August 1, 2009 - Volume 25, Number 3

This issue was originally printed on white paper.

Table of Contents

  1. OREGON ELIMINATES PRIMARY SCREEN-OUT
  2. OREGON LEGALIZES FUSION
  3. ALABAMA LOSS
  4. R.I. BALLOT ACCESS BILL PASSES SENATE
  5. NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN
  6. ARIZONA BILLS
  7. CALIFORNIA BILLS
  8. BALLOT ACCESS BILLS
  9. LAWSUIT NEWS
  10. MOST CROWDED GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR U.S. HOUSE
  11. LOWEST PERCENT EVER RECEIVED BY A WINNING GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE
  12. GENE AMONDSON DIES
  13. CALIFORNIA MODERATE PARTY
  14. ILLINOIS GREENS WILL RUN RICHARD WHITNEY FOR GOVERNOR AGAIN
  15. SIX PARTIES IN VIRGINIA STATE RACES
  16. N.J. INDEPENDENT QUALIFIES FOR PUBLIC FUNDING, DEBATES
  17. MASSACHUSETTS TREASURER SWITCHES FROM DEM TO INDEPENDENT
  18. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL ELECTION
  19. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL


OREGON ELIMINATES PRIMARY SCREEN-OUT

On July 23, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongowski signed SB 326. That bill, which passed on June 29, repeals the law passed in 2005 that says people who vote in a primary may not sign an independent candidateís petition. The House vote was 42-17; the Senate vote 25-5.

As a result, the only states that still prevent primary voters from signing a petition for either an independent candidate, or for a political party, are Texas and Nebraska. Texas applies its "primary screenout" to all independent candidate petitions and petitions to recognize a party. Nebraska only applies its primary screenout to petitions for independent presidential candidates.

States that once had primary screenouts, but which have repealed them (besides Oregon) are Arizona in 1993, California in 1976, Colorado in 1975, Illinois in 1975, New York in 1984, Rhode Island in 1976, Washington in 1977, and West Virginia in 1999. Elections officials generally oppose the primary screenout, because it makes the petition-checking process more cumbersome.

The fight to repeal Oregonís screenout was helped by editorials in several large newspapers this year, urging the legislature to eliminate the restriction. Those same newspapers had ignored the matter in 2005, when the legislature was passing the restriction.

The motivation for the primary screenout bill in 2005 was anger that Ralph Nader had tried to get on the ballot in Oregon in 2004. Even though he failed to get on that year, many Oregon legislators were so unhappy that he might have got on the ballot that they made ballot access for independent candidates substantially more difficult. The law had already required a petition of 1% of the last presidential vote, and that percentage was not changed.

Proponents of the bill said that the principles of "one man, one vote" dictate that voters be forbidden to both sign an independent candidate petition and vote in a primary. The League of Women Voters of Oregon also made that argument, and asked the legislature to pass the primary screenout.

The flaw in that argument is that signing a petition for an independent candidate is not voting for the independent candidate. A signature on a ballot access petition means the signer feels it is appropriate for that independent candidate, or that political party, to appear on the ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pratt explained this in Hall v Austin, 495 F.Supp.782, in 1980, when he put Gus Hall on the ballot as an independent candidate for president. He wrote, "The real question is whether there is enough support for placing a given candidate on the ballot, not whether there is enough support for electing the candidate. A large segment of the public may be determined never to vote for Hall and Davis yet may wish to see them on the ballot and support their efforts to get on the ballot. Another segment of the public may be attracted to Hall and Davis, may find their viewpoint appealing, and may even support their candidacy in various ways. Yet when the members of this sympathetic constituency finally enter the voting booth, they may decide to vote for candidates with a greater likelihood of success."

The primary screenout was challenged in federal court in 2006 by an Oregon voter, Greg Wasson. No decision in that lawsuit was ever made, because the 9th circuit said Wasson lacked standing. The Oregon Democratic Party filed an amicus curiae brief in that lawsuit, in defense of the primary screenout. The party said that the screenout "provides for one person, one vote".

The party also said that even with the primary screenout, Oregon procedures for independent candidates are "extraordinarily low, by any measure." The Democratic Party statement was not true. No independent candidate for any federal or state office appeared on the Oregon ballot in 2008, and only one (for State Senate) appeared in 2006.


OREGON LEGALIZES FUSION

The same Oregon bill that repealed the primary screenout (see first story) also legalized fusion. Although Connecticut had expanded fusion in 2007, Oregon appears to be the first state that actually legalized fusion, after it had been illegal, in at least 80 years, and perhaps forever.

Oregon will use the type of fusion in which a candidateís name only appears on the ballot once, even if he or she is the nominee of two or three parties. All of the parties that nominated that candidate are listed next to the candidateís name, on a single line. The voter canít choose which party label to vote for.

The Oregon legislature had considered bills for the other type of fusion (in which the voter can choose which label to vote for) in both 2009 and 2007, but those bills didnít pass.

The Working Families, Libertarian, and Independent Parties worked hard for this bill. The Libertarian Party elected its member-nominees to the state legislature of New Hampshire in 1992 and 1994, largely because New Hampshire permits the type of fusion that Oregon now has. The Vermont Libertarian Party also elected a member-nominee in 1998, also via fusion. Most people think of fusion as a way for minor parties to cross-endorse major party member-nominees, but often forget that fusion also enables minor party members to receive major party nominations.


ALABAMA LOSS

On July 23, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller, a Bush Jr. appointee, upheld the number of signatures required for an independent U.S. House candidate in Alabama. Shugart v Chapman, m.d., 2:08-cv-1016.

Alabama requires 5,000 signatures for an independent presidential candidate, but 6,155 for an independent U.S. House candidate in the 6th district (in both 2008 and 2010). Alabama is the only state that ever requires an independent candidate for U.S. House to collect more signatures than an independent presidential candidates needs in the entire state.

In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party that a state may not require more signatures for an office in just part of the state than it requires for a statewide office. Specifically, an independent candidate for Mayor of Chicago could not be required to get 35,947 signatures, when an independent candidate for statewide office needed 25,000. Relying on that case, U.S. District Courts then struck down Colorado and Iowa laws that required more signatures for an independent for U.S. House than were needed for a statewide independent.

Judge Fuller didnít follow their lead, nor did he mention those other District Court cases. He said the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court precedent doesnít apply, because "While Illinois State Board addressed the difference between requirements to be on a statewide ballot and those to be on a municipal ballot within that same state, this lawsuit challenges differences between requirements to be on the ballot for a U.S. Congressional District and U.S. President."

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court didnít say that its common-sense holding was confined only to a contrast between municipal petition requirements and statewide requirements. This is obvious when one considers that in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court again struck down the number of signatures for independent candidates in Illinois.

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said Illinois could not require more signatures for Cook County office than for statewide office. Judge Fuller did not mention the 1992 case, Norman v Reed. An appeal is likely.

The plaintiff-candidate who was trying to get on the Alabama in the 6th district was Andy Shugart. One reason he was motivated to run is that no Democrat has run in that district since 1998. The incumbent Republican, Spencer Bachus, only had a Libertarian opponent in 2000 and 2002. Bachus was the only name on the ballot the last three elections. It is ironic that Democrats could run with zero signatures, but donít, whereas the state blocks an independent candidate.


R.I. BALLOT ACCESS BILL PASSES SENATE

On June 25, the Rhode Island Senate passed SB 203, which lowers the petition to create a new party from 5% of the last vote cast (now, 23,589 signatures) to exactly 10,000 signatures. The legislature then adjourned, but the House expects to return in early August, and the House may also pass the bill.

Meanwhile, the state decided not to appeal the Moderate Partyís court victory of May 29, striking down the limit on when a party may begin to circulate this type of petition. SB 203 deletes the start date (January 1 of even-numbered years) that had been struck down. If the bill passes, there will be no limit on how long a group may take to finish this petition. This type of petition has only existed in Rhode Island since 1994, and no group has ever successfully completed it, although the Moderate Party believes it will succeed in time for the 2010 election.


NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN

On June 24, the Delaware House passed the National Popular Vote bill, 23-12. The legislature has gone home for the year, but Delaware has two-year sessions, so the bill may pass the Senate next year.


ARIZONA BILLS

On July 10, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1091 into law. It moves the independent presidential petition deadline from early June to early September. It also lets out-of-state residents circulate for an independent presidential candidate.

On July 13, she signed SB 1074, which moves the primary one week earlier than it would otherwise be. The 2010 primary will be held August 24, the earliest non-presidential primary ever held in Arizona. One indirect result is that petitions for non-presidential independent candidate are now due in late May instead of early June. Also, petitions for a new party are due in early March instead of mid-March.

Also on July 13, she signed SB 1123, which requires that all cities use non-partisan elections for their own officers. Tucson will now be forced to stop using partisan elections.

The Arizona legislature didnít pass SCR 1025, which would have asked the voters in 2010 if they wish to repeal public financing for campaigns. On the other hand, the legislature didnít pass SB 1087, which would have repaired the public funding program so that it is more likely to stand up to court scrutiny. Part of the law that gives extra public funding to candidates who have privately-funded opponents is likely to be struck down in U.S. District Court.


CALIFORNIA BILLS

On July 7, the Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 34, which makes it illegal to pay initiative circulators on a per-signature basis. The bill had already passed the Senate. However, at the Assembly hearing, the Governorís office indicated he opposes the bill, so it is very likely it will be vetoed.

On July 13, the Senate Elections Committee passed AB 1121, which lets ten non-charter cities or counties use Instant Runoff Voting for their own elections. It will be in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 17.


BALLOT ACCESS BILLS

D.C.: on July 13, City Councilmember Mary Cheh amended her Omnibus Election Law bill, 18-345, so that it no longer imposes filing fees on candidates. D.C. already requires petitions for all candidates. Activists had complained that if the Council was going to add filing fees, it should drop mandatory petitions, and those complaints worked. The bill is still undergoing study and it is possible it will make some improvements. The District currently requires a higher number of signatures for an independent or minor party presidential candidate than any state, except Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Wyoming, when the requirements are compared on a percentage basis.

Louisiana: on July 6, Governor Bobby Jindal signed HB 420. It gives independent presidential candidates three more days to file, and also clarifies the deadline for qualified parties to file their presidential elector candidates.

This year has been good for ballot access improvement bills. Major improvements have been signed into law in 2009 in Arkansas, Maine, Oregon and West Virginia, and minor ones in Louisiana, Texas and Utah.


LAWSUIT NEWS

Arkansas: on July 18, the Green Party held its state convention and voted to bring a lawsuit against the stateís definition of "political party". The party was removed from the ballot in November 2008 for failing to poll 3% for President, yet it polled over 20% for U.S. Senate, averaged over 19% for its three candidates for U.S. House, and elected a state legislator. In the entire history of U.S. ballot access laws, no state (except Arkansas in 2008) had ever removed a party from the ballot while it was electing a state legislator.

Florida: on June 25, the 11th circuit upheld a state law that permits exit polling within 25 feet of the polls, yet wonít permit petitioning within 100 feet of the polls. Citizens for Police Accountability Pol. Comm. v Browning, 08-15115.

Iowa: on June 26, the Green Parties of Iowa and Wisconsin jointly filed a federal lawsuit against Davenport, Iowa, for blocking petitioners from its annual street fair. Bussiere v Davenport, 3:09-cv-101. This is an ACLU case.

Ohio: on July 13, a U.S. District Court ruled that Euclid, Ohio, should use Limited Voting for its School Board elections. Euclid is 45% black, but no blacks have ever been elected to the School Board. Limited Voting is a system in which three candidates are to be elected, but each voter may only vote for one candidate. It enables political minorities of all types to unite behind a single representative and elect him or her. U.S. v Euclid City School Board, n.d., 08-cv-2832.

Washington: on June 24, the 9th circuit struck down a Seattle regulation that makes it illegal for anyone to engage in "speech activities" within 30 feet of a "captive audience" at the Seattle Center, the outdoor park that includes the Space Needle. A "captive audience" is "any person or group of persons (1) waiting in line to obtain tickets or food; (2) attending or being in an audience; (3) seated where foods or beverages are served." The Center is 80 acres and has 10,000,000 visitors annually.

West Virginia: the July 1 B.A.N. said that the Constitution Party had won a ruling from a U.S. District Court, striking down unbridled discretion for state park officials to approve or deny a permit to petition. B.A..N. said the state was not appealing. However, the state is appealing.

Federal law: on June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court surprised everyone and didnít issue an opinion in Citizens United v FEC, 08-205, the case over how the McCain-Feingold Law applies to corporations that wish to show a movie that mentions a federal candidate, within 60 days of an election. The law bans corporations from mentioning such candidates in broadcasts in that period. The Court will hear more oral arguments on September 9. Normally the Court doesnít sit during the summer.

Federal law (2): all briefs have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., in Unity08 v Federal Election Commission, 08-5526. The issue is whether individuals can give more than $5,000 per year to Unity08, which says that it wants to participate in the presidential election of 2012, although it will change its name to Unity12. The McCain-Feingold Law, passed in 2002, for the first time set limits on how much an individual may contribute to the National Committee of a recognized political party. The only FEC-recognized political parties are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Natural Law, Reform, and Socialist. The law isnít clear about political parties that arenít recognized by the FEC. Back in 1995 and 1996, Ross Perot was permitted to give as much of his own money as he wished, to start the Reform Party.


MOST CROWDED GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR U.S. HOUSE

The chart below lists each state, and tells the most crowded general election ballot that state ever had, for U.S. House of Representatives. Only regularly-scheduled, partisan elections are included. Special elections, and Louisianaís non-partisan Congressional elections in the years 1978-2006, are excluded. The chart also excludes U.S. House elections in which more than a single winner was to be elected (such elections have not existed in any state since 1967).

The chart also shows how many signatures were required to get on the ballot for U.S. House in the particular year when a state had its most crowded ballot.

The chart shows that if a state requires as few as 200 signatures for a candidate for U.S. House, it will never have a ballot crowded with more than 8 candidates.

The only states that have ever experienced a crowded ballot in an election like that have been Tennessee and New Jersey. Neither state requires any filing fees. Tennessee requires 25 signatures, and New Jersey requires 100.

State and District

Year

Number of Candidates

Requirement (at the time)

Alabama 5

1968

6

Hold a convention

Alaska at-large

2006

5

3,128 signatures

Arizona at-large

1912

5

66 signatures

Arkansas 3

2004

3

2,000 signatures

California 22

1996

6

10,188 signatures

Colorado 1

1896

6

100 signatures

Connecticut 4

1914

6

Hold a convention

Delaware at-large

1976

6

2,431 signatures

Dist. of Columbia at-large

1974

6

3,000 signatures

Florida 1

1912

5

Hold a convention

Georgia 5

1982

3

4,039 signatures

Hawaii 2

1996

5

25 signatures

Idaho 1

2006

5

500 signatures

Illinois 9

1912

6

591 signatures

Indiana 1

1932

6

200 signatures

Iowa 1

1914

6

25 signatures

Kansas 3

1914

5

2,693 signatures

Kentucky 3

1934

6

400 signatures

Louisiana 2

2008

4

Pay $600

Maine 2

1914

5

359 signatures

Maryland 3

1914

6

200 signatures

Massachusetts 15

1936

5

871 signatures

Michigan 16

1936

7

Hold a convention

Minnesota 5

1992

7

1,000 signatures

Mississippi 3

2002

6

100 signatures

Missouri 15

1916

6

Hold a convention

Montana 2

1932

5

Hold a convention

Nebraska 2

1932

7

200 signatures

Nevada 2

2000

7

100 signatures

New Hampshire 1

1896

6

250 signatures

New Jersey 13

1958

11

100 signatures

New Mexico at-large

1932

5

Hold a convention

New York 23

1934

7

3,000 signatures

North Carolina 9

2000

4

51,324 sigs. Statewide

North Dakota at-large

1900

5

300 signatures

Ohio 20

1900

6

299 signatures

Oklahoma 5

1976

6

Pay a fee

Oregon 3

1934

8

Meeting (100 attendees)

Pennsylvania 6

1936

6

1,020 signatures

Rhode Island 1

1996

5

500 signatures

South Carolina 4

2000

5

10,000 signatures

South Dakota 1

1932

5

20 signatures

Tennessee 9

1996

11

25 signatures

Texas 2

1996

5

500 signatures

Utah 2

1998

6

100 signatures

Vermont at-large

2006

8

250 signatures

Virginia 3

1904

6

File declaration of candidacy

Washington 3

1914

6

Meeting (no minimum att.)

West Virginia 1

1914

5

552 signatures

Wisconsin 5

1932

6

1,960 signatures

Wyoming-at-large

1932

5

100 signatures



LOWEST PERCENT EVER RECEIVED BY A WINNING GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE

The chart on page five shows the lowest percentage that any winning gubernatorial candidate has ever received, in each state. The purpose of this chart is to rebut a recent article in the National Standard by Tara Ross, dated July 17. The is titled "How to Win the PresidencyÖWith 15% of the Popular Vote."

Ross says that the Electoral College is the only force that prevents the U.S. electorate from fracturing its votes for president in the general election. She says the National Popular Vote Compact "gives the Presidency to the winner of the Ďlargest national popular vote totalíÖThus, a presidential candidate could win with only 15% of the votes nationwide."

It is common-place Political Science teaching that when the voters are electing a single individual to an office, most voters deduce which candidates are strong enough to potentially win. Then, they choose to vote for one of those candidates. Evidence for this is overwhelming when one looks at the thousands of gubernatorial elections that have been held in the U.S. since 1789. Never, out of perhaps 5,000 gubernatorial elections, has any state elected someone Governor who got less than 30% of the total popular vote. The chart on page five shows this. The chart excludes Louisiana gubernatorial elections since 1975, because all candidates run in the first round, with a run-off if no one gets 50%. Louisiana voters, knowing a run-off is likely, behave differently in the first round than they would otherwise, so their results arenít germane to the chart.

State Year Winner Winnerís Party Winnerís % Two Highest Runners-Up

Ala.

1865

Robert Patton

Whig

45.2%

Democrat 35.9%, Union 18.8%

Alas.

1990

Walter J. Hickel

Alaskan Indpc.

38.9%

Democrat 30.9%, Republican 26.2%

Ariz.

1986

Evan Mecham

Republican

39.7%

Democrat 34.5%, independent 25.9%

Ark.

1844

Thomas S. Drew

Democratic

47.6%

Whig 38.9%, independent 13.5%

Calif.

1894

James H. Budd

Democratic

39.3%

Republican 38.9%, Peoples 18.0%

Colo.

1912

Elias Ammons

Democratic

42.9%

Progressive 24.9%, Republican 23.7%

Conn.

1994

John G. Rowland

Republican

36.2%

Democrat 32.7%, A Connecticut 18.9%

Del.

1896

Ebe Tunnell

Democratic

44.2%

Republican 31.4%, Anti-Addicks Rep. 20.4%

Fla.

1916

Sidney J. Catts

Prohibition

47.7%

Democrat 36.6%, Republican 12.5%

Ga.

1966

Lester Maddox

Democratic

46.2%

Republican 46.5%, write-in 7.3%

Hi.

1994

Benjamin Cayetano

Democratic

36.6%

Best Party 30.7%, Republican 29.2%

Ida.

1912

John Haines

Republican

33.2%

Democrat 32.2%, Progressive 23.1%

Ill.

1822

Edward Coles

Anti-Slavery

33.2%

Pro-convention 31.2%, Pro-slavery 28.4%

Ind.

1828

James B. Ray

Clay Republican

39.5%

Jackson Democrat 32.0%, Nat. Rep. 28.5%

Iowa

1912

George Clarke

Republican

39.9%

Democrat 39.6%, Progressive 15.6%

Kan.

1932

Alfred M. Landon

Republican

34.8%

Democrat 34.1%, Independent 30.6%

Ky.

1820

John Adair

Democratic-Rep

32.8%

Another Dem-Rep 31.9%, another 20.0%

La.

1831

Andre Roman

Nat. Republican

43.6%

Jackson Democrat 32.8%, Nat. Rep. 18.1%

Me.

1994

Angus King

independent

35.4%

Democrat 33.8%, Republican 23.1%

Md.

1919

Albert C. Ritchie

Democratic

49.1%

Republican 49.0%, Socialist 1.2%

Mass.

1855

Henry Gardner

American

37.7%

Republican 26.9%, Democrat 25.5%

Mich.

1912

Woodbridge Ferris

Democratic

35.4%

Republican 31.0%, Progressive 27.9%

Minn.

1998

Jesse Ventura

Reform

37.0%

Republican 34.3%, Democratic 28.1%

Miss.

1831

Abram Scott

Nat. Republican

30.5%

Jackson Dem. 28.6%, Jackson Dem. 22.4%

Mo.

1856

Trusten Polk

Democratic

40.8%

American 35.2%, Benton Dem. 24.0%

Mt.

1912

Samuel Stewart

Democratic

31.7%

Republican 28.7%, Progressive 23.6%

Neb.

1890

James E. Boyd

Democratic

33.3%

Peoples 32.8%, Republican 32.2%

Nev.

1898

Reinhold Sadler

Silver Rep.

35.7%

Republican 35.5%, Democrat 20.6%

N.H.

1912

Samuel Felker

Democratic

41.1%

Republican 39.0%, Progressive 17.3%

N.J.

1913

James Fielder

Democratic

46.1%

Republican 37.4%, Progressive 11.0%

N.M.

1916

Ezequiel deBaca

Democratic

49.4%

Republican 47.4%, Socialist 3.2%

N.Y.

1854

Myron Clark

Republican

33.4%

Soft Democrat 33.3%, American 26.1%

No.C.

1896

Daniel Russell

Republican

46.5%

Democratic 43.9%, Peoples 9.4%

No.D.

1936

William Langer

independent

35.8%

Republican 34.7%, Democrat 29.3%

Ohio

1912

James M. Cox

Democratic

42.4%

Republican 26.3%, Progressive 21.0%

Okla.

1914

Robert Williams

Democratic

39.7%

Republican 37.8%, Socialist 20.8%

Ore.

1874

La Fayette Grover

Democratic

38.2%

Republican 36.1%, independent 25.7%

Pa.

1910

John K. Tener

Republican

41.3%

Keystone 38.3%, Democrat 13.0%

R.I.

1875

Rowland Hazard

independent

39.2%

Republican 37.6%, Democrat 23.2%

So.C.

1876

Wade Hampton

Democratic

50.3%

Republican 49.7% (only 2 candidates in race)

So.D.

1890

Arthur Mellette

Republican

44.5%

independent 31.7%, Democrat 23.8%

Tenn.

1880

Alvin Hawkins

Republican

42.6%

StateCredit Dem 32.4%, LowTaxDem 23.6%

Tex.

1853

Elisha Pease

Democratic

36.2%

Whig 25.4%, another Democrat 16.5%

Utah

1912

William Spry

Republican

38.2%

Democrat 32.4%, Progressive 21.2%

Vt.

1912

Allen Fletcher

Republican

40.5%

Democrat 30.9%, Progressive 24.1%

Va.

1965

Mills Godwin

Democratic

47.9%

Republican 37.7%, Conservative 13.4%

Wash.

1912

Ernest Lister

Democratic

30.6%

Republican 30.4%, Progressive 24.4%

W.V.

1920

Ephraim Morgan

Republican

47.3%

Democrat 36.3%, independent 15.9%

Wis.

1934

Phillip La Follette

Progressive

39.1%

Democrat 37.7%, Republican 18.1%

Wy.

1958

J. J. Hickey

Democratic

48.9%

Republican 46.6%, Economy 4.5%



GENE AMONDSON DIES

Gene Amondson, Prohibition Party presidential nominee in 2008, died on July 20 in Washington state. He was 65 and had suffered a stroke the previous day.


CALIFORNIA MODERATE PARTY

The California Moderate Party says it will try to qualify for the California ballot in 2010. It needs 88,991 registered members by January 6, 2010. See www.camod.org.


ILLINOIS GREENS WILL RUN RICHARD WHITNEY FOR GOVERNOR AGAIN

The Illinois Green Party ran Richard Whitney for Governor of Illinois in 2006. He polled over 10% of the vote, and made the Greens a qualified party (the law requires a party to poll 5% for Governor to be ballot-qualified for all office). On July 15, Whitney said he will run again in 2010.


SIX PARTIES IN VIRGINIA STATE RACES

Virginia elects all 100 members of the House of Delegates in November 2009. On the ballot will be 7 nominees of the Independent Green Party, 3 nominees of the Constitution Party, one Green, and one Libertarian.


N.J. INDEPENDENT QUALIFIES FOR PUBLIC FUNDING, DEBATES

New Jersey elects its Governor this November. One independent candidate for Governor, Chris Daggett, has raised more than $350,000. Therefore, he is eligible for public funding, and will be included in gubernatorial debates with his Democratic and Republican opponents.


MASSACHUSETTS TREASURER SWITCHES FROM DEM TO INDEPENDENT

On July 8, Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill changed his registration to "independent." He had been elected as a Democrat in 2006. He will probably run for Governor in 2010 as an independent, because he feels the Democratic incumbent (who is expected to run for re-election) is spending excessively.


CALIFORNIA SPECIAL ELECTION

California held a special election on July 14 to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 32nd district. The results: Democratic 61.7%, Republican 33.1%, Libertarian 5.2%. This was the first time the Republicans had run a nominee in this district since 2002. In 2002, the vote had been: Democratic 68.8%, Republican 27.5%, Libertarian 3.7%.


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 © 2009 Ballot Access News