The Final Chapter in Cobb-Badnarik 2004 Recount Requests

January 25th, 2007

After the November 2004 election, the presidential nominees of the Green Party and the Libertarian Party jointly requested a recount of the presidential vote in New Mexico and in Ohio.

Both states had relatively nominal fees for requesting a recount. But elections officials in both states were determined to thwart the requests. In New Mexico, the state retroactively increased the fee ten-fold and a lower court said that was OK. The two candidates couldn’t afford the $1,400,000 new fee for the recount, so they dropped their request, and the voting-counting machines were then reprogrammed so that any recount would be impossible. Later, on May 16, 2006, the New Mexico Supreme Court said the two candidates should have received the recount they had requested after all, but, of course, by then it was too late.

In Ohio, the recount supposedly went ahead. Under the law, a few precincts were supposedly to be randomly chosen. A hand count of these randomly-chosen precincts was then to be compared with the machine total. If they matched, no further recount in that county was needed. On January 24, a jury convicted two Ohio elections officials of rigging the recount. Instead of randomly choosing precincts, they first identified a few precincts in which the hand-count and the machine-count matched. Then they claimed that those precincts had been the randomly-chosen ones; and since totals matched, no further recount of other precincts was needed. As in New Mexico, it is too late to do anything about it.



Romanelli Loses Fee Lawsuit in Commonwealth Court

January 25th, 2007

On January 25, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ordered Carl Romanelli to pay $80,408 within 30 days. Since Romanelli has very few assets, the order also makes Romanelli’s attorney, Larry Otter, equally liable for the money.

Carl Romanelli was the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate last year from Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, petitions are assumed to be valid, unless someone challenges them. Democrats challenged Romanelli’s petition. The Pennsylvania challenge procedure is handled by courts, not elections administrators, so Romanelli is being billed $48,285 in fees for Democratic Party attorneys, $25,481 in court costs, $5,141 in copying and stenography fees and $1,500 for handwriting experts. Romanelli had submitted 95,000 signatures to meet a requirement of 67,070, but only 58,000 of those signatures were considered valid. He will appeal this decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He also has an appeal pending in the U.S. Supreme Court over the procedures used for checking signatures in the challenge process.

Virginia Bill Would Impose Big Filing Fees on Top of Petitions

January 25th, 2007

Virginia House of Delegates member Leo Wardrup introduced HB 3157 on January 19. It would impose mandatory filing fees on all non-paupers who petition their way onto a general election ballot, or a primary election ballot. The fees would be 2% of the annual salary. Congressional filing fees would be approximately $3,300. The bill exempts presidential candidates.

The US Supreme Court said in 1972 and in 1974 that filing fees for non-paupers are constitutional if they are for the purpose of keeping the ballot uncrowded. However, Virginia already has difficult petition requirements for that purpose.

Wardrup is a Republican from Virginia Beach. He has been in the legislature since 1991 and is considered one of the more powerful members. He is chair of the Transportation Committee. He says he is worried that the November ballots will be crowded, because in 2006 the legislature passed a bill letting cities move their city elections from May to November, and therefore November ballots may be very lengthy since they will have federal offices and city offices both.

US Supreme Court Conference of Feb. 16 Will Consider 3 Election Law Cases

January 25th, 2007

On February 16, the U.S. Supreme Court conference will consider whether to take any of these election law cases: (1) Lopez Torres v N.Y. State Board of Elections; (2) Romanelli v Election Board; (3) Protect Marriage Illinois v Orr.

The New York case was won in the court below; the other two cases were lost in the courts below. Lopez Torres concerns ballot access onto a primary ballot. The Romanelli case challenges Pennsylvania’s procedures for rejecting signatures on petitions. Protect Marriage challenges Illinois procedures for rejecting signatures on initiative petitions.

National Popular Vote Updates its Web Page

January 25th, 2007

See here to see whether any particular state has a bill to implement the National Popular Vote plan. The map shows which states have bills on that subject. Clicking on that state tells the bill number and the names of the sponsors.

Georgia Greens Say They Will Attempt Statewide Petition

January 24th, 2007

On January 21, the Georgia Green Party issued a press release titled, “Georgia Green Party Kicks Off Ballot Access Drive for 2008″. The release says, for the first time, the party will attempt to qualify as a statewide party. That will require 44,089 valid signatures, to be collected between April 2007 and July 2008.

Across the U.S., only one higher ballot access barrier has ever been overcome by a state Green Party. That was the California registration drive in 1991, which required the party to persuade 79,188 people to register into the party. Even the Texas Green 2000 petition didn’t need as many signatures as will be needed in Georgia; the Texas 2000 petition drive required 37,381 signatures.

However, if the Georgia Greens can succeed, the rewards for them will be great. Once the petition is complete, the party will probably be able to remain ballot-qualified (for statewide office only, since the statewide petition only affects statewide offices) indefinitely into the future. A statewide party in Georgia remains on the ballot as long as it polls a number of votes equal to 1% of the statewide registration. Since Georgia usually elects 9 or 10 statewide officers in mid-term years, any diligent party can poll the needed votes for at least one of those offices. In presidential years there are always one, two or three races for Public Service Commissioner, another office for which voters are generous to minor parties with their votes.

It is true that the Georgia Reform Party failed to poll enough votes to retain its place on the ballot in 1998, but that is because the party foolishly only ran a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, when it could have just as easily run as many as nine other statewide candidates, one of which surely would have polled enough votes.

9th Circuit Campaign Finance Decision May Help Unity08

January 24th, 2007

On January 19, 2007, the 9th circuit issued an opinion in Citizens for Clean Government v City of San Diego, no. 04-56964. San Diego has a $250 contribution limit to candidates for city council. The question was whether the city could enforce this limit against a group that was trying to raise money to hire paid petitioners to circulate a recall petition against a member of the city council.

The U.S. District Court had said the city could limit campaign contributions to a committee that was raising money to hire paid circulators for a recall petition. But the 9th circuit said that this conclusion isn’t necessarily valid, at least in the absense of any hard evidence. The 9th circuit remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, but made it plain that unless the city can show that someone would be bribed by a policy of allowing unlimited contributions to a recall petition effort, the limit is unconstitutional in that situation.

The whole rationale for campaign contribution limits has been the fear that if campaign contribution limits didn’t exist, wealthy individuals could give a great deal of money to a candidate, hope that candidate got elected, and then expect the candidate (now an office-holder) to do favors for the donor. But contributions to some cause that isn’t trying to elect a particular person are outside the scope of this fear.

The precedent may help to persuade a federal court in Washington, D.C., to overturn a Federal Election Commission ruling, and let Unity08 raise unlimited contributions to finance petition drives to get itself on the ballot. Unity08 has no candidate at this time. No known particular candidate will be helped by such petition drives, especially during an odd year.

New Hampshire Legislative Hearing on Ballot Access Goes Well

January 24th, 2007

The New Hampshire House Election Law Committee took testimony on January 24 on HB 48, a bill to change the definition of “party” from one that got 4% for Governor or US Senator, to one that got 2% for either of those offices.

Approximately twelve people testified in favor, and no one formally opposed the bill. An assistant to the Secretary of State had some concerns about details, but did not hold himself out as opposed to the bill. The Committee won’t vote on the bill until early February.

New Hampshire is the only New England state in which no party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, has been qualified during the past six years. If the bill passed, there would still be no new qualified parties in New Hampshire until after the 2008 election at the earliest. New Hampshire elects its Governor every two years, and also has a U.S. Senate election in 2008.

Texas Sponsor Found for Bill to Repeal Primary Screen-Out

January 24th, 2007

Texas State Representative Mark Strama (D-Pflugerville) will soon introduce a bill to repeal the law that makes it illegal for primary voters to sign a petition for an independent candidate or a new party. Strama was elected to the legislature in 2004. He has long had a special interest in the electoral process. He was Director of Programs for Rock the Vote between 1995 and 1997, and he was CEO of NewVoter.com between 1998 and 2000. He hopes to find a Republican co-sponsor for the bill before he introduces it.

National Popular Vote Bills Are Pending in 17 States

January 24th, 2007

As of January 24, bills are pending to establish the National Popular Vote plan in 17 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wyoming. Sponsors have been found in an additional 28 states.

« 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.