Home General August 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition
formats

August 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Published on September 3, 2011, by in General.

Ballot Access News
August 1, 2011 – Volume 27, Number 3


This issue was printed on white paper.



Table of Contents

  1. FOURTH CIRCUIT ISSUES FIRST FAVORABLE MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE RULING IN 21 YEARS
  2. REPUBLICANS WIN NEVADA LAWSUIT
  3. NORTH CAROLINA BALLOT ACCESS BILL
  4. OTHER BALLOT ACCESS BILLS
  5. OTHER CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE NEWS
  6. LAWSUIT NEWS
  7. ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS
  8. MOST CROWDED GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE
  9. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  10. AMERICANS ELECT IN CALIFORNIA
  11. FRED NEWMAN DIES
  12. WORKING FAMILIES PARTY GAINS AN OFFICE-HOLDER IN PENNSYLVANIA
  13. RON PAUL WON’T SEEK RE-ELECTION
  14. 2010 ELECTION RETURNS BOOK
  15. ERRATA
  16. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

FOURTH CIRCUIT ISSUES FIRST FAVORABLE MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE RULING IN 21 YEARS

On July 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, issued a 14-page ruling that virtually guarantees that the Virginia residency requirement for circulators will be held unconstitutional. The decision is Lux v Judd, 10-1997. It overrules two U.S. District Court decisions issued last year, the one in this case, and one in a case with identical issues called Libertarian Party of Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections.

The two lower courts last year had upheld the Virginia law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate a candidate petition outside of his or her home U.S. House district. Both U.S. District Court decisions, the Lux decision, and the Libertarian Party decision, had said the law is needed to prevent the ballot from being too crowded. This conclusion ignored the evidence in these cases that in the entire history of government-printed ballots in Virginia, there has never been a U.S. House race with more than six candidates on the general election ballot, even though before 1936, independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, did not need any signatures or any fee to get on the ballot.

The July 6, 2011 decision of the 4th circuit rebuts the "crowded ballot" argument. It says that the requirement that an independent or unqualified party nominee obtain 1,000 signatures to run for U.S. House is sufficient to keep the general election ballot from being too crowded. It also says that the restriction cannot be justified by the need to prevent fraud. It said that possibly a requirement that the circulator live in Virginia would help combat fraud, but the law doesn’t just require residence in Virginia, it requires it inside the congressional district.

The 4th circuit remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, to see if the state wishes to present any new rationale on why the requirement is necessary. However, it is difficult to imagine what new interest Virginia may suggest. Constitutional lawsuits on residency requirements for circulators have been fought in at least 17 other states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), and none of these states has ever come up with any state interest in a residency requirement for circulators, other than the two rejected by the 4th circuit.

Fourth Circuit Had Been a Desert for Minor Party & Independents

The Lux decision is the first election law lawsuit with a favorable outcome for minor party or independent candidates in the 4th circuit since 1990. Every other circuit had given minor party or independent candidates an election law victory in the last twenty years, other than the 4th circuit. The 4th circuit had struck down ballot access laws in 1989 and 1990, and that had been the end of such victories in that circuit, for minor parties and independents, until the Lux opinion came down.

The most recent victory in an election law lawsuit filed by a minor party or independent candidate, in each circuit, is listed here, along with a list of states and territories in that circuit:

D.C. Circuit (covers the District of Columbia): in 2008, in Unity08 v Federal Election Commission, struck down a rule that individuals could not contribute more than $5,000 to a new political party.

First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Vermont):
in 2003, in Perez-Guzman v Gracia, struck down a law saying only notaries could circulate a petition to put a new party on the ballot.

Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, Vermont): in 2004, in Green Party of New York v State Board of Elections, struck down a law saying voters could not register into unqualified parties.

Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands): in 2003, in Belitskus v Pizzingrilli, struck down a mandatory filing fee for candidates; the plaintiff was with the Green Party.

Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia): in 1990, in Cromer v State, struck down a law that independent candidates file a declaration of candidacy in February.

Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas): in 1996, in Texas Independent Party v Kirk, struck down a law requiring independent candidates to show the voter registration affidavit number of each petition signer on the petition.

Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee): in 2006, in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell, struck down an early petition deadline for new parties.

Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin): in 2006, in Lee v Keith, struck down an early petition deadline for independent candidates.

Eighth Circuit (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota): in 1996, in Forbes v Arkansas Educational TV, ruled that public broadcasting stations must invite all ballot-listed candidates into their debates.

Ninth Circuit (Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington): in 2008, struck down an early petition deadline for independent candidates.

Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming): in 2004, struck down a law telling a party that it couldn’t invite all voters to vote in its primary; this had been a Libertarian Party case.

Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia): in 1992, struck down a law requiring minor parties to pay to have their petitions checked).

There are eight election lawsuits filed by minor parties or independent candidates pending in various circuits, in Arkansas, California, D.C., Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Washington.

During the last thirty-five years, most ballot access victories won by minor party and independent candidates have been won in U.S. District Courts. Usually when a state loses in U.S. District Court, it doesn’t appeal. That is why the number of decisions of U.S. Courts of Appeals, has been relatively small. Forty-eight of the fifty states (all but Montana and New Hampshire) have had a ballot access law that pertains to minor party or independent candidates declared unconstitutional, or to violate the Voting Rights Act, during the last forty-five years.


REPUBLICANS WIN NEVADA LAWSUIT

On July 5, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion in Nevada State Democratic Party v Nevada Republican Party, 58404. The issue was whether special U.S. House elections should be partisan elections or non-partisan elections. By a vote of 6-1, the Court ruled that qualified parties may nominate someone in such elections (also, independent candidates can get on the ballot with a petition of 100 signatures).

Because there is no primary election in these special elections, parties nominate by convention. If the Democratic Party had won the case, candidates would have filed as individuals. Democrats tended to prefer that system, because they suspected that many Republicans would file, and only one or a few Democrats would file, and with no run-off, it would have been easier to elect a Democrat. The election is to fill the northern Nevada U.S. House seat, which is a strongly Republican district. The election will be held September 13, and four candidates will be on the ballot: a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent American Party nominee, and one independent.

The case turned on statutory construction. The law is very unclear. The majority added a footnote which says, "That NRS 304.240(1) contained latent ambiguities might not be entirely surprising." Then it quoted from a Nevada Supreme Court 1954 decision which said, "Whether perfection in the election laws could be achieved no one would have the optimism to assert."

The dissenting justice, Michael A. Cherry, wrote "One theory behind the basis for ‘free-for-all’-type elections, recently adopted in states such as California, Louisiana, and Washington, is that modern governmental activity, rather than promoting collective problem-solving and constituent concerns, focuses excessively on the struggle for power between the major political parties…Free-for-all elections can therefore be useful by providing a degree of separation for our elected leaders from party insiders and narrow ideological activists."

Justice Cherry seems unaware that the most extensive political science research on polarization and partisanship in state legislatures has shown no correlation between type of election system and partisanship. This research was conducted by Professor Boris Shor of the University of Chicago. Professor Seth Masket, who wrote a book on polarization in the California legislature, agrees.


NORTH CAROLINA BALLOT ACCESS BILL

HB 32 passed the Senate Rules Committee on July 26. It lowers the number of signatures for minor parties and statewide independent candidates from 2% of the last gubernatorial vote (85,379 signatures) to one-fourth of 1% of the number of registered voters (which will probably be 17,000). The bill has already passed the House.


OTHER BALLOT ACCESS BILLS

California: on July 14, the legislature passed SB 168, which makes it illegal to pay initiative, referendum or recall circulators on a per-signature basis, "directly or indirectly." Similar laws have been held unconstitutional, or enjoined, in Colorado, Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, Washington, and Maine. They have been upheld in North Dakota, New York, and Oregon, although plaintiffs in the latter three states didn’t present evidence that such bans sharply increase the cost of getting a measure on the ballot. By contrast, in the states in wh
ich the lawsuits did strike down the laws, plaintiffs presented substantial evidence, which carried the day. The Sacramento Bee has editorialized that Governor Jerry Brown should veto the bill. He must act by August 2.

Louisiana: on July 1, Governor Bobby Jindal vetoed HB 533, an omnibus election law bill. Among other things, it lets independent candidates have the ballot label "independent". Current law already gives that ability to independent presidential candidates, but not independent candidates for other office. The bill also removes the names of presidential elector candidates from ballots. The Governor said he vetoed the bill because of the part of the bill about labels for independent candidates. His veto message says the law already prohibits a qualified party from being called the Independent Party, a statement that is true but is irrelevant.


OTHER CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE NEWS

On July 14, the legislature passed AB 80, which moves the presidential primary from February to June. On the same day, the legislature passed the National Popular Vote Plan bill, AB 459. And, it passed AB 461, which says write-in votes are valid even if the voter didn’t know, or forgot, to "X" the box next to the name written in. The deadline for Governor Jerry Brown to act on these bills is August 2.

Bills to require initiative petitioners to wear buttons, and to outlaw paying voter registration workers on a per-registration basis, are still pending. The legislature is on a month’s recess.


LAWSUIT NEWS

California: on July 14, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright said that he will hold oral argument in Chamness v Bowen, the case that challenges two aspects of the top-two law. The hearing will be August 22 in Los Angeles. However, on July 23, he refused to let a write-in candidate intervene in the case. Wright had earlier canceled the oral argument. He reinstated it because of a legal technicality. He does not have a judicial temperament and he has shown by his remarks in the first oral argument that he is deeply prejudiced against the plaintiffs. The lawsuit challenges the law that lets some, but not all, candidates list their party label on the ballot; and the law that says that write-in space should be on the ballot but that write-ins can never be counted.

Maryland: on July 21, the Board of Elections filed a notice of appeal in Libertarian Party of Md. v Board of Elections, the case in which the lower state court had ruled that the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party, each had enough signatures on their petitions for ballot status. But the Board did not ask for a stay, so the parties are on the ballot now. It is likely that the Appeals Court will agree with the lower court.

D.C.: on July 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the motion of the Board of Elections to summarily rule against the Libertarian Party, in the party’s lawsuit that says the Board of Elections must count the write-in votes for Bob Barr for President in 2008. Barr was a declared write-in candidate, but even though the Board has procedures for presidential candidates to file as write-in candidates, the Board won’t count the votes. The case will now get further briefs and an oral argument.

New Hampshire: on July 25, the Libertarian Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case against the Secretary of State, over party labels. In 2008, the Secretary of State had listed two candidates on the November ballot with the label "Libertarian". The party argues that the undisputed party nominee, Bob Barr, is the only person who should have had the "Libertarian" label on the ballot.

Pennsylvania: on July 13, the Third Circuit refused to reconsider its decision in Constitution Party v Cortes, in which the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties had challenged these laws and practices: (1) the unique Pennsylvania system that puts petitioning groups in danger of paying costs of up to $110,000 if they submit a petition that is found not to have enough valid signatures; (2) the law requiring a party to have registration membership of 15% before it can avoid petitioning; (3) the failure of many counties to tally any write-ins; (4) the failure of the state to tally the write-ins that do get counted. The 3rd circuit had said the parties lack standing to challenge any of these policies. It is possible that new lawsuits will be filed by the same parties, with a few minor tweaks that guarantee standing.

South Carolina: on July 18, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Republican Party will be allowed to present evidence in its lawsuit that seeks to limit its primary to party members. Greenville County Republican Party v State, 6:10-cv-1407.

Ohio: on July 8, the Socialist Party’s 2010 nominee for U.S. Senate sued the Federal Election Commission for refusing to take action against the Ohio News Organization last year. The Ohio News Organization had sponsored a candidate debate and had not set out any objective criteria on whom should be invited. The case is filed in Washington, D.C.

Tennessee: on July 19, the Constitution and Green Parties filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, arguing that the new ballot access law is just as unconstitutional as the old one. The old law was invalidated last year, mostly because the petition deadline was too early. The 2011 session of the legislature moved the deadline from March to April. The lawsuit also challenges a Tennessee law that says the top spot on the ballot is reserved for parties that polled at least 5% of the vote in the previous election for Governor or President. The case is Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, m.d., 3:11-cv-00692.

Vermont: on July 20, a lower state court upheld the June petition deadline for independent candidates. The decision does not discuss the holdings of the two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that concern early petition deadlines, but instead rests on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are not about early deadlines. The decision does not discuss any precedents other than U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Trudell v Markowitz, 612-8-10, Washington County. Plaintiffs will appeal.


ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS

New Hampshire: on July 18, Secretary of State Bill Gardner ruled that the Libertarian Party may begin to circulate the party petition as early as it wishes. He had earlier said that petition cannot be circulated until January of the election year.

Rhode Island: the State Board of Elections has decided to remove the names of all q
ualified parties from the voter registration form. Instead, the voter will be expected to write in the party.


MOST CROWDED GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE

This chart shows the most crowded statewide regularly-scheduled general election ballot, in the history of each state. Special elections are excluded.

State
No. of Candidates
Year
Requirement

Alabama

10 for president

1980

hold a convention

Alaska

9 for president

1992

2,035 signatures

Arizona

7 for president

1968

358 signatures

Arkansas

13 for president

1996

hold a convention

California

8 for president

1996

89,007 registrations

Colorado

16 for president

2008

pay $500

Connecticut

7 for president

1996

7,500 signatures

Delaware

7 for president

2008

305 registrations

Dist. of Columbia

9 for president

1992

3,072 signatures

Florida

13 for president

2008

27 members to be pres. elector candidates

Georgia

5 for president

1936

hold a convention

Hawaii

7 for president

2000

602 signatures

Idaho

6 for president

2000

4,918 signatures

Illinois

12 for U.S. Senate

1926

1,000 signatures

Indiana

8 for president

n="center">1980

6,982 signatures

Iowa

14 for president

1992

1,000 signatures

Kansas

8 for president

1980

2,500 signatures

Kentucky

9 for president

1976

1,000 signatures

Louisiana

11 for president

1992

pay $500

Maine

7 for president

1996

4,000 signatures

Maryland

6 for president

2008

10,000 signatures

Massachusetts

10 for Governor

1938

1,000 signatures

Michigan

10 for president

1984

file declaration of candidacy with court

Minnesota

11 for president

1996

2,000 signatures

Mississippi

8 for president

1992

1,000 signatures

Missouri

8 for president

1952

hold a convention

Montana

7 for president

2000

5,000 signatures

Nebraska

7 for president

2000

2,500 signatures

Nevada

8 for U.S. Senate

2010

250 signatures

New Hampshire

8 for president

1980

1,000 signatures

New Jersey

19 for Governor

1993

800 signatures

New Mexico

10 for president

1992

2,069 signatures

New York

12 lines for president

2000

15,000 signatures

North Carolina

6 for president

1980

10,000 signatures

North Dakota

11 for president

1976

300 signatures

Ohio

9 for president

1984

5,000 signatures

Oklahoma

8 for governor

1934

pay filing fee

Oregon

8 for president

1996

14,601 signatures

Pennsylvania

10 lines for Governor

1914

2,238 signatures

Rhode Island

10 for president

2000

1,000 signatures

South Carolina

7 for president

2000

10,000 signatures

South Dakota

6 for president

1996

3,117 signatures

Tennessee

16 for Governor

2010

25 signatures

Texas

6 for president

1996

43,963 signatures

Utah

10 for president

1992

300 signatures

Vermont

10 for president

2000

1,000 signatures

Virginia

7 for president

1936

file declaration of candidacy

Washington

12 for president

1976

100 attendees at a meeting

West Virginia

6 for president

2000

6,365 signatures

Wisconsin

11 for president

1976

2,000 signatures

Wyoming

6 for president

2000

3,485 signatures


2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
DEADLINES
FULL PARTY
CAND
LIB’T
GREEN
CONSTI
AM. ELE
Party
Indp.

Ala.

44,829

5,000

0

0

0

0

Mar. 13

Sep. 6

Alaska

(reg) 7,406

#3,271

already on

*2,149

*11

*already on

June 1

Aug. 8

Ariz.

23,041

(est) #27,000

already on

already on

0

already on

Mar. 1

Sep. 7

Ark.

10,000

#1,000

already on

0

0

0

June 30

Aug. 1

Calif.

1,030,040

172,859

already on

already on

in court

*1,650,000

unsettled

Aug. 10

>Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

already on

0

Jan. 8

June 4

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

July 13

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

*515

*247

0

Aug. 21

July 15

D.C.

no procedure

(est.) #3,900

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

Aug. 21

Florida

*112,174

112,174

already on

already on

already on

unsettled

Sep. 3

July 15

Georgia

57,956

#57,558

already on

0

0

0

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Hawaii

691

#4,536

already on

0

0

*finished

Feb. 22

Sep. 7

Idaho

13,102

1,000

already on

can’t start

already on

can’t start


Aug. 30

Aug. 31

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

June 25

Indiana

no procedure

#34,195

already on

0

0

0

- – -

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

0

0

0

0

- – -

Aug. 17

Kansas

16,776

5,000

already on

0

0

*already on

June 1

Aug. 6

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

Sep. 4

La.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

0

0

May 17

Sep. 4

Maine

28,639

#4,000

0

already on

0

0

Dec 8, 11

Aug. 8

Md.

10,000

(est.) 35,000

already on

already on

0

0 td>

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Mass.

(est) (reg) 40,000

#10,000

15,857

already on

0

0

Nov. 1, 11

July 31

Mich.

32,261

30,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

July 19

July 19

Minn.

105,352

#2,000

0

0

0

0

May 1

Aug. 14

Miss.

be organized

1,000

already on

already on

already on

0

Jan. 6

Sep. 7

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already on

0

already on

*finished

July 30

July 30

Mont.

5,000

#5,000

already on

0

0

0

Mar. 15

Aug. 1

Nebr.

4,880

2,500

already on

0

0

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 28

Nev.

7,013

7,013

already on

0

already on

ce="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">already on

April 13

July 6

N. Hamp.

13,698

#3,000

0

0

0

0

Aug. 8

Aug. 8

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

- – -

July 30

N. M.

3,009

18,053

already on

*600

0

0

Apr. 2

June 6

N.Y.

no procedure

#15,000

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

Aug. 21

No. Car.

85,379

85,379

already on

0

3,000

0

May 16

June 14

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

0

0

0

0

Apr. 13

Sep. 7

Ohio

no law exists

5,000

*unsettled

*unsettled

*unsettled

*1,000

unsettled

Aug. 8

Okla.

51,739

43,890

0

0

0

0

March 1

July 15

Oregon

21,804

18,279

already on

8,950

already on

0

Aug. 28

Aug. 28

Penn.

no procedure

(es) #25,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

Aug. 1

R.I.

17,115

#1,000

0

0

0

0

June 1

Sep. 7

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

0

May 6

July 15

So. Dak.

7,928

3,171

0

0

0

0

Mar. 27

Aug. 7

Tenn.

40,042

275

0

0

0

0

April 5

Aug. 16

Texas

49,729

80,778

already on

already on

can’t start

can’t start

May 20

May 14

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

0

alrea
dy on

*2,300

Feb. 15

Aug. 15

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

0

0

0

Jan. 1

Jun 14

Virginia

no procedure

#10,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

Aug. 24

Wash.

no procedure

#1,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

Aug. 28

West Va.

no procedure

#7,135

0

already on

0

0

- – -

Aug. 1

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

can’t start

can’t start

already on

can’t start

June 1

Sep. 7

Wyo.

3,740

3,740

already on

0

*1,900

0

June 1

Aug. 28

TOTAL STATES ON
*28
*15
*11
*5
`

#partisan label permitted (other than "independent").
"AMER ELE" = Americans Elect Party.
* change since July 1 issue.


AMERICANS ELECT IN CALIFORNIA

Americans Elect has collected more signatures on its California petition for party status than any other party has ever collecte
d. California lets groups either collect 1,030,040 signatures, or persuade 103,004 persons to fill out a voter registration card showing themselves as members. Americans Elect chose the petition method, and got 1,650,000 signatures. The drive probably cost $3,000,000, and used 1,600 circulators. The signatures will be submitted soon.


FRED NEWMAN DIES

On July 3, Fred Newman, 76, founder of the New Alliance Party, died. The New York Times ran an obituary on July 10. In 1988 the party put its presidential nominee, Lenora Fulani, on the ballot in all 50 states. The party also elected a State Senator in Nebraska, Ernie Chambers, who was registered in the New Alliance Party at the time.

Under Newman’s leadership, the New Alliance Party dissolved in 1994 and helped create the Patriot Party. Then, the Patriot Party dissolved in 1995 and joined the Reform Party. Newman achieved his greatest fame in 2000, when he and Fulani endorsed Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party presidential nomination. The New Republic even put Newman and Fulani on the cover of one of its issues.

In recent years, Newman lost interest in the Reform Party, and started the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, which now calls itself Independent Voting. It holds itself out as the leadership of independent voters in the United States, and teaches that the solution to U.S. problems is for all states to require political parties to permit independent voters to vote in partisan primaries.


WORKING FAMILIES PARTY GAINS AN OFFICE-HOLDER IN PENNSYLVANIA

Michael O’Connor, a township commissioner in Abington Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, has changed his voter registration from "Democrat" to "Working Families." O’Connor will run for re-election this November as the Working Families Party nominee.


RON PAUL WON’T SEEK RE-ELECTION

On July 12, Ron Paul announced he will not seek re-election to Congress. He has introduced more bills to help minor party and independent candidates than any other member of Congress. In four sessions of Congress he introduced a bill to outlaw restrictive ballot access laws for federal office. He also introduced a bill requiring presidential candidates who receive public funding to participate in general election debates that are open to all candiates who theoretically could be elected.


2010 ELECTION RETURNS BOOK

Ever since 1920, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives has published a book that has the number of votes for each candidate for Congress. The 2010 booklet is now in print. Its title is "Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 2, 2010." Copies are free and the booklet is 60 pages. The back of the booklet contains charts showing the total vote by party for each House of Congress in 2010. To get a copy, call 202-225-1908.


ERRATA

The May 1, 2011 B.A.N. said the new Florida ballot access law requires qualified parties that are not recognized by the Federal Election Commission to submit a petition to place its presidential nominee on the November ballot, and that this petition requires the signatures of 4% of the last presidential vote. The actual bill that was finally passed requires the petition to bear the signatures of 1% of the number of registered voters. The bill was amended and B.A.N. was not aware of the amendment until recently.


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 © 2011 Ballot Access News

One Response

  1. […] had given minor party or independent candidates an election law victory in the … Read more on Ballot Access Add comments Tagged with: Latest, lawsuit, Louisiana, […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus