December 1, 2007 Ė Volume 23, Number 8

This issue was originally printed on gray paper.

Table of Contents

  1. 166 MINOR PARTY & INDEPENDENT NOMINEES HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO STATE OFFICE IN LAST 30 YEARS
  2. ALABAMA BALLOT ACCESS LAW APPEALED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
  3. N.M. GREENS ARE SAFE
  4. ILLINOIS BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED
  5. PENNSYLVANIA HIGH COURT GIVES GREENS TEMPORARY RESPITE
  6. N.M. LIBERTARIAN CASE LOSES ON A TECHNICALITY
  7. NADER SUES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
  8. OKLAHOMA BALLOT INITIATIVE GIVES UP
  9. MICHIGAN HIGH COURT OKís DISCRIMINATION
  10. COLORADO IMPROVES
  11. CANDIDATES ELECTED TO STATE OFFICE WHO WEREN'T MAJOR PARTY NOMINEES
  12. EARL DODGE DIES
  13. 2007 STATE SENATE ELECTIONS
  14. 2007 STATE HOUSE ELECTIONS
  15. MINOR PARTY PARTISAN WINS, NOV. 6
  16. MINOR PARTY NON-PARTISAN WINS
  17. PETITIONING CHART
  18. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL


166 MINOR PARTY & INDEPENDENT NOMINEES HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO STATE OFFICE IN LAST 30 YEARS

EVIDENCE WILL HELP WIN VARIOUS LAWSUITS

In the last 30 years, there are at least 166 instances at which someone who was not the nominee of either major party was elected to partisan state office. These include 5 gubernatorial elections and 161 legislative races.

On November 1, this evidence, and other material, was submitted to the U.S. District Court that will hear Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, the ACLU lawsuit that challenges Connecticutís discriminatory public funding law.

Defenders of discriminatory public funding laws always assert that it is pointless to give public funding to anyone except Democratic and Republican nominees, because other nominees always lose. This new evidence rebuts that assumption.

Connecticut law, passed in 2005, makes it impossible for any nominee of a party that polled at least 1%, but under 10%, of the vote in the last election, to get public funding.

Independent candidates, and nominees of parties that did not poll 1% at the last election for that office, can get public funding, but only if they submit massive petitions (in addition to raising the same number of small donations that Democrats and Republicans must raise). A petition signed by 20% of the voters is needed for independent candidates to get equal public funding; a 10% petition gets them public funding equal to one-third of what Democratic and Republican nominees get.

Connecticutís attorneys have been trying to get the lawsuit dismissed, before any evidence had been submitted. However, on November 16, the Court refused to stop the discovery process. Plaintiffs submitted two expert reports, including one by History Professor J. David Gillespie.

The evidence on the frequency of non-Democratic, non-Republican winners for state office will be useful in other lawsuits, such as the one about to be filed by the Michigan Libertarian Party against a law discussed on page three. In addition, note that candidates who werenít Democratic or Republican nominees have been elected to Congress 15 times in the last 30 years, including two independent U.S. Senators in 2006.

See the list of the non-major party winners to state office on pages 3 and 4. This list does not include minor party members who were elected as fusion nominees (in other words, they were nominated by their own minor party, as well as one or both major parties). For example, the four Libertarians elected to the New Hampshire legislature in 1992, and four of the Progressives elected to the Vermont legislature in 2006, are not on the list because they were also nominated by one of the major parties.


ALABAMA BALLOT ACCESS LAW APPEALED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT

On November 26, Johnny Swanson appealed his ballot access case against Alabama to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lower courts had upheld the Alabama law (for minor parties, and for independent candidates other than president), even though the existing law has existed since 2001 and has never been used statewide. Swanson v Chapman, number not assigned yet.


N.M. GREENS ARE SAFE

On November 12, New Mexico Secretary of State Mary Herrera ruled that the Green Party is a qualified party in her state.

The definition of a qualified minor party in New Mexico is very unclear. It may require a party to poll one-half of 1% for either President or Governor at either of the last two elections. Or, it may permit a party to remain on as long as that party continues to run candidates for some office, but abstains from running for those top-of-the-ticket races. In the case of the Green Party, it had three candidates on the ballot in 2006, but it didnít run anyone for Governor. It had run for president in 2004 but had polled under one-half of 1%.

The November 12 ruling does not analyze the law. It merely says that since the previous Secretary of State had told the Green Party in mid-2006 that it could remain on for 2008 if it ran candidates for the legislature, but not for Governor, therefore the current Secretary will honor that promise. The ruling also says, "There are several credible readings of Section 1-7-2(c), but I believe it would be imprudent to apply a different interpretation at this point in the 2008 election cycle."


ILLINOIS BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED

On November 9, Illinoisí Governor signed SB 662, easing ballot access for independent candidates. Formerly, all non-presidential independent petitions were due in the year before the election. Now, they are due in June of election years. The number of signatures for legislative independents dropped from 10% of the last vote, to 5%.


PENNSYLVANIA HIGH COURT GIVES GREENS TEMPORARY RESPITE

On November 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a murky decision in the case on whether Carl Romanelli, the Green nominee for U.S. Senate in 2006, owes $80,408 plus interest for the costs of removing him from the ballot. In re Nomination Paper of Rogers, 12 MAP 2007.

Pennsylvania is the only state in which the first step in determining whether a petition has enough signatures is to let judges decide on the validity of each signature. Starting in 2004, Pennsylvania courts for the first time started assessing court costs against minor party and independent candidates who donít submit enough valid signatures.

The lower court, on January 24, 2007, had assessed $25,481 for wages for the witnesses for the challengers, $1,500 for handwriting expert witness fees, $48,285 in attorneysí fees for the challengers, stenographic costs of $3,726, and $1,415 for copying costs. Romanelli had appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that there is no basis to charge him these costs, because there was no finding that his petition was fraudulent.

On November 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote only a single paragraph: "And now, the above case is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to the Commonwealth Court to amend its Order to comply with the Order of this Court of October 4, 2006 at 108 MAP 2006. In that Order the Commonwealth Court was directed to issue a final order which included in its text an assessment of costs referenced by category and amount assessed as well as a statement of rationale behind the imposition of these costs. The amended final Order of the Commonwealth Court will thereby serve to give future candidates notice of what actions on their part might justify the imposition of fees and costs. In all other respects, the decision of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed."

The good news is that the Commonwealth Court will probably take several months to comply with this request. That will give time for the various minor parties of Pennsylvania to file a constitutional challenge in federal court to the whole system that puts candidates and unqualified parties in jeopardy of paying large amounts of money.

Carl Romanelli has no real estate, no automobile, and neglible savings. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled unanimously that states cannot charge candidates fees to run for office, if those candidates cannot afford those fees. Lower courts have thrown out laws in Florida and North Carolina that required minor parties to pay the costs of checking their signatures. The 8th circuit ruled in 1995 that if a state requires a party to nominate by primary, the government must pay for that primary. The 3rd circuit ruled in 2001 that Pennsylvaniaís filing fee of only $100 is unconstitutional for poor candidates.

The Pennsylvania state courts have been blind to these precedents and their underlying principles. It should be obvious that if no other state needs to impose costs on candidates whose petitions donít have enough valid signatures, then Pennsylvania has no strong state interest in such a system either. The vast majority of states provide that elections officials check signatures to determine if they have enough valid signatures. Elections officials in almost all states are very efficient at doing this work. They use automated equipment that calls up an image of any voterís signature on a computer screen. This equipment makes it possible for clerical employees to check several signatures per minute. Many states also use random sampling. The 23 states that have the initiative process long ago solved the problem of checking large numbers of signatures on petitions. Yet Pennsylvania state courts seem oblivious to the world beyond the stateís borders.

Commonwealth Court Judge James R. Kelly, who ruled against Romanelli in January, must be perplexed by the Supreme Court order.

The lower courtís opinion of January 24, assessing the costs against Romanelli, already assessed the costs by category and already made a statement of rationale for why the costs were being imposed. That order is 24 pages long and discusses each type of costs in turn. The rationale for imposing these costs, in every case, was that Romanelli and the Green Party had failed to provide at least nine reviewers, to sit all day between 8:30 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, during the month of September 2006 when the signatures were being reviewed in court. The lower court had found that, on the average day, the Green Party only had six reviewers present in court.

Since the lower court already broke down the type of costs, and provided a rationale for imposing such costs for each category, in its January 2007 order, one wonders how the lower court will cope with the recent directive from the Supreme Court. If 24 pages of rationale wasnít good enough, what will be good enough? For this reason, it seems the matter will be delayed for some time.


N.M. LIBERTARIAN CASE LOSES ON A TECHNICALITY

On November 7, the 10th circuit ruled against the New Mexico Libertarian Partyís ballot access lawsuit. Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Herrera, no. 06-2303. However, the court did not reach the merits of the case. It said, "We need not resolve" the issue of whether the law is too strict or not. Instead, the court ruled that the partyís attorney made a legal error while the case was pending in the U.S. District Court. The 10th circuit said his Rule 56(f) Motion wasnít detailed enough. The motion was to describe the evidence that the party planned to present.

On November 21, the party asked for a rehearing before all the judges of the 10th circuit. If that doesnít work, the party is free to file a new lawsuit as soon as it has nominated candidates for the 2008 election. In any event, the party is on the ballot for 2008 for president.


NADER SUES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Ralph Nader has gone on the offensive against the forces that worked to keep him off many state ballots in 2004. First, he filed a brief with the District of Columbia Superior Court in Serody v Nader, 2007 CA 3385. This is the case in which the Pennsylvania challengers to Nader in 2004 are trying to persuade a D.C. court to let them remove approximately $80,000 from Naderís D.C. bank account.

Naderís brief says the garnishment should be quashed, on the grounds that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (which approved an order requiring Nader to pay for the costs of removing his name from the 2004 ballot) ruling was tainted.

Naderís brief shows that the law firm that represented the challengers was simultaneously representing one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices while Naderís case was pending. Nader also documents that another member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had been the beneficiary of an open invitation to join that law firm, should he ever need a well-paying job (this offer was made in 1985, before the Justice was on the Supreme Court, and was accepted in 1991). Finally, Nader documents that three other justices received contributions from that law firm.

The challengers filed a rebuttal brief on November 21. They agree that all of Naderís charges are true, but argue that there was nothing improper about the links between the Pennsylvania Justices and the law firm.

Nader also filed two new lawsuits against the Democratic National Committee, alleging that the Committee was part of a conspiracy to keep him off as many state ballots in 2004 as possible. One case is in District of Columbia Superior Court, and one is in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. The first is Nader v Democratic National Committee, 2007ca-7245B; the second is Nader v McAuliffe, 1:07-cv-1101. Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic national chair, lives in Virginia.

It is difficult to evaluate the two Nader cases, because nothing similar has ever before been done. Although the national Democratic Party made some attempts to remove various third party and independent presidential candidates in past elections (1936, 1948, 1976 and 1980), these past efforts were confined to one or two states. By contrast, the 2004 Democratic efforts were massive, and existed in almost half the states.

The Nader cases ask for a jury trial. It is rare for election law cases to go to juries. One such case was the recent Reform Party internal battle over the identity of the true national party officers. Another was a case from Arkansas over candidate debates (the jury ruled in favor of the TV station and against the excluded candidate).


OKLAHOMA BALLOT INITIATIVE GIVES UP

Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform (OBAR) has reluctantly concluded that the initiative launched on October 15 to reform the ballot access laws cannot obtain the needed 74,117 signatures by the January 15, 2008 deadline. OBAR will now use its remaining funds to try to persude the legislature to improve the laws.

The chief reason for the demise of the initiative effort is Oklahomaís law making it a crime for someone who is not domiciled in Oklahoma to ask people to sign an initiative petition. Oklahomaís best professional petitioners are working for initiative drives in other states that pay higher wages than OBAR can afford. Although OBARís professional petitioning firm hired over 200 Oklahoma residents to circulate, the vast majority of these employees are neophytes, and their production was poor. Only 12,000 paid signatures were obtained during the first 36 days of the drive, plus 2,000 volunteer signatures. BAN thanks every reader who has contributed to OBAR. The money will not have been wasted if the lobbying effort succeeds, since some of the money raised for the effort will be used for the lobbying.


MICHIGAN HIGH COURT OKís DISCRIMINATION

On November 21, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the state may give the list of voters who participate in presidential primaries to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The law says the two major parties may give or sell the list to whomever they wish. However, it is a crime for anyone else to possess the list. Grebner v State, 135274.

On November 7, the Ingham County Circuit Court had ruled the law unconstitutional, partly because it discriminates against minor parties. On November 16, the State Court of Appeals had also ruled 2-1 that the law is unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court had reversed these courts, only two days after it had been asked to take the case.

The Supreme Court majority did not mention the 1982 Michigan Supreme Court decision Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State. That case had ruled that the State Constitution forbids the state from discriminating for or against any party. The dissenters did mention that case.

The majority did not mention that in 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court had summarily affirmed a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruling that if the state gives a free or inexpensive copy of the list of registered voters to the unqualified parties, it must give the list on the same basis to unqualified parties that are trying to qualify. That case was Socialist Workers Party v Rockefeller, 400 U.S. 806.


COLORADO IMPROVES

In June, the Colorado Secretary of State revised the voter registration form, so that it lists all qualified parties as a choice. It also lists any group that has been a qualified party. The choices are Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, American Constitution, Reform, Pro Life, and Gun Ownersí Rights. The latter two parties were not bona fide parties. A wealthy Democrat had paid circulators to qualify them for the ballot, but they didnít run any candidates, and are no longer qualified.


CANDIDATES ELECTED TO STATE OFFICE WHO WEREN'T MAJOR PARTY NOMINEES

YEAR

STATE

DIST.

NAME

PARTY LABEL(s)

VOTE

PERCENT

1978

Alaska

Rep 20

Dick Randolph

Libertarian

6,784

43.9

Illinois

Rep 26

Taylor Pouncey

Citizens for Taylor Pouncey

10,813.5

42.6

Maine

Sen 20

Harold L. Silverman

Independent

?

?

Maine

Rep 15

Robert James Barry

Independent

?

?

Mass.

Rep B-12

David R. Nelson

Independent

4,738

47.3

Mass.

Rep Hs-2

William A. Carey

Independent

6,109

45.2

Tenn.

St Sen 27

William J. Davis

American (on ballot as indep)

15,954

57.48

Tenn.

Rep 71

Jimmy Wallace

Independent

8,425

100.0

Vt.

?

?

Independent

?

?

Vt.

?

?

Independent

?

?

1979

Miss.

Rep 72

Jim Neal

Independent

2,153

39.3

Miss.

Rep 81

Johnny Stringer

Independent

2,398

44.7

Va.

Del. 9

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

13,746

81.8

1980

Alaska

Rep 20

Dick Randolph

Libertarian

11,163

55.0

Alaska

Rep 20

Kenneth Fanning

Libertarian

9,819

48.4

Illinois

Rep 26

Taylor Pouncey

People for Pouncey

11,753.5

31.1

N.Y.

Asm 56

Albert Vann

Liberal

6,766

49.3

Vt.

Rep L-1

Franklin Hooper

Independent

?

?

Vt.

Rep R-6-5

Harold E. Billings

Independent

?

?

1981

Va.

Del 9

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

14,655

91.6

1982

N.H.

Rep G-7

Stephen Harnish

Independent

509

59.4

Tenn.

Rep 72

James H. Wallace

Independent

6,494

100.0

Vt.

Rep R-3

Donald A. Moore

Independent

674

41.7

Wyo.

Rep-Nio.

Melvin ZumBrunnen

Independent

852

56.3

1983

Alab.

Sen 13

Gerald Dial

Independent

7,386

52.9

Alab.

Sen 30

J. Foy Covington

Independent

6,670

44.5

Alab.

Rep 38

Bill Fuller

Independent

3,010

47.4

Alab.

Rep 59

Lewis G. Spratt

Independent

1,712

53.5

Alab.

Rep 67

Lucius Black

Independent

7,219

54.8

Alab.

Rep 88

James Sasser

Independent

2,950

50.4

La.

Rep 94

Pepe Bruneau

Independent

votes uncounted

100.0

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

9,232

100.0

1984

Alaska

Rep 5B

Andre Marrou

Libertarian

4,529

40.5

R.I.

Rep 6

Thomas J. Rossi

Independent

1,953

50.5

Vt.

Rep R-6-1

Lyle K. Rice

Independent

1985

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

9,616

100.0

Va.

Del 92

Mary T. Christian

Independent

6,821

52.9

1986

Calif.

Sen 8

Quentin Kopp

Independent

81,501

46.9

N.Y.

Asm 56

Albert Vann

Liberal

8,511

63.6

N.Y.

Rep B-3

Roger L. Green

Liberal

7,192

54.9

Vt.

Rep B-3

Charles Palmer

Independent

528

54.4

1987

La.

Rep 43

Odon L. Bacque

Independent

6,811

57.2

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

10,368

71.6

1988

Ark.

Rep 61

Jim Lendall

Independent

14,821

64.6

1989

Va.

Del 4

Jack Stump

write-in

7,981

67.0

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

12,007

100.0

1990

Calif.

Sen 8

Quentin Kopp

Independent

116,885

72.7

R.I.

Rep 69

Mark Dailey

write-in

290

40.7

So.C.

Rep 80

James Cromer

Independent

2,775

53.4

Vt.

Rep C-7-4

Terry Bouricius

Progressive

587

52.4

Vt.

Rep C-7-7

Tom O. Smith

Progressive

903

61.7

Alas.

Governor

Walter Hickel

Alaskan Independence

75,721

38.9

Ct.

Governor

Lowell Weicker

A Connecticut

460,576

40.4

1991

La.

Sen 26

Nell Doland

Independent

uncounted

100.0

La.

Rep 22

Steve Gunn

Independent

9,931

50.2

Miss.

Rep 7

Charles G. Davis

Independent

3,985

100.0

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

10,520

70.3

1992

Alas.

Sen E

Judith Salo

Independent Democrat

6,014

49.1

Alas.

Rep 25

Ed Willis

Independent

2,829

47.6

Alas.

Rep 40

Carl Moses

Alaskan Independence

1,829

53.1

Ark.

Rep 44

Greg Wren

Independent

4,757

44.3

Calif.

Sen 39

Lucy Killea

Independent

187,353

60.4

So.C.

Rep 80

James Cromer

Independent

5,447

62.3

Vt.

Rep C-7-2

Tom O. Smith

Progressive

1,171

46.1

Vt.

Rep C-7-3

Dean Corren

Independent

2,288

69.3

Vt.

Rep C-7-4

Terry Bouricius

Progressive

1,097

100.0

Vt.

Rep A-1

Roger Kayhart

Independent

1,914

53.8

Vt.

Rep C-4

Gary Bressor

Independent

929

44.0

Vt.

Rp E-C-2

Gordon Stafford

Independent

841

53.6

1993

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

13,129

100.0

1994

Alas.

Rep 25

Ed Willis

Independent

2,722

51.3

Calif.

Sen 8

Quentin Kopp

Independent

135,712

63.5

Ks.

Rep 74

Ellen Samuelson

write-in

4,118

54.5

1994

Maine

Sen 5

Jill Goldthwait

Independent

6,536

40.3

Maine

Governor

Angus King

Independent

180,829

35.4

So.C.

Rep 12

Jennings McAbee

Independent

3,155

52.3

So.D.

Rep 8

Dale Kringen

Independent

4,299

53.4

Vt.

Rep C-7-3

Dean Corren

Progressive

1,141

51.0

Vt.

Rep C-7-4

Terry Bouricius

Progressive

580

55.0

Vt.

Rep A-1

Roger Kayhart

Independent

1,285

44.7

1995

Miss.

Rep 7

Charles G. Davis

Independent

4,112

100.0

Miss.

Rep 35

Charles B. Smith

Independent

4,399

55.9

Miss.

Rep 81

Tommy Horne

Independent

5,772

100.0

N.Y.

Asm 68

Francisco Diaz, Jr.

Liberal, Independence

4,560

53.4

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

15,330

100.0

1996

Maine

Sen 5

Jill Goldthwait

Independent

12,561

65.7

Maine

Rep 73

Belinda Gerry

Independent

1,265

50.8

So.C.

Rep 96

James Cromer

Independent

5,681

100.0

Vt.

C-7-3

Dean Corren

Progressive

1,988

73.5

Vt.

C-7-3

David Zuckerman

Progressive

1,995

73.8

Vt.

C-7-4

Terry Bouricius

Progressive

886

100.0

Vt.

Rp Wh-4

Wendell Coleman

Independent

999

45.2

1997

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

13,195

78.4

1998

Maine

Sen 5

Jill Goldthwait

Independent

9,949

76.3

Maine

Rep 73

Belinda Gerry

Independent

976

62.0

Maine

Governor

Angus King

Independent

246,772

58.6

Mo.

Rep 162

Denny J. Meredith

Independent

3,307

54.4

Ore.

Rep 57

Bob Jenson

Independent

7,822

68.4

R.I.

Rep 23

Aram Garabedian

Independent

1,945

41.7

Tn.

St Sen 15

Charlotte Burks

write-in

30,252

93.1

Vt.

Rep C-7-2

Steve Hingtgen

Progressive

983

53.4

Vt.

Rep C-7-3

David Zuckerman

Progressive

1,021

100.0

Vt.

Rep C-7-3

Dean Corren

Progressive

1,010

98.9

Vt.

Rep C-7-4

Terry Bouricius

Progressive

561

100.0

Vt.

Rep A-2

Tony Dominick

Independent

747

40.2

Vt.

Rp E-C-2

William Johnson

Independent

740

57.3

Minn.

Governor

Jesse Ventura

Reform

773,403

37.0

1999

Calif.

Asm 16

Audie Bock

Green

14,674

50.6

Miss.

Rep 35

Charlie Smith

Independent

4,175

53.0

Miss.

Rep 52

Tom Cameron

Independent

3,158

53.7

Miss.

Rep 81

Tommy Horne

Independent

4,996

100.0

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

12,842

80.9

2000

Ga.

Rep 29

Ginger Collins

Independent

5,096

73.1

Ga.

Rep 172

Buddy DeLoach

Independent

2,653

100.0

Maine

Sen 5

Jill Goldthwait

Independent

13,781

67.4

Maine

Rep 74

John M. Michael

Independent

2,357

59.7

Mn.

Sen 3

Bob Lessard

Independent

17,631

54.3

N.H.

Rep H-44

Steve Vaillancourt

Libertarian

1,622

53.9

Vt.

Rep C-7-2

Steve Hingtgen

Progressive

1,475

86.9

Vt.

Rep C-7-3

David Zuckerman

Progressive

2,090

100.0

Vt.

Rep C-7-3

Bob Kiss

Progressive

1,730

90.6

Vt.

Rep C-7-4

Carina Driscoll

Progressive

863

76.3

Vt.

Rp Wh22

Daryl Pillsbury

Independent

799

50.9

2001

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

13,285

100.0

Va.

Del 59

Watkins Abbott

Independent

11,782

63.2

2002

Alaska

Sen Q

Tom Wagoner

Republican Moderate

5,638

46.1

Ga.

Rep 127

Buddy DeLoach

Independent

7,757

100.0

Ill.

Sen 15

James T. Meeks

Honesty and Integrity

22,434

40.1

Maine

Rep 31

John Eder

Green

1,796

64.7

Maine

Rep 44

Richard Woodbury

Independent

2,625

62.2

Maine

Rep 60

Gary Sukeforth

Independent

1,786

44.5

Maine

Rep 151

Troy Jackson

Independent

2,171

64.9

Mass.

Rep E-16

William Lantigua

Independent

2,440

51.9

Mn.

Sen 30

Sheila Kiscaden

Independence

12,388

41.6

R.I.

Rep 46

William McManus

Independent

3,009

59.7

Vt.

Rep C-3-3

Steve Hingtgen

Progressive

970

48.3

Vt.

Rep C-3-4

Bob Kiss

Progressive

1,022

54.5

Vt.

Rep C-3-4

David Zuckerman

Progressive

1,200

64.0

Vt.

Rp Wh33

Sarah R. Edwards

Progressive

689

53.5

Vt.

Rep Wa-6

Tom Pelham

Independent

1,168

51.1

Vt.

Rp Wh32

Daryl Pillsbury

Independent

1,041

100.0

Vt.

Rep Wr-5

Jack Anderson

Independent

1,160

66.9

2003

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

16,398

100.0

Va.

Del 59

Watkins Abbitt

Independent

11,834

67.1

2004

La.

Rep 45

Joel Robideaux

Independent

2,751

55.3

Maine

Rep 107

Richard Woodbury

Independent

3,303

61.0

Maine

Rep 118

John Eder

Green

2,417

50.9

Mass.

Rep E-16

William Lantigua

Independent

3,989

57.0

Vt.

Rep C-3-4

David Zuckerman

Progressive

2,424

100.0

Vt.

Rep C-3-4

Bob Kiss

Progressive

2,095

86.4

Vt.

Rp Wh32

Daryl Pillsbury

Independent

1,525

100.0

2005

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

19,152

100.0

Va.

Del 59

Watkins Abbitt

Independent

16,398

100.0

Va.

Del 68

Katherine Waddell

Independent

13,424

49.9

2006

Ky.

Sen 2

Robert Leeper

Independent

15,497

41.1

Mass.

Rep M-6

Pam Richardson

write-in

4,259

37.3

Mont.

Rep 12

Rick Jore

Constitution

2,045

55.4

Vt.

Rp A-R-1

Will Stevens

Independent

1,105

63.6

Vt.

Rep C-3-4

Christopher Pearson

Progressive

1,253

76.7

Vt.

Rep C-3-4

David Zuckerman

Progressive

1,634

100.0

Vt.

Rp Wh32

Daryl Pillsbury

Independent

1,131

84.4h

2007

La.

Rep 45

Joel Robideaux

Independent

uncounted

100.0

La.

Rep 55

Jerome "Dee" Richard

Independent

4,120

58.6

Mass.

Rep N-11

Paul McMurtry

Independent

2,948

37.6

Va.

Del 19

Lacey E. Putney

Independent

11,908

72.7

Va.

Del 59

Watkins Abbitt

Independent

13,874

60.3


EARL DODGE DIES

Earl Dodge, long-time Prohibition Party activist and candidate, died unexpectedly on November 7.


2007 STATE SENATE ELECTIONS

PARTY

La.

Miss.

N. Jersey

Virginia

Consti.

- -

10,891

- -

- -

Green

- -

- -

- -

9,208

Libít.

- -

- -

2,038

8,312

Soc Wkr

- -

- -

95

- -


2007 STATE HOUSE ELECTIONS

Party

La.

Miss.

N.Jersey

Virginia

Consti.

491

2,364

- -

- -

Green

- -

89

12,095

4,376

Libít.

- -

- -

5,215

- -

Soc Wkr

- -

- -

233

- -

The four states above elected legislatures this year. The only minor parties with nominees in these elections were Constitution (10 nominees), Green (18 nominees), Libertarian (12 nominees) and Socialist Workers (3 nominees). The tables above show the number of voters who voted for each partyís nominees for each legislative chamber.


MINOR PARTY PARTISAN WINS, NOV. 6

Libertarian: Susan Bell, Judge, Hagerstown, In.; Michael Sloan, Pottawatomie Park council, In.; in Pennsylvania: Myron Dietrick, Avis Mayor; Mary Lucas, Strattenville Council; Erik Viker, Selingsgrove Council; Ray Onrusek, Eastern Lebanon Co. Sch. Bd.; David Owens, Landenberg Twp. Supervisor; Bill Beeman, Waterford Twp. Auditor.

Working Families: Luis Cotto and Larry Deutsch, Hartford, Ct., city council.

Green: Allan Brison, New Haven, Ct., council; Jean de Smet, Windham, Ct., Selectman (under the label "Bottom Line Slate"); Hector Lopez and Erik Eisenberg, Constable, New Canaan, Ct.; Sam Ettaro, Curwensville Council, Pa.


MINOR PARTY NON-PARTISAN WINS

Constitution: Scott Stevens, Warren, Mi. city council; Matt Curry, Lewiston, Utah city council.

Green: John Anton, Portland, Me. City council; Luc Schuster, Cambridge, Ma. School committee; Chuck Turner, Boston, Ma. City council; Dan Robinson, Takoma Park, Md., city council; Larry Bragman and Lew Tremain, Fairfax, Ca., city council; Chris Simmons, Loudon Co., Va., Soil and Water Board; Kathleen Harrigan, Tri-County Soil and Water Board, Fredericksburg, Va.; Daniel Metraux, Soil and Water Board, Staunton, Va.

Libertarian: Bill Lynn, Davenport, Ia Alderman; Rob Oates, Caldwell, Id. city council; Mark Owen, Owasso, Mi. city council; Andy LeCureaux, Hazel Park, Mi. city council; Mary Byrne, Port Huron, Mi. city council; David Eisenbacher, Troy, Mi. city council; T. J. Rohr, Lenoir, N.C., city council; Henry Boschen, Roxobel, N.C. town council; Ruben Perez, San Antonio River Authority Board, Tx., Bob Mills, Biddeford, Me. city council; John McAlister, Gahanna, Oh., city council.


PETITIONING CHART

The usual 2008 presidential petitioning chart is missing from this issue, but will return in the January 2008 issue. Charts in previous issues erroneously said the Illinois deadline is June 26. However, the actual deadline is June 23.

The only petition that has been submitted in the last 30 days is the Utah Libertarian petition. The state is still checking it. Unity08 will begin massive petitioning in January 2008, according to its web site. On November 9, Unity08 joined the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) Board.


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 donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.

Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger. Note: subscriptions are available!


Go back to the index.
Copyright © 2007 Ballot Access News