December 1, 2008 Ė Volume 24, Number 8

This issue was originally printed on tan paper.

Table of Contents

  1. OREGON VOTERS DEFEAT "TOP-TWO" BY 2:1 MARGIN
  2. OUT-OF-STATE PETITIONING VICTORY
  3. HIGH COURT WONíT HEAR OHIOís OTHER PETITION CASE
  4. N.Y. COURT VICTORY ON CONGRESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
  5. NEW HOPE FOR PENNSYLVANIA
  6. UNITY08 LOSES CASE ON CONTRIBUTIONS
  7. IRV WINS IN TWO CITIES, LOSES ONE
  8. FLORIDA PRIMARY DATE LAWSUIT
  9. 2008 OCTOBER REGISTRATION TOTALS
  10. 2008 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE
  11. 2010 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE
  12. MINOR PARTY WINS FOR LEGISLATURE
  13. INDEPENDENTS IN STATE LEGISLATURES
  14. STATEWIDE & U.S. HOUSE RACES
  15. MINOR PARTY PARTISAN LOCAL WINS
  16. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL


OREGON VOTERS DEFEAT "TOP-TWO" BY 2:1 MARGIN

On November 4, Oregon voters defeated Measure 65 by 34.1% "Yes" to 65.9% "No." It would have imposed the "top-two" election system. Everyone (except presidential candidates) running for partisan office would have appeared on the same ballot in May. Every voter would have used that same ballot. Then, only the top two vote-getters would have been on the November ballot.

The measure did not pass in any county. Its best counties were Clatsop (39.4%) and Multnomah (38.6%), which includes Portland. 65 did worst in Malheur County (26.5%) which is mostly Republican.

The Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Peace Parties actively opposed Measure 65. The major parties also opposed it, but they did not spend much money to oppose it. Supporters had raised approximately $700,000 this year, and had run TV ads. There were no TV ads advocating a "No" vote. The measure had been endorsed repeatedly and continually by the largest newspaper in the state, The Oregonian. It had also been endorsed by every other newspaper in the state that made endorsements, except that the Salem Statesman-Journal and the Eugene Weekly had opposed it.

Measure 65ís chief proponent, former Secretary of State Phil Keisling, said during the campaign that his own poll showed the measure passing with over 70%. It does not appear that any neutral poll on the measure was ever conducted.

One reason the measure lost is because Political Science Professor Paul Gronke of Reed College actively opposed the measure. He debated Keisling in the influential Portland City Club. The City Club analyzed the measure and recommended a "No" vote. Gronke said he polled 800 political scientists, and only found one political scientist in favor.

Another reason Measure 65 lost so badly is because of its description on the ballot. The Oregon ballot said, "65. Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices." That was followed by, "Result of ĎYesí Vote: ĎYesí vote changes general election nomination processes for most partisan offices; all candidates run in single primary; top two primary candidates compete in general election." Finally, "Result of No Vote: ĎNoí vote retains the current party primary election system, retains procedures for the nomination of minor political party and independent candidates to the general election."

Measureís 65 supporters may have injured their cause by constantly referring to it as "the open primary." Since the ballot didnít include that term, it is possible that some voters decided they wished to vote "Yes" on "the open primary", but when they read their ballot, they saw nothing about an "open primary."


OUT-OF-STATE PETITIONING VICTORY

On October 29, the 6th Circuit ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits Ohio from banning out-of-state circulators for independent presidential candidates. Nader v Blackwell, 07-4350. The vote was 3-0. The case had roots in the 2004 election, when Ralph Nader was kept off the Ohio ballot, even though he had enough valid signatures, because some of his circulators were from out-of-state.

Although Brian Moore, Socialist Party presidential candidate, had won a somewhat similar court order in U.S. District Court earlier this year, that victory wasnít as substantial as this one. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled in 1999 that states canít ban circulators who arenít registered voters in that state.

Technically, Ohio has never had a law banning out-of-state circulators; it just said that independent candidate and initiative circulators had to be registered voters in Ohio. The earlier victory this year in the Moore case said that Ohio couldnít pretend that its obviously unconstitutional law (banning unregistered circulators) should be treated as though it were a ban on out-of-state circulators. The Moore decision freed up circulators during 2008, but it left the door open for the legislature to write a new law in 2009, banning out-of-staters.

The new Nader decision from the 6th circuit, on the other hand, explicitly says that bans on out-of-state circulators violate the First Amendment. It says, "No case has been put forward in this litigation as to a compelling state interest in permitting unregistered Ohioans to circulate petitions but not unregistered citizens of other states."

Nader had brought this case in 2006, and had lost it in the U.S. District Court in 2007 on procedural issues. In a hyper-technical sense, Nader "lost" this case because he was suing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell for $1 in damages. The 6th circuit denied that, because it said that back in 2004, it was not obvious that laws banning out-of-state circulators were unconstitutional; therefore Blackwell was not liable. Because Nader "lost" in that narrow sense, Ohio cannot appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is final.


HIGH COURT WONíT HEAR OHIOís OTHER PETITION CASE

On November 17, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Ohioís appeal in Ohio v Citizens for Tax Reform, 08-151. The 6th circuit had struck down Ohioís ban on paying circulators on a per-signature basis, and that decision will now stand.


N.Y. COURT VICTORY ON CONGRESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Article One protects the right to run for Congress. It said that neither states, nor Congress, can add to the qualifications set forth in Article One to run for Congress, or to serve in Congress. That case was U.S. Term Limits v Thornton. It struck down an Arkansas law that said that although anyone could be a write-in for Congress, no one could have his or her name printed on the ballot who had served three terms in Congress already.

On October 31, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Arcara, a Reagan appointee, ruled that someone is eligible to run for Congress, no matter where he or she lives before the election. Article One says someone elected to Congress must live in that state "when elected". Judge Arcara said that Jonathan Powers is eligible to run for Congress in New York, even though he had moved to Washington, D.C., in September 2008, because the Constitution says nothing about where someone lives before the election. New York State Republican Committee v New York State Bd. of Elections, 08-cv-810, western dist. On November 3, the 2nd circuit sided with Judge Arcara, by a vote of 3-0 (case no. 08-5327).

This was only the fourth case in which a federal court had ruled a candidate eligible for the ballot, based on U.S. Term Limits v Thornton. The earlier cases had been from California, Colorado, and Texas. The 9th and 10th circuits had both ruled that states cannot require candidates for Congress to be registered voters, and the 5th circuit had ruled that states cannot require residency prior to the election.

Eventually, the Courts will conclude that ballot access laws that make it virtually impossible for minor party members to be on the ballot for Congress are not necessary for orderly election administration, and that such severe ballot access laws are also void under Article One.


NEW HOPE FOR PENNSYLVANIA

In 2004, Ralph Nader was ordered to pay $80,000 to cover the court costs in the proceeding to remove him from the Pennsylvania ballot. In 2006, the Green Partyís U.S. Senate candidate suffered the same fate. No Pennsylvania state court has given any relief, even though this year it was revealed that both sets of challenges had been unlawfully paid for with government resources instead of the resources of the challengers.

But on November 18, a federal jury awarded $67,000 to Denise Carey, who had unsuccessfully tried to place a local initiative on the ballot in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania in 2004. Carey had sued the city, after the city had not only rejected her initiative, but had told her that she had to pay the city $11,056 for court costs and attorneys fees. Even though she had withdrawn her petition, and even though she had promised not to engage in political activism in the future, the city had insisted on being reimbursed for the costs of setting up a court proceeding to see if the petition was valid.

Pennsylvania officials seem oblivious to the idea that the rational way to learn if a petition has enough signatures is to have clerical staff in an election office check the signatures. The federal case is Carey v City of Wilkes-Barre, 05-cv-2534, middle district, Scranton. The city is appealing to the 3rd circuit.

In another development that bodes well for justice in the Nader and Green Party matter, on November 14 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Company, 08-22. The issue is whether the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution is violated when someone is involved in a lawsuit, and that personís opponent in court had made very large campaign donations to a judge who is hearing that case.

In the Pennsylvania 2004 and 2006 petition challenges, the attorneys who represented the challengers had done favors for several of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices.


UNITY08 LOSES CASE ON CONTRIBUTIONS

In 2006, a group of prominent individuals launched Unity08, to put a moderate independent presidential candidate in the 2008 election. The group planned to qualify itself as a ballot-qualified party, and only after that work was done, would it nominate a presidential candidate. The candidate was to be chosen on the internet by people who supported the concept. The founders of Unity08 themselves did not themselves support any particular presidential candidate.

The Federal Election Commission told Unity08 that it is a "political committee" and that therefore it could only receive $5,000 from any individual. A "political committee" is a group that backs a particular presidential candidate. Unity08 objected, saying it is not a "political committee" since it had no particular candidate in mind. But on October 16, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts ruled that Unity08 is a political committee. Unity08 v FEC, 07-53. Unity08 never did carry out its mission, partly because of the FEC campaign finance ruling that hampered its ability to raise money. However, it is appealing the decision.


IRV WINS IN TWO CITIES, LOSES ONE

On November 4, the voters of Telluride, Colorado, and Memphis, Tennessee, voted in favor of Instant-Runoff Voting for city elections. However, the voters of Cincinnati defeated a closely related ballot measure for city council elections.


FLORIDA PRIMARY DATE LAWSUIT

On November 10, a U.S. District Court heard arguments in Ausman v Browning, 4:07-cv-519, n.d., over whether it violates the rights of the Democratic Party for Florida to hold its presidential primary in January. National Democratic rules do not permit such early primaries, except in New Hampshire and South Carolina.


2008 OCTOBER REGISTRATION TOTALS

`

Dem.

Rep.

Indp, misc

Constitut.

Green

Libt

Reform

Wk Fam

other

Alaska

77,036

127,446

262,902

?

2,926

6,926

?

?

19,592

Arizona

1,022,252

1,118,587

824,450

?

4,009

18,153

?

?

- -

Calif.

7,683,495

5,428,052

3,537,483

370,405

118,416

83,574

26,316

?

56,350

Colorado

902,444

892,791

814,281

1,461

5,526

9,489

?

?

183

Conn.

779,784

427,020

885,211

263

1,906

987

106

18

2,340

Delaware

280,347

181,789

136,731

309

587

756

140

589

1,618

Dt. Col.

321,027

30,465

70,721

?

4,548

?

?

?

- -

Florida

4,722,076

4,064,301

2,433,193

932

6,007

16,883

3,093

?

1,149

Iowa

698,839

592,397

710,587

- -

356

762

- -

- -

- -

Kansas

451,577

751,125

446,450

- -

- -

9,113

1,296

- -

- -

Kentucky

1,662,093

1,053,871

189,338

105

329

997

48

?

28

Louis'na

1,442,468

697,694

584,591

?

1,040

2,669

1,457

?

- -

Maine

310,950

258,147

346,374

?

27,354

?

?

?

- -

Maryland

1,946,823

927,798

532,241

106

8,384

7,058

?

?

10,235

Mass.

1,559,464

490,259

2,144,417

80

7,522

12,534

438

5,534

240

Nebraska

392,943

558,465

195,507

8,625

1,041

453

?

?

- -

Nevada

531,317

430,594

187,758

47,967

3,349

6,776

?

?

- -

N. Hamp.

263,217

268,108

332,217

?

?

?

?

?

- -

N. Jersey

1,782,556

1,055,403

2,511,396

117

953

1,023

67

?

154

N. Mex.

596,938

378,351

208,191

91

5,290

2,172

?

?

- -

N. York

5,831,445

3,054,520

2,523,696

?

28,983

1,545

?

40,560

550,541

No. Car.

2,870,862

2,004,704

1,395,714

?

?

3,672

?

?

- -

Okla.

1,079,373

859,872

244,847

?

?

?

?

?

- -

Oregon

914,542

686,656

451,405

2,996

8,834

13,701

?

1,984

33,550

Pennsyl.

4,480,691

3,243,391

978,123

2,631

16,686

36,509

?

?

- -

Rhode Is.

265,947

67,387

281,929

?

?

?

?

?

- -

So. Dak.

204,413

241,528

83,147

315

?

1,059

?

?

- -

Utah

118,037

549,928

649,452

1,819

?

2,639

?

?

- -

W. Va.

675,305

353,437

167,111

?

973

?

?

?

- -

Wyo.

65,640

150,504

27,796

?

?

878

?

?

- -

TOTAL

438,222

255,019

240,328

32,961

48,685

675,980

Percent

43.62%

30.72%

23.98%

.44%

.25%

.24%

.03%

.05%

.67%

The parties in the "Other" column are: in Alaska, 13,828 Alaskan Independence, 3,842 Republican Moderate, 1,922 Veterans; Peace & Freedom in California; United Party in Colorado; Independent Party in Connecticut; in Delaware, 310 Socialist Workers and 1,308 Independent Party; in Florida, Boston Tea 51, Socialist Workers 380, Socialist 614, Americaís Independent Party 30, Party for Socialism & Liberation 23, Prohibition 51; Socialist Workers in Kentucky; Independent Party in Maryland; these Massachusetts parties: Socialist 203, Veterans 25, Prohibition 12; these New York parties: Independence 399,478, Conservative 151,063; these Oregon parties: Independent 33,497, Peace 53.

A dash means that the voters canít register into a particular party because there is no write-in line on the registration form.

Totals February 2008 were: Dem. 39,139,653 (41.66%), Rep. 29,955,197 (31.89%), Indp. & misc. 23,315,495 (24.82%), Constitution 384,722 (.41%), Green 261,754 (.28%), Libertarian 225,529 (.24%), Reform & Independence 391,915 (.42%), other parties 270,409 (.29%).

Totals October 2004 were: Dem. 37,301,951 (42.19%), Rep. 28,988,593 (32.79%), Indp. & misc. 20,471,250 (23.15%), Constitution 320,019 (.36%), Green 298,701 (.34%), Libertarian 235,521 (.27%), Reform 63,729 (.07%), Natural Law 39,670 (.04%), other parties 695,639 (.79%).

Totals October 2000 were: Dem. 38,529,264 (43.84%), Rep. 28,813,511 (32.78%), Indp. & misc. 18,999,126 (21.62%), Constitution 348,977 (.40%), Libertarian 224,713 (.26%), Green 193,332 (.22%), Reform 99,408 (.11%), Natural Law 61,405 (.07%), other parties 620,668 (.71%).

Totals October 1992 were: Dem. 35,616,630 (47.76%), Rep. 24,590,383 (32.97%), Indp. & misc. 13,617,167 (18.26%), Green 102,557 (.14%), Libertarian 100,394 (.13%), other parties 554,668 (.74%).


2008 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE (not final)
as of January 6, 2009
see below for other parties

`

Obama

McCain

Nader

Barr

Baldwin

McKinney

Keyes

Paul

S.W.P.

Alabama

813,479

1,266,546

6,788

4,991

4,310

6

14

273

?

Alaska

123,594

193,841

3,783

1,589

1,660

?

?

?

?

Arizona

1,034,707

1,230,111

11,301

12,555

1,371

3,406

?

?

?

Arkansas

422,310

638,017

12,882

4,776

4,023

3,470

0

0

0

California

8,274,473

5,011,781

108,381

67,582

3,145

37,432

40,673

17,006

49

Colorado

1,288,568

1,073,584

13,350

10,897

6,234

2,822

3,051

?

154

Connecticut

997,772

629,428

18,112

?

193

63

?

?

20

Delaware

255,446

152,373

2,401

1,109

626

385

?

?

58

D.C.

245,800

17,367

958

?

?

590

?

?

?

Florida

4,282,074

4,045,624

28,124

17,218

7,915

2,887

2,550

?

533

Georgia

1,844,137

2,048,744

1,123

28,812

1,305

249

?

?

20

Hawaii

325,871

120,566

3,825

1,314

1,013

979

0

0

0

Idaho

236,440

403,012

7,175

3,658

4,747

39

40

?

?

Illinois

3,419,673

2,031,527

30,952

19,645

8,256

11,838

?

1

?

Indiana

1,374,039

1,345,648

909

29,257

1,024

87

?

?

?

Iowa

828,940

682,379

8,014

4,590

4,445

1,423

?

?

292

Kansas

514,765

699,655

10,527

6,706

4,148

35

31

?

?

Kentucky

751,985

1,048,462

15,378

5,989

4,694

?

27

?

?

Louisiana

782,989

1,148,275

6,997

0

2,581

9,187

0

9,368

735

Maine

421,923

295,273

10,636

251

177

2,900

?

?

?

Maryland

1,629,467

959,862

14,713

9,842

3,760

4,747

103

?

?

Massachusetts

1,904,097

1,108,854

28,841

13,189

4,971

6,550

?

?

?

Michigan

2,872,579

2,048,639

33,085

23,716

14,685

8,892

129

?

?

Minnesota

1,573,354

1,275,409

30,152

9,174

6,787

5,174

22

?

790

Mississippi

554,662

724,597

4,011

2,529

2,551

1,034

?

?

?

Missouri

1,441,911

1,445,814

17,813

11,386

8,201

80

?

?

?

Montana

231,667

242,763

3,686

1,355

143

23

?

10,638

?

Nebraska

333,319

452,979

5,406

2,740

2,972

1,028

?

?

?

Nevada

533,736

412,827

6,150

4,263

3,194

1,411

0

0

0

New Hampshire

384,826

316,534

3,503

2,217

226

40

?

1,092

?

New Jersey

2,215,422

1,613,207

21,298

8,441

3,956

3,636

?

?

523

New Mexico

472,422

346,832

5,327

2,428

1,597

1,552

0

0

0

New York

4,804,701

2,752,728

41,248

19,595

634

12,801

35

?

3,615

Noroth Carolina

2,142,651

2,128,474

1,448

25,722

?

158

?

?

?

North Dakota

141,278

168,601

4,189

1,354

1,199

0

?

?

?

Ohio

2,933,388

2,674,491

42,288

19,888

12,550

8,513

160

?

?

Oklahoma

502,496

960,165

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oregon

1,037,291

738,475

18,614

7,631

7,693

4,543

?

?

?

Pennsylvania

3,276,363

2,651,812

44,397

19,812

986

?

?

3,527

?

Rhode Island

296,571

165,391

4,829

1,382

675

797

?

?

?

South Carolina

862,449

1,034,896

5,053

7,283

6,827

4,461

0

0

0

South Dakota

170,924

203,054

4,267

1,835

1,895

0

0

0

0

Tennessee

1,087,437

1,479,178

11,560

8,547

8,191

2,499

?

?

?

Texas

3,528,633

4,479,328

5,440

56,116

5,052

831

883

?

?

Utah

327,670

596,030

8,416

6,966

12,012

982

?

?

?

Vermont

219,262

98,974

3,339

1,067

500

66

?

?

150

Virginia

1,959,532

1,725,005

11,483

11,067

7,474

2,344

38

?

?

Washington

1,750,848

1,229,216

29,489

12,728

9,432

3,819

?

?

641

West Virginia

303,857

397,466

7,219

?

2,465

2,355

?

?

?

Wisconsin

1,677,211

1,262,393

17,605

8,858

5,072

4,216

?

?

?

Wyoming

82,868

164,958

2,525

1,594

1,192

0

?

?

?

Guam

20,119

11,941

0

214

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

69,511,996

59,953,106

739,010

523,878

199,102

160,190

47,756

41,905

7,580

2008 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE (continued)

`

La Riva

B. Moore

Duncan

Jay

Polachek

McEnulty

Wamboldt

Stevens

Amondsn

Alabama

?

5

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Alaska

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Arizona

?

?

?

16

?

?

?

?

?

Arkansas

1,139

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

?

California

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Colorado

158

226

?

598

?

828

?

336

85

Connecticut

?

15

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Delaware

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

D.C.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Florida

1,516

405

?

795

?

?

?

419

293

Georgia

?

6

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Hawaii

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Idaho

?

3

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Illinois

?

?

?

?

1,149

?

?

?

?

Indiana

?

14

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Iowa

121

182

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Kansas

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Kentucky

?

?

?

?

?

0

?

?

?

Louisiana

354

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

275

Maine

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Maryland

?

10

?

1

?

?

?

?

?

Massachusetts

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Michigan

?

41

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Minnesota

?

7

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Mississippi

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Missouri

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Montana

?

?

?

0

?

?

?

?

?

Nebraska

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Nevada

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New Hampshire

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

New Jersey

416

699

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

New Mexico

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New York

1,639

10

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

North Carolina

?

38

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

North Dakota

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Ohio

?

2,731

3,902

?

?

?

?

?

?

Oklahoma

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oregon

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Pennsylvania

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Rhode Island

122

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

South Carolina

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

South Dakota

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tennessee

?

1,326

?

1,011

?

?

?

?

?

Texas

?

132

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Utah

262

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Vermont

149

141

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Virginia

?

13

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Washington

705

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

West Virginia

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Wisconsin

237

540

?

?

?

?

764

?

?

Wyoming

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Guam

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

6,818

6,537

3,902

2,420

1,149

828

764

755

653


2010 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
DEADLINES
FULL PARTY
CAND
LIB'T
GREEN
CONSTI
WK FAM
Party
Indp.

Ala. 9

37,513

37,513

100

0

0

0

June 1

June 1

Alaska 3

(reg) 7,124

#3,128

6,926

2,926

0

0

June 1

Aug. 24

Ariz. 10

30,580

(est) #25,500

already on

4,009

0

0

Mar. 11

unsettled

Ark. 6

10,000

10,000

0

0

0

0

June 30

May 3

Calif. 55

(reg) 88,991

173,041

already on

already on

in court

0

Jan. 6

Aug. 6

Colo. 9

(reg) 1,000

1,000

already on

already on

already on

0

June 1

June 15

Conn. 7

no procedure

#7,500

already on

already on

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 11

Del. 3

(est) (reg) 310

(est) 6,200

already on

already on

already on

already on

Aug. 10

July 15

D.C. 3

no procedure

#3,000

canít start

already on

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 25

Florida 27

be organized

pay fee

already on

already on

already on

0

Apr. 30

Apr. 30

Georgia 15

57,582

#44,089

already on

canít start

canít start

canít start

July 13

July 13

Hawaii 4

663

25

already on

0

0

0

Apr. 1

July 19

Idaho 4

13,102

1,000

already on

canít start

already on

canít start

Aug. 27

March 19

Illinois 21

no procedure

#25,000

canít start

already on

canít start

canít start

- - -

June 21

Indiana 11

no procedure

#32,742

already on

0

0

0

- - -

June 30

Iowa 7

no procedure

#1,500

0

0

0

0

- - -

Aug. 13

Kansas 6

16,994

5,000

already on

0

0

0

June 1

Aug. 2

Ky. 8

no procedure

#5,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 10

La. 9

(reg) 1,000

pay $500

already on

already on

??

0

May 20

Aug. 20

Maine 4

27,544

#4,000

0

already on

0

0

Dec 11, 09

Aug. 8

Md. 10

10,000

(est) 35,000

already on

already on

already on

0

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Mass. 12

(est) (reg) 43,000

#10,000

already on

7,522

80

5,534

Feb. 1

July 27

Mich. 17

38,024

30,000

already on

already on

already on

0

July 15

July 17

Minn. 10

145,517

#2,000

0

0

0

0

July 20

July 20

Miss. 6

be organized

1,000

already on

already on

already on

0

April 9

April 9

Mo. 11

10,000

10,000

already on

0

already on

0

July 26

July 26

Mont. 3

5,000

#15,359

already on

0

already on

0

Mar. 18

in court

Nebr. 5

5,921

4,000

0

0

0

0

Aug. 2

Aug. 24

Nev. 5

250

9,060

already on

0

already on

0

April 12

April 12

N. Hamp. 5

21,315

#3,000

0

0

0

0

Aug. 4

Aug. 4

N.J. 15

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

- - -

June 2

N. M. 5

2,794

16,764

0

unsettled

already on

0

Apr. 1

June 3

N.Y. 31

no procedure

#15,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

already on

- - -

Aug. 17

No. Car. 15

in court

69,734

already on

0

0

0

May 14

June 10

No. Dak. 3

7,000

#4,000

0

0

0

0

Apr. 9

Sep. 3

Ohio 20

unsettled

5,000

0

0

0

0

unsettled

May 3

Okla. 7

73,134

pay fee

0

0

0

0

May 1

July 15

Oregon 7

20,640

(est) 19,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

Aug. 26

Aug. 26

Penn. 21

no procedure

(est) #25,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 2

R.I. 4

23,489

#1,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

May 28

July 22

So. Car. 8

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

May 2

July 15

So. Dak. 3

8,389

3,356

0

0

already on

0

Mar. 23

June 2

Tenn. 11

in court

25

0

0

0

0

unsettled

April 1

Texas 34

43,991

43,991

already on

canít start

canít start

canít start

May 24

May 10

Utah 5

2,000

#1,000

already on

0

already on

0

Feb. 15

March 15

Vermont 3

be organized

#500

already on

0

already on

0

Jan. 1

Sep. 10

Virginia 13

no procedure

#10,000

0

0

0

0

- - -

June 8

Wash. 11

no procedure

pay fee

0

0

0

0

- - -

May 15

West Va. 5

no procedure

#14,500

0

already on

0

0

- - -

May 10

Wisc. 10

10,000

#2,000

already on

already on

canít start

canít start

June 1

July 13

Wyo. 3

4,988

4,988

already on

canít start

canít start

canít start

June 1

Aug. 23

TOTAL STATES ON
27 16 16 4 ` `

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
The number after each stateís name is how many electoral votes it has.
West Virginia has no statewide race in 2010, so the requirement is for a full slate of U.S. House nominees.


MINOR PARTY WINS FOR LEGISLATURE

On November 4, five Progressive Party nominees were elected to the Vermont House. They are David Zuckerman, Sandy Haas, Susan Davis, Sarah Edwards (all of whom were re-elected) and newcomer Mollie Burke. All of them had either "Progressive" or "Progressive, Democrat" on the ballot next to their names.

Tim Ashe was elected to the Vermont Senate. His label was "Democrat, Progressive" so reference books will list him as a Democrat. However, he had been elected to the Burlington City Council in 2007 as a Progressive, in a partisan election. Vermont does not have registration by party, so membership is a fuzzy concept.

Two sitting Vermont Progressives in the House were defeated for re-election. They are Christopher Pearson and Dexter Randall. Pearson is considered the legislatureís leading expert on sustainable agriculture. He was defeated because a majority of voters in his district are students at the University of Vermont, and most of the students seemed taken by the idea of electing one of their own. She is Kesha Ram, the Democratic nominee, age 22.

In Arkansas, Richard Carroll, the Green Party nominee, was elected to the State House. He was the only candidate listed on the ballot, but two Democrats ran write-in campaigns against him.


INDEPENDENTS IN STATE LEGISLATURES

On November 4, these independent candidates were elected to state legislatures: Maine House, Thomas Saviello; Massachusetts House, Timothy Madden; Rhode Island Senate, Edward OíNeill; South Dakota Senate, Tom Dempster; Vermont House, Will Stevens and Adam Greshin; and Wisconsin House, Jeff Wood.

In Minnesota and Tennessee, sitting state legislators who tried to win re-election as independents were narrowly defeated. They are Tennessee Senator Micheal Williams and Minnesota Representative Ron Erhardt.


STATEWIDE & U.S. HOUSE RACES

For the first time since 1988, no minor party or independent candidate won any seat in either house of Congress. The only statewide independent or minor party nominee in a statewide race who placed ahead of a major party nominee is Anthony Pollina, who placed second, ahead of the Democrat, in the Vermont gubernatorial race.

In U.S. House races, the only independent or minor party candidate who placed ahead of a major party nominee is Cindy Sheehan, in Californiaís 8th district. She ran as an independent and placed ahead of the Republican nominee. She says she will run again in 2010. The district is represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Rick Lass, Green Party nominee for New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, polled 45% in a partisan two-person race. John Monds, Libertarian nominee for Georgia Public Service Commissioner, polled 33% in a partisan two-person race, and carried Fulton County (the county that contains most of Atlanta) and several other counties.

It is likely that Green Party nominee Malik Rahim, running in Louisianaís U.S. House district two on December 6, will outpoll the Republican nominee. This district is voting late because September storms forced the state to delay its primary in districts that needed a run-off primary.


MINOR PARTY PARTISAN LOCAL WINS

The Green Party won at least two local partisan elections. Art Goodtimes was re-elected to the San Miguel County Commission in Colorado; and Korine Bachleda was re-elected Newberg Township Clerk, Cass County, Michigan.

The Libertarian Party won at least one local partisan race. Frederick Campbell was re-elected County Attorney of Anderson County, Kansas.

The Working Families Party elected a Registrar of Voters in Hartford, Connecticut. Voters elect two, but no party may nominate more than a single candidate. The WFP nominee outpolled the Republican nominee.


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.

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


Go back to the index.
Copyright © 2008 Ballot Access News