BALLOT ACCESS BILL RE-INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS

RON PAUL IS SPONSOR; THIS IS THE 9^th ATTEMPT

On September 19, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx) re-introduced the ballot access bill that has now been introduced ten times. It is HR 3600.

Similar bills in the past were introduced by Congressman John Conyers (D-Mi.) in 1985, 1987 and 1989; by Congressman Tim Penny (D-Mn.) in 1993, and by Paul in 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003. The high point was on July 30, 1998, when the House voted on the bill. It was defeated 62-363. The other years, the full House did not vote on the bill.

The United States and Switzerland are the only nations in the world that don’t have a national standard for ballot access, for candidates and parties for national elected office. The Paul bill only applies to elections for the U.S. House of Representatives. It says that states cannot require more than 1,000 signatures for independent candidates, and for the nominees of unqualified parties. If states have easier requirements, the state law stands; but if a state has more difficult requirements, the federal ceiling applies. States under the federal ceiling could not charge filing fees.

The bill does not cover presidential candidates, because it is not clear that the Constitution gives Congress the power to override election laws for President (except that the Constitution lets Congress tell states when to choose presidential electors). In Oregon v Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) the U.S. Supreme Court said that Congress could alter the voting age from 21 to 18 for all federal elections, President and Congress alike, but that case didn’t have a majority decision, just a plurality decision, so it is not a strong precedent.

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) has already endorsed the bill, and many parties are expected to endorse it soon.

GOOOH has also endorsed the bill. "GOOOH" is a new organization that wants to run, or endorse, a non-major party candidate for U.S. House in all districts in the nation in 2008. This goal mirrors Unity08’s goal, except that Unity08 only wants to concentrate on the presidential race, but GOOOH wants to concentrate only on Congress. For more information, see www.goooh.com.

Even if the bill doesn’t advance, it is useful that it exists. Many organizations exist to fight for better election laws. Most of these organizations tend to overlook ballot access. Having a bill in Congress on the ballot access problem gives greater prominence to the ballot access issue.

Other bills in Congress deal with these other election problems: (1) whether vote-counting machines should create a paper trail; (2) whether Congress should mandate when presidential primaries and caucuses should be held; (3) whether it should be a crime to misinform voters about when and where they should vote; (4) whether to require election-day registration; (5) whether to ease federal campaign restrictions. Also, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein will soon introduce a proposed Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the electoral college.

Please ask your member of Congress to co-sponsor HR 3600. Many members of Congress have co-sponsored it in the past. Even current Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a co-author of the bill in the 1989-1990 session. The bill had 40 co-sponsors at the end of 1990. The bill numbers in past sessions of Congress have been: HR 2320 in 1985; HR 1582 in 1987 and 1989; HR 1755 in 1993; HR 2477 in 1997; HR 2026 in 1999; HR 2268 in 2001; and HR 1941 in 2003.

The initiative to ease the ballot access laws of Oklahoma began circulating on September 14. It must be completed by December 13, and it must have 74,117 valid signatures. So far it only has 2,200 signatures. $15,000 has been contributed toward hiring paid circulators.

The largest newspaper in the state, The Daily Oklahoman, has given the initiative a great deal of publicity. The fact that Oklahoma was the only state in 2004 in which voters could not vote for president, unless they voted for George Bush or John Kerry, has received a great deal of publicity. The initiative is very likely to pass if it can just get on the ballot. Please send a contribution to OBAR (Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform), Box 14042, Tulsa Ok 74159. If the pace of contributions picks up, large donors will see that there is hope and will contribute, so even a small contribution from you will have a multiplier effect.

It is very likely that the New Hampshire House Election Law Committee will pass HB 48, a bill to improve ballot access. The subcommittee that handles this bill held a hearing on September 12, and all five members expressed support. A second hearing was held in September 20, and a third one will be held soon. The subcommittee’s first two hearings each lasted 90 minutes. The subcommittee wouldn’t be giving so much time to this bill if they weren’t interested in it. The final version of the bill is still being worked out. It will probably ease the petition to qualify a party, and will probably also make it easier for a party to remain on the ballot.

The first week of October will be crucial for ballot access litigation. On October 1, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably hand down some order concerning the Pennsylvania ballot access case, Rogers v Cortes. Probably the best plausible outcome will be an order asking Pennsylvania to file a brief, defending its law.

Also on October 1, the Court will hear oral arguments in the Washington state top-two case, called Washington State v Washington Republican Party. And on October 3, the Court will hear the New York state primary ballot access case, New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres.

B.A.N. editor Richard Winger expects to be in the audience for both hearings. Although no decisions will be issued until December 2007 at the earliest (and possibly not until the spring of 2008), U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments usually give clues as to what the Justices are thinking.

Alabama: on September 21, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the plaintiffs an extension of two months to file their brief, asking that Court to hear the Alabama ballot access case, Swanson v Secretary of State. The brief is now due November 26. Oliver Hall of the Center for Competitive Democracy has kindly consented to write the brief.

California: this state has a law somewhat similar to the federal Voting Rights Act. The state law requires a city to elect its city council by districts, if that city has a substantial racial minority that never seems to win under the at-large system. The city of Modesto has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the state law violates the 14^th amendment. City of Modesto v Sanchez, 07-88. The U.S. Supreme Court will probably decide whether to hear this case in October or November.

Alaska: all the briefs have been filed in the 9^th circuit in Winkelman v State of Alaska, 07-35186. The issue is whether the Alaskan Independence Party has the right to bar candidates from its primary if they have shown disloyalty to the party. In 2004, Dan DeNardo, a registered member of the party, filed in its primary to run for U.S. Senate. The party advertised widely that the voters defeat DeNardo and instead vote for the other AIP candidate, Jerry Sanders. Sanders won the AIP primary 1,068 to 273. In 2005, DeNardo sued the party for taking a stand against him. Now the party wants to bar DeNardo from running in its primary in the future. The U.S. District Court had ruled in February 2007 that the party has no such authority. The party is appealing.

Florida: on August 30, a Democratic Party official and voter sued both the Democratic National Committee, and the Florida Democratic Party, claiming that the dispute between them threatens to disenfranchise all Democratic Florida voters, in the matter of choosing a Democratic nominee for president. DiMaio v Democratic National Committee, U.S. District Court, middle district, Tampa, 07-cv-1552. The Democratic National Committee says it won’t seat any Florida delegates because the Florida presidential primary is too early.

Georgia: on September 6, a U.S. District Court in Rome upheld the revised law requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID. Common Cause v Billups, 4:05-cv-201. The same judge had invalidated the old law in 2005, but then the Georgia legislature had changed the law to make state photo-ID free to low-income people.

Indiana: on September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Indiana Democratic Party v Rokita, 07-25, the case over Indiana’s law that requires voters at the polls to show government photo-ID. The briefing scheduled is being expedited; all briefs will be in by December 28.

Massachusetts: on August 6, a state court ruled that the lawsuit against a state law that incumbents must be listed first on the ballot is not moot, and should proceed. White v Galvin, Plymouth Co. Superior Court, ca04-0427.

Massachusetts (2): on August 30, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf, a Reagan appointee, ruled that the Voting Rights Act does apply to the issue of whether felons and ex-felons may vote. Thus, if it can be shown that a state’s voting ban on felons and ex-felons has a racially disparate result, such a ban would be illegal. Simmons v Galvin, 01-11040. Now there will be a trial to determine if the ban does have a racial effect.

Montana: the Green and Libertarian Party candidates for Governor in 2004 have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their debates appeal. The State Supreme Court had ruled in March 2007 that the Montana State University system did not violate their rights when it sponsored a debate and only invited the Democratic and Republican nominees. Jones v Montana University System, 07-223.

New Hampshire: on October 12, a lower state will hold a hearing on whether it is constitutional for the state to sell the statewide list of registered voters to the Democratic and Republican Parties, and not make it available at any price to any other party. New Hampshire Libertarian Party v Gardner, 2007-e-327, Merrimack Superior Court.

New Jersey: the lawsuit filed by the Conservative, Green and Libertarian Parties almost a year ago, is almost ready to be settled. Green Party of N.J. v State, Mercer Co. Superior Court, 125-06. The issues are: who can circulate petitions; which parties can qualify to have registered members; and campaign finance restrictions that are more favorable to the Democratic and Republican Parties than all other parties.

Ohio: on September 19, a U.S. District Court said that Ralph Nader does not have standing to challenge a law that requires independent candidate petition circulators to be registered voters in Ohio. Nader v Blackwell, 2:06cv-821. Nader will appeal. In addition, it is somewhat likely that the Socialist Party’s presidential nominee will bring a lawsuit against this same law. The Ohio law is especially silly, given that out-of-state residents may circulate a petition for a new party in Ohio. The Socialist Party expects to nominate a presidential candidate on October 19, and whomever is nominated clearly will have standing to challenge the law.

Oklahoma: on September 7, a U.S. District Court upheld the state’s ban on out-of-state initiative circulators. Yes on Term Limits v Savage, 5:07-cv-680. Plaintiffs will appeal.

Tennessee: the September 1 B.A.N. said that the Green, Libertarian and Constitution Parties were about to file a lawsuit against the petition for gaining party status, since no party has successfully qualified in that state since 1968. Unfortunately, Gary Sinawski, the attorney who was going to file the lawsuit, was seriously injured in an accident, and cannot file the lawsuit. Jim Linger, another experienced ballot access attorney, will handle the case instead. Fortunately, Sinawski is recovering.

Although Maryland is the only state that has passed the National Popular Vote Plan bill, the bill may pass in Illinois and Massachusetts this year. The California bill, which has passed the Assembly and all committees in the Senate, has been put over until 2008. The Massachusetts Joint Election Laws Committee held a hearing on the bill on September 19. The Illinois bill has passed both houses of the legislature, but since the wording of the bill was different in the two houses, it still isn’t finished.

The Florida legislature passed only one election law bill this year, HB 537. Included was a new section that all qualified parties must nominate by primary. The old law said primaries were only for parties that have registration of 5% or more.

Florida has 23 qualified parties, far more than any other state. One might think that it would be very expensive for Florida election administrators to print separate primary ballots for all the qualified parties. The reason Florida almost certainly won’t be printing such separate primary ballots for the minor parties is that no primary ballot need be printed up, if there is no contest in that party’s primary. Florida doesn’t permit write-ins in primaries. So if only a single person is running for any particular office, there is no need to hold a primary. And because filing fees (for all office except president) are extremely high, very few minor party members ever run for partisan office in Florida. The fee for Congress is $8,600.

The only practical difference the new law makes is that any member of a qualified minor party who does wish to run for office is virtually guaranteed the opportunity to do so, regardless of what his or her party thinks. Under the old law, qualified minor parties nominated by convention. If the convention preferred to run no candidate, the majority at the convention was free to make that decision. Now, even if a party would rather not run anyone for a particular office, the party itself can only hope to persuade all its members not to run; it can’t block any member from running. However, no one can run unless he or she has been a registered member of that party for six months.

Florida didn’t change the law for on which parties may have a presidential primary. Only parties with 5% of the registration may have a presidential primary.

On August 29, Rudy Giuliani was asked whether he would participate in an inclusive general election presidential debate, if he becomes the Republican nominee. "Inclusive" means a debate in which everyone who could theoretically win the election is invited. As noted earlier, no presidential election in U.S. history has ever had more than seven such individuals.

Giuliani ducked the question. He said, "It’s not for me to fix that. I mean the reality is that if I get nominated, I’ll participate in debates. I’ll participate in debates with the Democratic candidate, and the reality is, I have to focus on that…I don’t know which parties would be legitimate, which parties wouldn’t be, who has some support, who doesn’t, what the rules of the debate are…It’s all in the negotiations prior to the debates; I never make a commitment I can’t keep."

To see film of all the major party presidential candidates who have responded to this question, see www.rockthedebates.org.

During the first half of October, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will decide whether to sign or veto 3 election law bills. They are: (1) AB 1294, which lets all cities and counties use Instant-Runoff voting for elections for their own officers; (2) SB 439, which legalizes write-ins when the voter forgets to "X" the box next to the name written in; (3) SB 408, which adds restrictions on who may circulate an initiative petition.

To ask the Governor to either sign or veto these bills, telephone (916) 445-2841. After the voice mail, a human will answer to hear your request for a signature or a veto. Generally the Governor’s representative doesn’t ask what state you live in.

PARTY AFFILIATIONS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURES
By Michael J. Dubin, McFarland & Co., Box 611, Jefferson NC 28640, McFarland Publishing, paperback, 213 pages. $45.00.

The subtitle is "A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006." This book tells the partisan lineup of each state legislative body for over 200 years of U.S. history. Never before has any book existed with this information. The book is only nine inches by six inches, and one’s first reaction on seeing the book is surprise that it is as small as it is. The book is divided into sections for each state, and since it uses fairly small print, it only takes a few pages to record how many members of each party were in any particular state’s legislature, year by year.

One would have thought that the academic world of political science and history would have produced a book like this long ago, but it took an amateur historian to do the job. The book is invaluable for providing other data as well. For each state, the book tells when legislative elections were held, what the terms of state legislators were, how many members each legislative chamber has had, how many constitutions each state has had, what the state capital of each state has been, what years redistricting was carried out, and the names of each legislative body.

A majority of states have moved their state capitals. States that have had their capital in more than three cities are California (San Jose, Vallejo, Benicia and Sacramento) and Georgia (Savannah, Augusta, Louisville, Milledgeville and Atlanta) (this doesn’t include territorial capitals).

More trivia: a town in Vermont was once expected to pay its legislator’s salary, so many towns simply chose to be unrepresented.

Also, a few states have only had one constitution, but Louisiana has had eleven, and Georgia has had ten. Also, Maryland and Kentucky once had electoral colleges to choose State Senators. Also, the largest legislative body ever was New Hampshire’s House in 1942, when it had 443 members.

Unfortunately, the book’s lineup of the partisan makeup of each state’s legislative body has a few errors. The book doesn’t list the Libertarian elected in Alaska in 1978, or the Green elected in Maine in 2004, or the American Party member elected in Tennessee in 1970. The subject is intrinsically difficult, since sometimes members are elected under one party label but then switch parties shortly afterwards.

`	Demo.	Rep.	Green	Lib’t.	Indpnce	Constitutn	United	Personal Ch.
Alabama	5,238	6,842	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Arizona	19,009	12,123	- -	2,144	- -	- -	- -	- -
Idaho	13,888	11,798	- -	1,084	- -	707	625	- -
Iowa	71,705	57,614	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Kentucky	93,844	75,382	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Maine	12,146	4,349	4,467	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Minn.	39,906	26,421	7,301	- -	8,960	- -	- -	- -
N. Mex.	6,808	3,168	670	56	- -	56	- -	- -
No. Car.	498,441	358,778	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Ohio.	202,492	202,492	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Rhode I.	8,744	4,304	392	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Utah	46,498	70,946	2,886	2,554	- -	2,740	- -	6,042
Virginia	31,874	16,363	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
TOTAL	1050,593	850,580	15,716	5,839	8,960	3,503	625	6,042

The states above give state income-tax payers a chance to direct a contribution to the political party of the taxpayer’s choice. The chart above lists the amounts received by each party. Ohio does not let taxpayers decide which party to help, and only lets taxpayers help parties that polled 20%. All the other states except North Carolina include all qualified parties. Minnesota also includes unqualified parties that polled at least 1% of the vote for a statewide office. All data is for 2006 tax returns, except for New Mexico, which doesn’t have the data yet, so New Mexico entries are the 2005 tax returns.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	Unity08	Party	Indp.
Alabama	37,513	5,000	0	0	0	0	June 3	Sep. 8
Alaska	(reg) 7,124	#3,128	already on	*3,481	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	est. #21,500	already on	7,000	0	0	Mar. 6	June 4
Arkansas	10,000	#1,000	*finished	*finished	*finished	0	June 30	Aug. 4
Calif.	(reg) 88,991	158,372	already on	already on	already on	12	Dec. 31, 07	Aug. 8
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	Pay $500	already on	already on	already on	0	May 1	June 17
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 6
Delaware	est. (reg) 290	est. 5,800	already on	already on	already on	150	Aug. 12	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	est. #3,900	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 19
Florida	be organized	104,334	already on	already on	already on	already on	Sep. 2	July 15
Georgia	44,089	#42,489	already on	*4,000	0	0	July 8	July 8
Hawaii	663	4,291	already on	0	60	0	Apr. 3	Sep. 5
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	*0	already on	0	Aug. 29	Aug. 25
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	June 26
Indiana	no procedure	#32,742	already on	0	0	0	- - -	June 23
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	- - -	Aug. 15
Kansas	16,994	5,000	already on	0	0	0	June 2	Aug. 4
Kentucky	no procedure	#5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Sep. 2
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	47	0	May 22	Sep. 2
Maine	27,544	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	Dec 14, 07	Ag 15
Maryland	10,000	est. 32,500	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Mass.	est. (reg) 40,500	#10,000	19,253	already on	65	0	Feb. 1	July 29
Michigan	38,024	38,024	already on	already on	already on	0	July 17	July 17
Minnesota	110,150	#2,000	0	0	0	0	July 15	Sep. 9
Mississippi	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	organizing	Jan. 10	Sep. 5
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	finished	0	July 29	July 29
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	*650	already on	0	Mar. 13	July 30
Nebraska	5,921	2,500	7,100	already on	already on	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 26
Nevada	5,746	5,746	already on	already on	already on	0	July 3	July 3
N. Hamp.	12,524	#3,000	*1,200	0	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	- - -	July 28
New Mex.	2,794	16,764	already on	already on	unclear	0	Apr. 1	June 4
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 19
No. Car.	69,734	69,734	*75,500	*9,000	100	0	May 16	June 12
No. Dakota	7,000	#4,000	already on	0	already on	0	Apr. 11	Sep. 5
Ohio	20,114	5,000	*8,000	0	*200	0	Nov 26 07	Aug. 21
Oklahoma	46,324	43,913	400	0	0	0	May 1	July 15
Oregon	20,640	18,356	already on	already on	already on	0	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	est. #27,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	18,557	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	May 30	Sep. 5
So. Caro.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	May 4	July 15
So. Dakota	8,389	3,356	*1,000	0	*7,500	0	Mar. 25	Aug. 5
Tennessee	45,254	25	0	0	0	0	unsettled	Aug. 21
Texas	43,991	74,108	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	May 19	May 8
Utah	2,000	#1,000	*2,100	300	already on	0	Feb. 15	Sep. 2
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	*organizin	organizing	Jan. 1	Sep. 12
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 22
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	July 26
West Va.	no procedure	#15,118	0	already on	*2,500	0	- - -	Aug. 1
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	June 2	Sep. 2
Wyoming	3,868	3,868	already on	0	0	0	June 2	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			26	20	14	1	`

#partisan label is permitted (other than "independent").
* means entry changed since Sept. 1, 2007 B.A.N.

The 2008 petitioning chart has room for only 4 parties. Parties not on the chart, but on the ballot in at least three states, are Working Families (on in 5 states) and the Reform Party (on in 4 states). Neither of these two parties is now petitioning to gain ballot access in additional states.

Each California party has now told the Secretary of State which candidates to list in its February 5, 2008 primary:

Constitution: Don Grundmann, San Leandro, Ca; Michael Hadlock, San Diego, Ca; Max J. Riekse, Fruitport, Mi; Diane Templin, Escondido, Ca.

Green: Jared Ball, Washington, DC; Elaine Brown, Atlanta, Ga; Jesse Johnson, Charleston, WV; Cynthia McKinney, Atlanta, Ga; Kent Mesplay, San Diego, Ca; Ralph Nader, Winsted, Ct; Kat Swift, San Antonio, Tx.

Libertarian: John Finan, New York, NY; Barry Hess, Glendale, Az; Dave Hollist, Alta Loma, Ca; Daniel Imperato, West Palm Beach, Fl; Bob Jackson, Constantine, Mi; Michael Jingozian, Sherwood, Or; Steve Kubby, Fort Bragg, Ca; Alden Link, Newburgh, NY; Robert Milnes, Camden, NJ; George Phillies, Worcester, Ma; Wayne Allyn Root, Henderson, Nv; Christine Smith, Arvada, Co.

Peace & Freedom: six who are also seeking the Socialist Party nomination (but five will withdraw later): Stewart Alexander, Murrieta, Ca; Eric Chester, Montague, Ma; Mary Alice Herbert, Putney, Vt; Stanley Hetz, Smithfield, Pa; Brian Moore, Spring Hill, Fl; Dwight Welch, Carbondale, Il. The Socialist convention is October 19-21.

Also on the PFP ballot are three candidates who are not seeking the Socialist nomination: John Crockford, Fresno, Ca; Gloria LaRiva, San Francisco, Ca; and Ralph Nader.

Candidates in California presidential primaries are not required to fill out a declaration of candidacy. Any candidate may withdraw, by early November. If Ralph Nader permits his name to remain on both the Green ballot, and the Peace & Freedom ballot, he will be the first person in history to be ballot-listed on the presidential primaries of two different parties, simultaneously. Cynthia McKinney said on September 10 that she won’t seek the Green nomination, but she hasn’t withdrawn her name from the California Green ballot yet.

Since the last B.A.N., the Green and Constitution Parties have set their national convention dates and locations. Greens will meet in Chicago, July 10-13; Constitution in Kansas City, Mo., April 22-27.

Massachusetts: will fill a vacancy in the 5^th U.S. House district on November 5. Five candidates are on the ballot: a Democrat, a Republican, a Constitution Party nominee, and two independents. The Constitution Party nominee, Kevin Thompson, is the first minor party nominee on the ballot for U.S. House in Massachusetts since 2002.

Ohio: will hold a special election to fill the vacant 5^th district seat on December 11. Petitions for independent candidates are due November 5.

The faction of the Prohibition Party that does not recognize Earl Dodge as national chair held its presidential convention in Indianapolis, September 13-14, 2007. Gene Amondson of Washington state was nominated for president, and Leroy Pletten of Michigan for vice-president.

John Frohnmayer recently joined the Independent Party of Oregon, and declared for its nomination for U.S. Senate in 2008. He was head of the National Endowment for the Arts from 1989 through 1992.

---

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.