November 1, 2009 - Volume 25, Number 6

This issue was originally printed on blue paper.

Table of Contents

  1. FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN BAN ON SIGNING FOR TWO CANDIDATES FOR SAME OFFICE
  2. NORTH CAROLINA LOSS
  3. U.S. SUPREME COURT GETS INVOLVED WITH PETITION SECRECY
  4. BOOK REVIEW: ONLY THE SUPER-RICH CAN SAVE US!
  5. LEGISLATIVE NEWS
  6. CONGRESS PASSES ELECTION LAW BILL
  7. NEW MEXICO RELENTS ON EARLY PETITIONING
  8. WHAT IS THE LATEST DEADLINE FOR A CANDIDATE TO ENTER ELECTION IN 2010?
  9. 2010 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE
  10. N.Y. INDEPENDENCE PARTY GAINS A STATE LEGISLATOR, NOW HAS TWO
  11. 2008 VOTES STILL BEING COUNTED
  12. NEW JERSEY INDEPENDENT SHAKES UP GUBERNATORIAL RACE
  13. PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 3 STATEWIDE BALLOT
  14. TENNESSEE SPECIAL ELECTION
  15. NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL ELECTION
  16. ELECTION RETURNS BOOK
  17. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL


FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN BAN ON SIGNING FOR TWO CANDIDATES FOR SAME OFFICE

On October 8, U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith struck down a Central Falls, Rhode Island charter provision that makes it illegal for a voter to sign petitions for two candidates for the same office. This was only the second time a federal court had invalidated such a law. The case is Fontes v City of Central Falls, 09-437. Judge Smith is the same judge who, on May 29, 2009, struck down a Rhode Island law that made it illegal for a petition to create a new party to be circulated in an odd year.

The candidate who brought the lawsuit needed 200 signatures. He submitted 333 signatures, but he was told only 197 were valid. He lost 65 signatures because the signers were registered, but they had also signed the petition for Fontesí only opponent, the incumbent Mayor who was running for re-election at the November 3, 2009 election. The Central Falls law says if a voter signs for more than a single candidate for any particular office, the only signature that counts is the one on the first petition submitted to elections officials. In this particular case, the Mayor filed his petitions first, so the signatures for Fontes were invalid.

The decision says, "The first to file rule contained in sec. 6-110 is not necessary to further the governmentís stated interests in reducing ballot clutter or in demonstrating a candidateís support in the community."

The only other federal court that ever struck down a ban on signing multiple petitions for the same office is the 9th circuit. In 1975, it struck down a Guam law that said if a voter signs a petition for a candidate running in a primary, then that same voter cannot later sign a petition for an independent candidate running for the same office. That case, Webster v Mesa, is limited to offices for which there are multiple candidates to be elected.

States that limit voters to signing only a single petition for each office frequently do not write these laws very well. They typically codify the restriction, but they donít say what to do when voters do sign competing petitions.

For example, California Election Code section 8404 says voters canít sign more than one independent candidate petition for each office. In 1976, four presidential candidates, Eugene McCarthy, Roger MacBride (Libertarian), Peter Camejo (Socialist Workers), and Gus Hall (Communist) were all circulating petitions. State courts refused to let elections officials invalidate any signatures on the basis of the law, because the law didnít say which signature should be counted. One of the cases was Libertarian Party v Corcoran, Los Angeles Co. Superior Court C173086. It was the first ballot access victory ever won by the Libertarian Party.

Again, in 1980, when John Anderson, Barry Commoner, and the presidential candidates of the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party were all circulating independent petitions, a California state court again refused to let elections officials invalidate any signatures on the basis that a voter had signed more than one petition. The 1980 decision was Commoner v Eu, Los Angeles Superior Court C330278. But, the California law was never formally declared unconstitutional, and it continues to be in the law.

Some states say that the first signature counts, but that isnít easy to administer, even if states ask voters to date their signatures, because sometimes voters sign two competing petitions on the first day. New York and Pennsylvania law says the first signature counts, but if signatures on two competing petitions have the same date, then neither signature counts.

Illinois law, sec. 5/10-3, says the first signature counts, but a State Appeals Court ruled in Watkins v Burke, 461 NE 2d 625 (1984) that unless the challenger to a petition can prove which signature was signed first, no signature can be invalidated on the basis that the voter signed two competing petitions.

Kansas is the only state that forbids a voter from signing more than one candidate petition for the same office and also says in the law itself that if a voter does sign more than one, then none of the signatures count. The problem with that approach is that it isnít fair to the candidates, because they canít know if any of their signers have already signed for another candidate, or whether they will in the future. However, the Kansas law has apparently never been challenged.

Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Nevada laws or Attorney General Opinions say that the first signature filed counts. This approach, of course, is what Central Falls used, yet the Central Falls law was invalidated.

Other states that say that voters canít sign more than one competing petition, but donít say in their statutes how to handle cases in which voters do sign more than one, are Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Arizona lets voters sign for multiple independent candidates, but wonít let voters sign for any independent if that voter signed for a primary candidate for the same office.

Why This Issue is Important

Recently, some nationally-organized minor parties have been arranging to have paid circulators ask voters to sign more than partyís petition. This greatly reduces costs.

However, this approach doesnít work when states forbid voters from signing more than a single petition.

The philosophy that supports letting voters sign multiple petitions is express in Hall v Austin, 495 F.Supp. 782 (1980). The judge in this Michigan case analyzed the meaning of a signature on a ballot access petition for a candidate. Judge Philip Pratt, a Nixon appointee, 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."

It is logical for a voter to believe that two particular candidates deserve to be on the ballot for a single office, and therefore it is logical to permit such a voter to sign two petitions. Also, the permissive approach makes it easier for elections officials to check petitions.


NORTH CAROLINA LOSS

On October 20, the North Carolina Appeals Court upheld the stateís ballot access laws for minor parties, by a vote of 2-1. Because the vote was split, the State Supreme Court is legally required to hear the appeal. The case is Libertarian Party of N.C. v State, 08-1413. The Green Party is a co-plaintiff.

The majority upheld the 2% petition to qualify a new party, even though in 2010 it requires 85,379 signatures, the second highest petition for parties in the nation. Only California requires a larger number. Minnesota has a procedure to qualify a new party of 145,519 signatures, but it is not mandatory; minor parties can also place candidates on the Minnesota ballot with the party label, with a petition of 2,000 signatures.

The majority also upheld the vote test, which requires 2% for either President or Governor. And they upheld the characteristic of the law that makes it impossible for a party to appear anywhered on the ballot, unless it qualifies statewide.

The majority decision erroneously says that the U.S Supreme Court had upheld Texas law in 1974, and that Texas law doesnít permit a party to qualify in any part of the state unless it is qualified statewide. The truth is that ever since Texas began requiring a petition for parties to get on the ballot (in 1967), it has always had a procedure for a party to get on the ballot in a single county, if it isnít on statewide.

The majority didnít even say what the state interest is in requiring so many signatures. The state had argued that the ballot would be too crowded in presidential election years if the law were relaxed, because the state elects ten statewide state officers in presidential election years. The decision does not mention the stateís argument. Ever since December 2000, when the petition requirement jumped above 51,324, the only party that has appeared on the ballot besides the two major parties has been the Libertarian Party, and even it wasnít on in 2006.

The decision completely forgot to address two other issues in the case. One is the state law that says that qualified parties appear on the state income tax form, so that taxpayers can send a small donation, but only if the qualified party has registration equal to 1% of the state total. The Libertarian Party argued that all qualified parties should appear on the tax form. The party did appear on the 2008 tax form by mistake, and it received $39,691. But it wonít be on the 2009 tax form unless a Court orders relief.

The other forgotten issue is the stateís policy of not letting voters register as members of unqualified parties. Courts in Colorado, Oklahoma, New Jersey, New York, and Iowa have ruled that states must permit this. The Libertarians might possibly have registration of 1% by now if the state hadnít forced all its registrants to become independents, in 2005, when the party went off the ballot. It is back on now, but must poll 2% in 2012 for President or Governor or it will again go off, unless the law is changed.


U.S. SUPREME COURT GETS INVOLVED WITH PETITION SECRECY

The October 1 B.A.N. had reported that a U.S. District Court in Washington had ruled that the U.S. Constitution probably protects the privacy of people who sign Referendum petitions. The case is Doe v Reed. Since then, the case has taken some dramatic new turns.

On October 14, the 9th circuit heard arguments in the stateís appeal, and the next day, it ruled that the U.S. District Court had been wrong. It gave the Washington Secretary of State permission to reveal the names and addresses of the people who had signed R-71, the Referendum on the civil unions bill passed earlier this year by the legislature. Supporters of the civil unions bill want to post those names and addresses on a webpage called KnowThyNeighbor.

The 9th circuit said it would explain its reasoning later. But on October 16, the Referendum sponsors asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the information private, at least while the case is still alive. On October 19, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-1 that the Secretary of State should not release the data while the case is still alive. The dissenter was Justice John Paul Stevens.

On October 20, a state court judge in Washington ruled that since Referendum petitions temporarily enjoy privacy, he was ordering the same treatment for Initiative petitions.

On October 22, the 9th circuit explained the basis for its order in favor of release of the information. It said petitions arenít private anyway, because the circulators can see who signed. Also, certain elections officials see the names when they check the petitions for validity. And, the 9th circuit said, because petition sheets contain 20 lines, someone who signs any particular sheet may glance at the names of others who had already signed that same sheet.

Now the proponents of privacy will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on the merits.


BOOK REVIEW: ONLY THE SUPER-RICH CAN SAVE US!

Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, by Ralph Nader. Hard Cover, 733 pages, Seven Stories Press, 2009.

Anyone who has passionate feelings about government is likely to appreciate the idea behind Ralph Naderís first work of fiction. That sentence is true, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees with Nader on policy. Nader set out to imagine what could ever possibly get a Republican-majority Congress, teamed with a Republican President, to enact Naderís preferences for public policy into law. He used his imagination to conjure up a scenario, and then describes it in this novel.

The book is set in 2006. Nader imagines that nineteen very wealthy individuals decided to come together and use all their skills, their money, their knowledge of how Congress really works, and their fame, to cause the federal government to enact the laws that Nader desires. Nader uses the names of actual billionaires, including Ross Perot. Of course these billionaires face stiff resistance, and the names of the opposing characters are not actual names, but poorly disguised stand-ins, such as Bush Bimbaugh and Brovar Dortwist.

In the book, Congress passes bills for public funding, limited free access to radio and TV for candidates, federal standards for ballot access laws, Instant Runoff Voting, and a binding "None of the above."

One of the many devices that the billionaires use to pressure Congress is the creation of a new party, the Clean Elections Party, which ends up winning seats in the House.


LEGISLATIVE NEWS

California: the Governor signed two election law bills: AB 30 lets a 17-year-old submit a voter registration, although it remains dormant until that voter is 18; AB 1396 deletes from the Election Code the laws that tell the Democratic Party who should be on its state central committee.

California (2): the Governor vetoed SB 34, which would have made it illegal to pay initiative circulators on a per-signature basis.

Connecticut: on October 22, the Government Administration and Elections Committee held a public hearing on whether the stateís public funding law should be amended, to take account of the U.S. District Court decision that invalidated it. The Attorney General encouraged the committee to trust in his hope that the 2nd Circuit will overturn the decision. The representative from the State Elections Enforcement Commission seemed to lean in favor of amending the law now.

Dist. of Columbia: on October 6, the City Council passed the Omnibus Election Law bill, 18-345, on first reading. No Council member suggested making any improvements to ballot access, despite the earlier testimony that D.C. requires more signatures to get an independent presidential candidate on the ballot than any state, as a percentage of the electorate, except for Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Wyoming. But there is a second hearing on November 3.

Illinois: Governor Pat Quinn vetoed HB 723, the bill to make it more difficult for qualified parties to nominate candidates after the primary is over. But the House overrode his veto on October 14, by a vote of 107-9. The Senate will probably also override the veto; the vote is set for October 28.

New Hampshire: earlier this year, the legislature passed HB 623, which makes it illegal for candidate petitions to be circulated in an odd year, and the Governor signed it into law. New Hampshire is among the few states in which the legislature has never eased the ballot access laws. Every time those laws change, they get more restrictive. HB 623 was suggested by the Secretary of State.

North Carolina: State Senator Andrew C. Brock, a Republican, says he will introduce a bill in 2011 to ease the ballot access laws, assuming he is re-elected in 2010. The 2010 session is too short for such bills.


CONGRESS PASSES ELECTION LAW BILL

On October 22, Congress passed S.1390, which includes a provision that requires states to mail overseas absentee ballots no later than 45 days before the election. The law only applies to federal elections. It also outlaws any state requirement that the ballot must be notarized.

President Obama is expected to sign it. One indirect consequence will probably be that states with September primaries will be forced to move them to August. The states with September Congressional primaries are Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.


NEW MEXICO RELENTS ON EARLY PETITIONING

For years, New Mexico elections officials have refused to let minor parties have blank petition forms to begin qualifying the party, until October 1 of the odd year before the election. However, recently New Mexicoís Assistant Secretary of State submitted an affidavit saying that those petition forms are available any time. This affidavit came into existence because the Libertarian and Green Parties are suing the state over its ballot access laws. The new policy is too late to help anyone this year, but it will help in the future.


WHAT IS THE LATEST DEADLINE FOR A CANDIDATE TO ENTER ELECTION IN 2010?

The California "top-two" ballot measure, to be voted on in June 2010, would seal off all routes to the November ballot for candidates who donít file by early March. The chart on page four shows the cut-off date for candidates to enter races in 2010, for each state. If the California "top-two" measure passes, California would have one of the three earliest cut-offs. Furthermore, the California measure bans write-ins at the general election, thus creating a very inflexible system. Under existing California law, an independent can enter the race in August of election years.

State
Deadline to Get on November Ballot
Deadline to File for Write-in Status

Alabama

June 1

No filing needed

Alaska

August 24

October 28

Arizona

May 25

September 23

Arkansas

June 30

September 3

California

August 6

October 19

CAL. TOP-TWO

March 12

Write-ins Not Counted

Colorado

June 15

October 28

Connecticut

August 11

October 19

Del.

August 10

September 30

Fla.

July 19

July 20

Ga.

June 13

October 13

Hi.

July 19

Write-ins not permitted

Ida.

March 19

October 28

Ill.

June 21

September 3

Ind.

June 30

October 22

Iowa

August 13

No filing needed

Kan.

August 2

October 25

Ky.

August 10

October 22

La.

August 20

Write-ins not permitted

Me.

May 27

September 18

Md.

August 2

November 1

Mass.

July 27

No filing needed

Mich.

July17

October 29

Minn.

July 20

October 28

Miss.

April 9

Write-ins not counted unless on-ballot candidate dies

Mo.

July 26

October 29

Mt.

March 25

October 18

Neb.

August 24

November 1

Nev.

March 12

Write-ins not permitted

N.H.

June 11

No filing needed

N.J.

June 2

No filing needed

N.M.

June 3

August 31

N.Y.

August 17

No filing needed

No.C.

June 10

August 4

No.D.

September 3

October 12

Ohio

May 3

September 23

Okla.

June 9

Write-ins not permitted

Ore.

August 26

No filing needed

Pa.

August 2

No filing needed

R.I.

June 30

No filing needed

So.C.

July 15

No filing needed

So.D.

June 2

Write-ins not permitted

Tenn.

April 1

September 13

Tex.

January 2

August 24

Utah

March 15

October 27

Vt.

September 10

No filing needed

Va.

June 8

No filing needed

Wash.

May 15

November 1

W.V.

July 30

October 19

Wis.

July 13

No filing needed

Wy.

August 23

November 4

Some deadlines above are Declaration of Candidacy deadlines, not petition deadlines.


2010 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE

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

Ala.

37,513

37,513

100

0

0

0

June 1

June 1

Alaska

(reg) 9,786

#3,128

*9,000

*2,560

0

0

June 1

Aug. 24

Ariz.

20,449

(est) #25,500

already on

*11,000

*1,300

0

*Feb. 25

May 25

Ark.

10,000

10,000

0

0

0

0

June 30

May 3

Calif.

(reg) 88,991

173,041

already on

already on

in court

0

Jan. 6

Aug. 6

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

1,000

already on

already on

already on

0

June 1

June 15

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

already on

already on

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 11

Del.

(est) (reg) 300

(est) 6,200

already on

already on

already on

already on

Aug. 10

July 15

D.C.

no procedure

#3,000

canít start

already on

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 25

Florida

be organized

pay fee

already on

already on

already on

0

Apr. 30

Apr. 30

Georgia

57,582

#44,089

already on

0

0

0

July 13

July 13

Hawaii

692

25

already on

0

50

0

Apr. 1

July 19

Idaho

13,102

1,000

already on

canít start

already on

canít start

Aug. 27

March 19

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

canít start

already on

canít start

canít start

- - -

June 21

Indiana

no procedure

#32,742

already on

0

0

0

- - -

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

0

0

0

0

- - -

Aug. 13

Kansas

16,994

5,000

already on

0

0

0

June 1

Aug. 2

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 10

La.

(reg) 1,000

pay $500

already on

already on

500

0

May 20

Aug. 20

Maine

27,544

#4,000

0

already on

0

0

Dec 11, 09

May 27

Md.

10,000

(est) 35,000

already on

already on

already on

0

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Mass.

(est) (reg) 40,000

#10,000

already on

7,522

80

20

Feb. 1

July 27

Mich.

38,024

30,000

already on

already on

already on

0

July 15

July 17

Minn.

145,519

#2,000

0

0

0

0

July 20

July 20

Miss.

be organized

800

already on

already on

already on

0

April 9

April 9

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already on

0

already on

0

July 26

July 26

Mont.

5,000

#15,359

already on

0

already on

0

Mar. 18

Mar. 18

Nebr.

5,921

4,000

0

0

0

0

Aug. 2

Aug. 24

Nev.

9,083

9,083

already on

0

already on

0

June 11

Mar. 12

N. Hamp.

20,394

#3,000

0

0

0

0

Aug. 4

Aug. 4

N.J.

no procedure

#1,300

0

0

0

0

- - -

June 2

N. M.

4,151

16,764

*350

0

already on

0

Apr. 1

June 3

N.Y.

no procedure

#15,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

already on

- - -

Aug. 17

No. Car.

85,379

85,379

already on

0

0

0

May 14

June 10

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

0

0

0

0

Apr. 9

Sep. 3

Ohio

unsettled

5,000

unsettled

unsettled

unsettled

0

unsettled

May 3

Okla.

73,134

pay fee

0

0

0

0

May 1

June 9

Oregon

20,640

(est) 19,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

Aug. 26

Aug. 26

Penn.

no procedure

(est) #25,000

canít start

canít start

canít start

canít start

- - -

Aug. 2

R.I.

23,589

#1,000

0

0

0

0

May 28

July 22

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

May 2

July 15

So. Dak.

8,389

3,356

0

0

already on

0

Mar. 30

June 8

Tenn.

in court

25

0

0

0

0

unsettled

April 1

Texas

43,991

43,991

already on

canít start

canít start

canít start

May 24

May 10

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

0

already on

0

Feb. 15

March 15

Vermont

be organized

#500

already on

0

already on

organizing

Jan. 1

Sep. 10

Virginia

no procedure

#11,000

0

0

0

0

- - -

June 8

Wash.

no procedure

pay fee

0

0

0

0

- - -

May 15

West Va.

no procedure

*#7,250

0

already on

0

0

- - -

May 10

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

already on

already on

canít start

canít start

June 1

July 13

Wyo.

4,988

4,988

already on

0

*2,200

0

June 1

Aug. 23

TOTAL STATES ON
27
16
16
4
`` `

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
*change from the Aug. 1 2009 chart.
Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia have no statewide race in 2010, so the entry is for a full slate of U.S. House nominees.


N.Y. INDEPENDENCE PARTY GAINS A STATE LEGISLATOR, NOW HAS TWO

On October 1, New York state Assemblymember Fred Thiele changed his voter registration from "Republican" to "Independence." He represents Long Island and has been in the legislature since 1995. He joins another Assemblymember, Timothy Gordon of Albany, who is also registered as a member of the Independence Party. Both participate in the Democratic caucus. Thiele said he left the Republican Party because "it stands for nothing."


2008 VOTES STILL BEING COUNTED

On October 16, a U.S. District Court told the Virginia Board of Elections to count 2,000 foreign absentee ballots from the November 2008 election. The Board had not counted them because they didnít arrive in the mail by the state deadline. But the Judge said that the state was at fault for not mailing the ballots out soon enough. Therefore, the final nationwide vote totals for President will change soon. The lawsuit is McCain-Palin 2008 v Cunningham, e.d.3:08cv-709.


NEW JERSEY INDEPENDENT SHAKES UP GUBERNATORIAL RACE

Chris Daggett, a leading independent candidate for Governor of New Jersey in the November 3, 2009 race, has performed well in debates, and is now at 20% in some neutral polls. No one other than the Democratic and Republican nominees has polled ever 5% for New Jersey Governor since 1913, when the Progressive Party nominee polled 11.0%. Daggett has been endorsed by the Newark Star-Ledger, the largest newspaper in the state, and some other newspapers as well. His campaign has caused the big newspapers to run feature stories about the badly-designed New Jersey ballots, which (in most counties) have three column headings: "Republican", "Democratic"; and "Nomination by Petition." All the non-major party nominees are squeezed into that last column. Daggettís lawsuit on the ballot format wonít be heard until after the election.


PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 3 STATEWIDE BALLOT

On November 3, 2009, Pennsylvania holds a partisan statewide election for Judge, Superior Court. Four are to be elected. On the ballot are four Democrats, four Republicans, and one Libertarian. This is the first time a minor party has been on the ballot in a Pennsylvania statewide judicial odd year election since 1993, when the Patriot Party was on. Pennsylvania recognizes the Libertarian Party as a qualified party, because it polled more than 2% of the highest vote-getterís statewide in 2008. However, a 1986 law says that qualified parties are not automatically on the ballot unless they have over 1,000,000 registered members. But, a loophole says qualified parties are on automatically for special elections, so the Libertarians were able to enter the Superior Court race because one of the openings is a special election to fill a vacancy.


TENNESSEE SPECIAL ELECTION

On October 13, Tennessee held a special election to fill the vacant State House seat, 62nd district. The vote: Republican 55.7%, Democratic 41.4%, Constitution (on as independent) 2.9%. When this seat was last up, in 2008, the vote had been: Democratic 55.0%, Repubican 45.0%.


NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL ELECTION

Eight candidates are on the ballot for New York City Mayor. They are: Michael Bloomberg (Republican, Independence); William Thompson (Democratic, Working Families); Stephen Christopher (Conservative); Francisca Villar (Party for Socialism and Liberation); Dan Fein (Socialist Workers); Billy Talen (Green); Jimmy McMillan (Rent is Too High); Joseph Dobrian (Libertarian).


ELECTION RETURNS BOOK

The Federal Elections Commission has published Federal Elections 2008, a free book of election returns for President and Congress. Call (800) 424-9530.


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