties enjoy this right.

The 3^rd circuit also said that in recent years, Pennsylvania has required "between 30,000 and 50,000 signatures". The actual requirements have been:

Year	Number	Year	Number
2004	25,697	1996	24,425
2002	21,028	1994	23,294
2000	21,739	1992	37,216
1998	24,390	1990	24,858

Since Pennsylvania has not had a crowded ballot in recent years (the most crowded was in 2000, when six parties were on), there is obviously no need to require 67,070 signatures in 2006. The 3^rd circuit’s failure to even know how many signatures have been needed in recent years is a serious factual error, since it prevented the court from analyzing this point.

The three judges on the panel included two appointed by Republican presidents, and one appointed by a Democratic president. Perhaps the two Republican appointees were afraid that if they ruled in favor of the minor parties, they would be accused of partisan bias. The Democratic Party of Pennsylvania has been vociferous in its anger at the Green Party for running a candidate for U.S. Senate. It is likely that the two Republican appointees were afraid to put the Green Party on the ballot, because Democrats might have then accused them of being motivated by a desire to help the Republican candidate.

On August 23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that candidates whose petitions are rejected can be forced to pay the costs of the petition review process. In re Nomination. Paper of Nader, 198 MAP 2004. The Court ruled that Ralph Nader must pay the state court system $38,267 for expert witness fees, and $42,835 for court reporters, totaling $82,102. These expenses were incurred in 2004 when state judges did the work of checking Nader’s ballot access petition. Pennsylvania is the only state in which judges check petition validity.

Nader needed 25,697 signatures, and submitted 51,273. The review process found that he didn’t have enough valid signatures, so he did not appear on the ballot. It is ironic that mandatory filing fees for candidates are unconstitutional (if the candidate is poor), yet a court can impose a huge fee for failing to get on the ballot!

The vote was 6-1. The dissenting judge argued that the majority misunderstands the law. Section 977 is confusing because it talks about Nomination Petitions and Papers, and in the same paragraph also talks about petitions filed by challengers, asking a court to remove the candidate. The law reads as follows:

"All nomination petitions and papers received and filed…shall be deemed to be valid, unless, within 7 days after the last day for filing said nomination petition or paper, a petition is presented to the court specifically setting forth the objections thereto, and praying that the said petition or paper shall be set aside. A copy of said petition shall be served on the officer of board with whom said nomination petition or paper was filed. Upon the presentation of such a petition, the court shall make an order fixing a time for hearing…If the court shall find that said nomination petition or paper is defective…it shall be set aside…In case any such petition is dismissed, the court shall make such order as to the payment of the costs of the proceedings, as it deems just."

The problem lies with the meaning of the last phrase "any such petition." Does it mean the petition to get on the ballot, or the petition to the court asking that the candidate be removed from the ballot? If it is the latter, that means court costs can only be imposed on someone who files a challenge that does not succeed.

The dissent also noted that the words "any such petition is dismissed" must mean the petition to the court, since a petition to get on the ballot is never "dismissed"; it is either found valid or invalid.

Neither the majority, nor the minority, discussed whether it may be unconstitutional for a state to require a candidate to pay for his own disqualification procedure. In the past, Florida and North Carolina each charged candidates a fee to have their petitions checked, but federal courts in both states invalidated these laws (Fulani v Krivanek and McLaughlin v North Carolina Bd. of Elections)

It appears that the Pennsylvania law has been on the books for at least 70 years, and apparently has never been used against any candidate in the past. The majority seemed uncomfortable with the perception that it might be singling out Nader unfairly, so it peppered the decision with five unflattering references to Nader’s petition. On page 5, it quotes the lower court opinion about Nader’s petition, that "This signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetuated on this Court. The conduct of the Appellants through their representatives shocks the conscience of the Court."

Also, on page eleven, the State Supreme Court majority says, "Despite the explicit findings of the Commonwealth Court regarding the massive deception and fraud involved in Appellants’ signature campaign, appellants adhere to their position of victimization."

Also, on page 13, the State Supreme majority again quotes the lower court sentence about "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetuated", even though that had already been mentioned on page five.

And, on page 14, the majority again quotes the other sentence taken from the lower court decision, "The conduct of the candidates shocks the conscience of the Court", even though that had also already been mentioned on page five.

Finally, on page 15, the majority says, "Given the magnitude of the fraud and deception implicated in Appellants’ signature-gathering efforts, their claim that the Commonwealth Court acted in an unjust fashion does not pass the straight-face test."

For all its verbiage about the fraud and deception, the decision gives no details about that petition. According to Law Professor Mark R. Brown of Capital State University in Columbus, Ohio, who has studied the Nader petition matter, only 687 signatures out of the 51,273 were forgeries. There were also 1,087 duplicate signatures, but it is very common for all large petitions to end up with duplicates. Some voters honestly forget they had already signed the petition once, and they sign it a second time when it is placed before them at a later time.

As to the lower court’s claim that the Nader petition was "the most deceitful and fraudulent ever seen", the context is that the 2004 Nader petition challenge was the first challenge to any statewide minor party or independent candidate in Pennsylvania since 1938. There are frequent challenges to Pennsylvania petitions to get candidates on primary ballots, but those petitions are usually for district office and typically only require 100 or so signatures. Even the statewide primary petitions never require more than 2,000 signatures. There are no initiative petitions in Pennsylvania.

The lower court felt that Nader’s petition was shockingly deficient, but it is meaningless to say it was the worst ever seen by that Court, since no Pennsylvania court had reviewed a petition greater than 3,000 signatures since 1938.

Nader will probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, since that is the only legal avenue remaining, other than filing for a rehearing.

On July 6, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks, a Bush Sr. appointee, ruled that congressional candidates cannot be kept off the ballot based on where they live. Texas Democratic Party v Benkiser, A-06-459. On August 3, the 5^th circuit agreed. The three fifth circuit judges were Pete Benavides and James L. Dennis (Clinton appointees) and Edith Clement (Bush Jr. appointee). On August 7, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused to intervene.

It is unjust that the Texas Republican Party is unable to place a nominee on the November 2006 ballot for U.S. House, 22^nd district. However, the cause of the injustice is a Texas election law. Texas lets nominees withdraw, but won’t let the party replace that nominee, unless the nominee is ineligible. This is an irrational and restrictive law, and the public would benefit if it were eased.

Instead of trying to change the restrictive law, the Texas Republican Party tried to ignore it, by certifying that Congressman Tom DeLay is ineligible to remain on the ballot because he had moved to Virginia.

The courts assumed that DeLay had moved to Virginia, but they applied the principle that anyone is eligible to run for Congress if he or she meets the conditions listed in the U.S. Constitution. Article One says, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years, and been seven years a Citizen of the U.S., and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot add to the Constitutional qualifications to run for Congress. That decision, U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, invalidated Congressional term limits. Since then, the 5^th, 9^th, and 10^th circuits have applied U.S. Term Limits to prevent states (or, in this case, a party) from disqualifying anyone from running for Congress, if that individual meets the qualifications.

Some day, the Courts will strike down other laws that bar Congressional candidates from the ballot, such as a California law that bars anyone from the ballot who switched parties 20 months before an election, or a Georgia law that require candidates who are not Republicans or Democrats to submit a petition signed by 5% of the registered voters.

On August 17, the New Hampshire Supreme Court invalidated a state election law that gives the best spot on the ballot to the party that got the most votes (in all partisan elections cumulatively) in the last election. Under this law, the Republican Party had been listed first for 40 years. Akins v Secretary of State, 2005-794.

Alabama: on August 23, a lower state court ruled that until the legislature defines which crimes are crimes of "moral turpitude", the state must let felons register to vote. The State Constitution says people convicted of "moral turpitude" felonies can’t register, but no law defines which felonies are in that category. Gooden v Worley, 2005-5778, Jefferson Co.

California: on August 9, a Superior Court refused to invalidate the law that makes it almost impossible for parties to nominate candidates by write-in vote at their own primaries. Sonoma Co. Republican Party v McPherson, 06-1078. On August 23, a State Appeals judge refused to take further action in the case.

West Virginia: on August 8, a lower state court upheld the May petition deadline (for non-presidential candidates). McClure v Manchin, 04-C-2197, 13^th jud. circuit. The Libertarian Party will appeal.

The chart to the right shows how many votes are needed for a party to remain on the ballot. North Carolina changed its requirement from 10% to 2% on August 13, when the Governor signed HB 88.

Mississippi	be organized
Florida	be organized
Vermont	be organized
South Carolina	run candidate
Idaho	run 3 candidates
Delaware	(regis.) .05%
Colorado	1,000 registrants
Louisiana	1,000 registrants
Michigan	.6%
Arizona	(regis.).67%
New York	50,000 votes
Oregon	1%
Kansas	1%
Nevada	1%
Wisconsin	1%
Maryland	1%
West Virginia	1%
Connecticut	1%
Georgia	1.6%
Indiana	2%
Iowa	2%
Kentucky	2%
Missouri	2%
Texas	2%
Utah	2%
Wyoming	2%
California	2%
Hawaii	2%
North Carolina	2%
South Dakota	2.5%
Montana	2.8%
Arkansas	3%
Massachusetts	3%
Alaska	3%
New Hampshire	4%
Nebraska	5%
New Mexico	5%
North Dakota	5%
Ohio	5%
Rhode Island	5%
Tennessee	5%
Washington	5%
Minnesota	5%
Maine	5%
Illinois	5%
New Jersey	10%
Oklahoma	10%
Virginia	10%
Pennsylvania	(regis.) 15%
Alabama	20%

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED					Deadline
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	WK FAM	SWP
Alabama	41,012	41,012	too late	too late	too late	too late	too late	in court
Alaska	(reg) 9,258	#3,128	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	*too late	Aug. 22
Ariz.	26,835	est. #20,000	already on	too late	too late	too late	too late	June 14
Arkansas	*10,000	10,000	*too late	*already on	*too late	*too late	*too late	*June 30
Calif.	(reg) 77,389	165,573	already on	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	Aug. 11
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	July 10
Connecticut	no procedure	#7,500	already on	*already on	already on	*too late	*too late	Aug. 9
Delaware	(reg) *259	*5,180	already on	already on	already on	*already on	already on	Aug. 1
D.C.	no procedure	* #3,000	*too late	already on	*too late	*too late	*finished	Aug. 30
Florida	be organized	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	*too late	already on	July 18
Georgia	42,676	#42,676	already on	too late	too late	too late	too late	July 11
Hawaii	648	25	already on	already on	too late	too late	too late	July 25
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	*too late	already on	*too late	*too late	Aug. 31
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	too late	finished	too late	too late	too late	June 26
Indiana	no procedure	#29,553	already on	too late	too late	too late	too late	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	*already on	*already on	*too late	*too late	*already on	Aug. 18
Kansas	16,477	5,000	already on	too late	too late	too late	too late	July 31
Kentucky	no procedure	#2,400	*on in half	*too late	*on in part	*too late	*too late	Aug. 8
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay fee	already on	already on	47	0	22	Sep. 7
Maine	24,798	#4,000	too late	already on	too late	too late	too late	May 25
Maryland	10,000	*30,889	already on	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	Aug. 7
Mass.	est. (reg) 41,000	#10,000	too late	finished	too late	finished	too late	Aug. 1
Michigan	31,731	31,731	already on	already on	already on	too late	too late	July 20
Minnesota	141,420	#2,000	*too late	already on	already on	too late	too late	July 18
Mississippi	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	too late	too late	April 7
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	*already on	too late	too late	too late	July 31
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	too late	already on	too late	too late	May 30
Nebraska	4,735	2,500	*too late	*already on	already on	*too late	*too late	Aug. 29
Nevada	7,915	7,915	already on	already on	already on	too late	too late	July 7
New Hamp.	20,299	#3,000	*finished	*too late	*too late	*too late	*too late	Aug. 9
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	already on	*too late	*too late	*too late	already on	June 6
New Mex.	3,782	14,079	already on	already on	already on	too late	too late	July 11
New York	no procedure	#15,000	*finished	*finished	*too late	already on	*finished	Aug. 22
No. Car.	69,734	*69,734	in court	in court	too late	too late	too late	June 30
No. Dakota	7,000	1,000	*600	0	0	0	0	Sep. 8
Ohio	56,280	5,000	already on	already on	too late	too late	too late	May 1
Oklahoma	73,188	pay fee	in court	too late	too late	too late	too late	June 21
Oregon	18,381	18,356	already on	already on	already on	already on	*too late	Aug. 29
Penn.	no procedure	#67,070	*too late	in court	*too late	too late	too late	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	21,815	#1,000	too late	too late	too late	too late	too late	July 20
So. Caro.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	*in court	too late	July 15
So. Dakota	8,364	#3,346	already on	too late	already on	too late	too late	June 6
Tennessee	41,314	25	too late	already on	too late	too late	too late	April 6
Texas	45,253	45,253	already on	too late	too late	too late	too late	May 30
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	too late	too late	Mar. 17
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	0	0	0	Sep. 21
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	too late	already on	too late	too late	too late	June 13
Washington	no procedure	#1,000	already on	already on	too late	too late	too late	July 7
West Va.	no procedure	#8,724	too late	too late	too late	too late	too late	May 8
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	too late	too late	July 11
Wyoming	4,774	4,774	already on	*too late	*too late	*too late	*too late	Aug. 28
TOTAL STATES ON			*32½	*29	19	*3	*4	`

Two states (Ky., N.C.) have no statewide race.
*change since Aug. 1 chart.
#partisan label is permitted (other than "indp.").
"Deadline" is procedure with latest deadline.
"Wk Fam" = "Working Families Party".
"SWP" = Socialist Workers Party.

Texas Libertarians nominated Bob Smither to run for U.S. House, 22^nd district, months ago. After he was nominated, his opponent Tom DeLay withdrew from the race. Republicans tried to replace DeLay but were not able to. Therefore, this Republican-leaning district (it gave 64% of its vote to President Bush in 2004) now faces a ballot with only Smither, and Democrat Nick Lampson. The Republican Party has united around a write-in nominee, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a member of the Houston city council.

Smither has only raised $10,000 for his campaign, but contributions have been accelerating during the last few weeks. The Libertarian Party’s highest percentage in the past for a U.S. House race was in a two-person race in Mississippi in 1998, when the Libertarian got 28.84%.

Smither, and Sekula-Gibbs are both injured by Texas’ straight-ticket voting device. Half of Texas voters generally use it. If the device didn’t exist, all the voters would vote for each race individually. But the Republicans who use the straight-ticket device may not even notice that there is no Republican listed for U.S. House, and will end up not voting for that office.

On August 11, Christopher Miller endorsed Pat LaMarche for Maine Governor. LaMarche is the Green nominee. Miller is a Democrat who ran for Governor in the June 2006 primary (against the incumbent, who is running for re-election). Miller polled 25% of the primary vote, running on a platform of ending U.S. dependence on oil.

The Natural Law Party dissolved itself in 2003. However, the Michigan Natural Law Party is running candidates this year, to retain its place on the ballot. If there is a new centrist political party in 2008 (such as one which might be founded by Unity.08), the Michigan Natural Law Party might serve as that new party’s Michigan affiliate.

Vermont’s Congressman, Bernie Sanders, has been elected to that office ever since 1990 as an independent. This year he is running for U.S. Senate as an independent. He did enter the September Democratic primary, and he is certain to win it. After the primary is over, he will withdraw as the Democratic nominee. The Democratic Party will then decline to fill the vacancy, so Sanders will be listed as an independent, and no Democrat will be in the race.

Benjamin Todd, 25, chair of the Orleans County, Vermont, Libertarian Party, has already been nominated (by convention) by the Libertarian Party for a seat in the lower house of the state legislature. He is also unopposed for one of the two Republican nominations (the district elects two House members). Vermont permits fusion. He will be listed on the November ballot as "Libertarian, Republican". The district is now represented by one Democrat and one Republican, both of whom have endorsed each other for re-election. The district generally leans Republican, and many Republicans are irritated that their Republican incumbent has endorsed the Democratic incumbent.

Oregon State Senator Ben Westlund had petitioned his way onto the November ballot as an independent candidate earlier this year. But he withdrew on August 10, saying he didn’t feel that he could win.

Socialist Action is a 22-year old political party which has run candidates for non-partisan office, but which has never before run anyone for partisan office. On August 17, the party nominated Jeff Mackler as a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate in California.

---

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 richardwinger@yahoo.com. If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.