Home General October 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition
formats

October 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Published on October 31, 2011, by in General.

Ballot Access News
October 1, 2011 – Volume 27, Number 5


This issue was printed on white paper.



Table of Contents

  1. MINOR PARTY PETITIONS ELIMINATED IN FLORIDA, OHIO
  2. NEBRASKA VICTORY
  3. THIRD CIRCUIT CHANGES MIND ON CARL LEWIS
  4. CALIFORNIA WRITE-INS SAVED IN LEGISLATURE
  5. OPEN PRIMARY LAWSUIT NEWS
  6. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
  7. BOOK REVIEW: VITO MARCANTONIO: RADICAL POLITICIAN 1902-1954
  8. BOOK REVIEW: IN THE BALANCE OF POWER: INDEPENDENT BLACK POLITICS AND THIRD-PARTY MOVEMENTS
  9. OREGON INCOME TAX MONEY FOR PARTIES
  10. MOST RECENT USE OF STATEWIDE NEW PARTY QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE
  11. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  12. 20% OF VOTERS SAY THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, OR INDEPENDENTS
  13. NEW YORK SPECIAL ELECTIONS
  14. NEVADA SPECIAL ELECTION
  15. MISSISSIPPI RECOGNIZES SHAWN O’HARA FACTION OF REFORM PARTY
  16. LOUISIANA 2011 ELECTION
  17. VIRGINIA 2011 ELECTION
  18. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

MINOR PARTY PETITIONS ELIMINATED IN FLORIDA, OHIO

Some additional minor parties will be able to be on the Florida and Ohio ballots in 2012 with no petitions, as a result of two decisions during September 2011.

Florida

On September 1, the Florida Secretary of State issued a ruling saying he will not require any qualified party to submit a petition to place its presidential nominee on the general election ballot. This preserves the old, lenient procedure that has existed in Florida since 2000. The ruling had been requested by Americans Elect, a new political party that is trying to get on the ballot for President in all states.

House Bill 1355, passed this year by the Florida legislature, says a qualified party that is not recognized by the Federal Election Commission must submit a petition signed by a number of voters equal to 1% of the registered voters as of the last election. For 2012, the new law requires 112,174 signatures, due July 15. But, now that law won’t be enforced.

Florida makes it easy for a group to become a qualified party. It must merely file a list of its party officers. Under the old law, qualified parties could put a presidential nominee on the ballot if they showed that the nominee was on the ballot in at least one other state, if that party had a national convention, and if it submitted a list of presidential elector candidates who were registered members of the party.

The ruling interprets Florida law, and also court precedent, to say that the Secretary of State cannot look beyond the candidacy papers presented by the party and the candidate. The Secretary of State has no official knowledge of which parties are recognized by the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC recognizes the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Natural Law, Constitution, Reform, and Green Parties. The FEC will not recognize a party as a "national committee" until after that party has participated in federal elections. The new Florida law, therefore, discriminates against new parties.

The ruling warns that any presidential candidate’s ballot position could be challenged by a private individual, and refers to the 2004 instance when the Florida Secretary of State had put Ralph Nader on the ballot as the Reform Party nominee, and the some Democrats had sued to reverse the decision, on the grounds that the Reform Party wasn’t a real political party. That argument was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court, and Nader appeared on the ballot.

In 2012, if anyone files a challenge to the Secretary of State’s action putting any presidential candidate on the ballot, the Secretary of State, and that candidate, will undoubtedly protect themselves by showing that the Florida Constitution, Article VI, sec. 1, says "The requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters."

Besides Americans Elect, this ruling helps the Socialist Workers Party, the Prohibition Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. These are also parties which are not recognized by the FEC. The ruling protects parties that may form in the future.

The Secretary of State’s ruling also says that if a party wants to submit the 112,174-signature petition, the petition need not mention the name of the presidential nominee.

Ohio

On September 7, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley granted an injunction against the state’s new ballot access law, passed this year, which requires 38,525 signatures due February 7, 2012. Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, s.d., 2:11-cv-722. This court order puts the Libertarian Party on
the ballot in 2012, and makes it likely that any other party that can show a modicum of support can persuade the Secretary of State to put it on the ballot as well. "Modicum of support" in these cases can include evidence of support in other states.

The basis for the ruling is that a February petition deadline is too early. The decision cites the 3rd circuit ruling in a New Jersey case that struck down an April petition deadline, even though only 800 signatures were needed. Early deadlines themselves are unconstitutional, regardless of how many signatures are required. The state will not appeal.

Although the Ohio legislature is still in session, there are no bills pending to amend the ballot access law.


NEBRASKA VICTORY

On August 30, U.S. District Court Joseph Bataillon, a Clinton appointee, struck down the Nebraska ban on out-of-state circulators. Citizens in Charge v Gale, 4:09cv-3255. This is a very significant victory, because Nebraska is in the 8th Circuit, and in 2001 the 8th Circuit had upheld North Dakota’s ban on out-of-state circulators. The Nebraska ruling says that in the North Dakota case, the people who had sued to overturn the ban had not presented evidence showing that the ban is a significant burden. But in the Nebraska case, they did. The state probably won’t appeal.


THIRD CIRCUIT CHANGES MIND ON CARL LEWIS

On September 13, the Third Circuit put Carl Lewis on the November 8, 2011 ballot as the Democratic nominee for State Senate, 8th district. The U.S. District Court had refused to put Lewis on, as had the state courts. The vote was 2-1. The case is Lewis v Guadagno, 11-3401.

But, the Republican Party, which had intervened in the case, then asked for a rehearing. The same three judges then held another hearing on September 20, and then on September 22 issued a contrary ruling, voting 3-0 that Lewis should not be on the ballot. The new ruling did not even mention the panel’s previous ruling. There is no explanation in the latest decision of what was erroneous in the earlier decision.

The issue is whether New Jersey’s Constitutional provision requiring candidates for the State Senate to have lived in the state for four years violates the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has never issued an opinion on the constitutionality of duration of residency requirements for candidates for office. But in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court did uphold a Texas law, saying no one could run for the legislature who was in the middle of his or her term for certain local offices. In that case, Clements v Fashing, the Supreme Court said the right to be a candidate is not a fundamental right. However, Clements v Fashing is a weak precedent, because it has no majority opinion. There is a 4-judge opinion upholding the law, and a 4-judge dissent, and the ninth judge, John Paul Stevens, wrote his own opinion which does not agree with either side completely.

It is unfortunate that the Third Circuit changed its mind and ruled against Lewis. If the Third Circuit had stuck to its original ruling, chances are high that the case would then have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, which very likely would have heard it.


CALIFORNIA WRITE-INS SAVED IN LEGISLATURE

On September 7, the California legislature came close to removing write-in space from the general election ballot, but at the end of the day write-ins survived. Assemblymember Paul Fong, chair of the Elections Committee, had recently eliminated all the original contents of his AB 1413, and replaced them with new provisions, including a provision to repeal the law that says voters are entitled to cast a write-in vote for any office "in any election". His revised bill also repeals the law saying write-in space should be printed on the ballot in all elections.

The bill (in its original form) had already passed the Assembly. On September 7, the Senate Elections Committee was scheduled to hear this bill. But just as the hearing was about to start, it was called off, without explanation. The Committee never did hear the bill, and the legislature has now gone home for the year. The bill could theoretically be revived in January 2012.


OPEN PRIMARY LAWSUIT NEWS

Idaho: on September 19, the 9th circuit ruled that Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa is moot. The case had been filed in 2008 by the Republican Party, to prevent members of other parties from voting in its primaries. The party won the case in March 2011 and the legislature then changed the law to say that parties could limit voting in their primaries to people who sign in as members. Some voters who were unhappy with the decision then appealed the case to the 9th circuit, but the 9th circuit ruled, "If a challenged law is amended or expires, the case becomes moot." The order is signed by Judges Michael Hawkins, Richard Clifton, and Sandra Ikuta.

South Carolina: a trial will begin on August 1, 2012, in the Republican Party’s lawsuit to keep members of other parties from voting in its primary.


MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

California: on September 19, the State Court of Appeals upheld two aspects of the top-two system. The Court said that it is constitutional to provide that members of qualified parties may list their party labels on the ballot and yet members of unqualified parties may not. The ruling says voters would be confused if all candidates could list the party they are registered in. The ruling also says that there is a constitutional problem with the existing law, which says that any voter may cast a write-in vote, but that such votes can’t be counted in November for Congress and state office. The court therefore ordered the Secretary of State not to print write-in space on the ballot, even though the existing law says she should, and even though the Court did not say the existing law on write-in space is unconstitutional. The case is Field v Bowen, A129829.

A different set of plaintiffs has a similar case pending in the 9th circuit. That case is Chamness v Bowen. On August 23, a U.S. District Court in this case had upheld the two challenged laws (the law on party labels and the law that says write-ins
can’t be counted).

New York: on September 8, the Board of Elections decided not to contest the lawsuit that had been filed last year by the Conservative Party and the Working Families Party, over the way the state had been counting votes. The old policy was that when a voter voted for the same candidate twice, once under two different party labels, that vote should be given to the party that appeared first on the ballot. Because the Democratic and Republican Parties always appear first on the ballot, this deprived the minor parties of that vote. From now on, the machine will alert a voter who votes twice for the same candidate that a mistake has been made, and ask if the voter wants to try again, and this time just vote once. Conservative Party v N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 10 cv 6923.


BOOK REVIEW: VITO MARCANTONIO: RADICAL POLITICIAN 1902-1954

Vito Marcantonio: Radical Politician 1902-1954, by Gerald Meyer. Paperback, 303 pages, published by State University of New York Press.

This book, first published in 1989, has just had its Fourth reprinting. It tries to answer the question of how a minor party member of Congress who was bitterly denounced for generally supporting the Communist Party line was able to get re-elected so many times.

Vito Marcantonio was a registered member of the Republican Party when he was first elected to Congress in 1934, but most of the time he served in Congress, he was enrolled in the American Labor Party. The last time he was re-elected, in 1948, both major parties opposed him, but he still won. He is the last minor party member elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (excepting candidates who had the cross-nomination of either the Democratic or Republican Party). Although it is true Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., was elected to the U.S. House on the Liberal Party line alone in a 1949 special election, Roosevelt was not a registered member of the Liberal Party.

One might think that the residents of Marcantonio’s congressional district were generally radical and that explains Marcantonio’s success, but that would not be accurate. Marcantonio represented northeast Manhatten, which is not the part of Manhatten that had sent Socialist Party nominees to the state legislature and even to Congress in the 1910’s decade. Marcantonio’s constituents were Italian and Puerto Rican, and after the 1944 redistricting, also some German and Irish.

The book explains how the American Labor Party was able to protect Marcantonio, and get him re-elected, by making his re-election its first priority.

To do that, the ALP skillfully transferred its support between Democrats and Republicans, in state legislative races and in other partisan races, such as for City Council. The ALP was strong enough so that its cross-endorsement of major party nominees was valuable, even as late as 1949. The ALP couldn’t prevent the Democratic Party from running a nominee against Marcantonio in 1948, but it did have enough influence to cause the Democrats to nominate a weak candidate.

Marcantonio also was strong because he lived in the district, in a humble apartment building, and was constantly interacting with the people in his district, which was a physically small district. Even though he had no wealth, and congressional salaries in the 1940’s were not large, he frequently helped constituents with money when they were desperately in need. The book is very enjoyable reading.


BOOK REVIEW: IN THE BALANCE OF POWER: INDEPENDENT BLACK POLITICS AND THIRD-PARTY MOVEMENTS

In the Balance of Power: Independent Black Politics and Third-Party Movements in the United Statesby Omar H. Ali. Paperback, 244 pages, published by Ohio University Press, 2008.

For most of the nation’s history, black citizens have been treated unequally by federal and state laws. This book reveals the extensive political activity that black Americans engaged in, even in the period of legalized slavery, in their fight for equal treatment under the law. Black activists tried to work with virtually every political party that was formed, from 1840 on. This included the major parties and the minor parties. Even history books that are devoted entirely to minor parties do not generally cover the information that is included in this book.

The book is especially interesting when it covers the 1910’s decade, and how the Progressive Party, the Socialist Party, and the major parties all toyed with the hopes of black Americans, but ultimately did very little for them. Anyone interested in U.S. political history will enjoy this book. The author is a history professor in North Carolina.


OREGON INCOME TAX MONEY FOR PARTIES

The last B.A.N. listed the amount of money each party received from state income tax forms, for 13 states. But Oregon was erroneously omitted.

This year, Oregon parties have received: Democratic $16,395; Republican $4,507; Green $957; Independent Party $705; Progressive $432; Working Families $429; Libertarian $390; Constitution $201.


MOST RECENT USE OF STATEWIDE NEW PARTY QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE

The chart below shows the last time when a previously unqualified party completed some task to put
itself on the statewide ballot.

The chart makes it easy to identify the states with the worse ballot access requirements for parties to get on the ballot. The chart shows eight states in which no group has qualified since 2000 or before. The chart assumes that the Americans Elect petition in California will succeed. The signatures have been submitted. Verification already completed in sixteen counties suggests that the petition does have enough valid signatures.

The Tennessee entry shows that a procedure was last used in 2000. In 2000 only, the state let candidates who used the independent petition procedure (which is very easy) choose a party label that was printed on the ballot. If Tennessee had not done this, the Tennessee entry in the chart would be 1968, not 2000. No one has finished the petition to establish a new party in Tennessee since George Wallace did it in 1968.

State
Petition type
Year
Who Did It?
Requirement

Alabama

party petition

2000

Libertarian

39,536 signatures

Alaska

president-only petition

2011

Americans Elect

3,271 signatures

Arizona

party petition

2011

Americans Elect

23,041 signatures

Arkansas

party petition

2011

Libertarian

10,000 signatures

California

party petition

2011

Americans Elect

1,030,040 signatures

Colorado

candidate petition

2010

Indp. Reform

1,000 signatures

Connecticut

candidate petition

2010

Working Families, Indp. Pty

7,500 signatures

Delaware

registration

2010

Working Families

305 registrations

D.C.

candidate petition

2010

Socialist Workers

3,000 signatures

Florida

file list of officers

2011

Americans Elect

just be organized

Georgia

party petition

2000

face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reform

39,094 signatures

Hawaii

party petition

2010

Green

692 signatures

Idaho

party petition

1996

Reform, Natural Law

9,644 signatures

Illinois

candidate petition

2010

Libertarian

25,000 signatures

Indiana

candidate petition

2000

Reform

30,717 signatures

Iowa

candidate petition

2010

Libertarian

1,500 signatures

Kansas

party petition

2011

Americans Elect

16,776 signatures

Kentucky

candidate petition

2011

Libertarian

5,000 signatures

Louisiana

candidate fee

2008

Consti, Tax, Prohi, SW, S&L

pay $500

Maine

candidate petition

2004

Constitution, Libertarian

4,000 signatures

Maryland

party petition

2011

Green, Libertarian

10,000 signatures

Mass.

candidate petition

2010

Green

10,000 signatures

Michigan

party petition

2011

Americans Elect

32,261 signatures

Minnesota

candidate petition

2010

Green, Grass.,Resource, Eco

2,000 signatures

Mississippi

file list of officers

n="TOP">

2007

Unity ‘08

just be organized

Missouri

party petition

2008

Constitution

10,000 signatures

Montana

party petition

2006

Constitution

5,000 signatures

Nebraska

party petition

2010

Libertarian

4,880 signatures

Nevada

party petition

2011

Americans Elect

7,013 signatures

New Hamp.

candidate petition

2010

Libertarian

3,000 signatures

New Jersey

candidate petition

2009

Socialist, Libertarian

800 signatures

New Mexico

party petition

2010

Libertarian

4,151 signatures

New York

candidate petition

2010

Libt, Green, Rent, Anti-Prohi

15,000 signatures

No. Carolina

party petition

2008

Libertarian

69,734 signatures

No. Dakota

party petition

2010

Libertarian

7,000 signatures

Ohio

party petition

2000

Natural Law, Libertarian

33,543 signatures

Oklahoma

party petition

2000

Libertarian

43,680 signatures

Oregon

party petition

2008

Peace

20,640 signatures

Pennsylvania >

candidate petition

2008

Libertarian

24,666 signatures

Rhode Island

party petition

2010

Moderate

23,589 signatures

So. Carolina

party petition

2006

Working Families

10,000 signatures

So. Dakota

party petition

2008

Constitution

3,117 signatures

Tennessee

candidate petition

2000

Reform, Green, Libertarian

275 signatures

Texas

party petition

2010

Green

43,991 signatures

Utah

10 for president

2008

Green, PFP, Socism & Lib

1,000 signatures

Vermont

file list of officers

2010

Working Families

just be organized

Virginia

candidate petition

2008

Indp Green, Libt., Green

10,000 signatures

Washington

candidate petition

2008

Libt, Const, Green, SW, S&L

1,000 signatures

West Va.

candidate petition

2011

American Third Position

1,720 signatures

Wisconsin

candidate petition

2010

Constitution, Libertarian

2,000 signatures

Wyoming

party petition

2000

Natural Law, Reform

3,485 signatures


2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

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

Ala.

44,829

5,000

0

0

0

*20,000

Mar. 13

Sep. 6

Alaska

(reg) 7,406

#3,271

already on

2,155

*18

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

*3,000

0

0

June 30

Aug. 1

Calif.

1,030,040

172,859

already on

already on

in court

finished

*Jan. 2

Aug. 10

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

already on

*7,500

Jan. 8

June 4

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – –

Aug. 8

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

*540

*550

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

*0

112,174

already on

already on

already on

*already on

*Sep. 1

July 15

Georgia

57,956

#57,558

already on

0

0

*6,000

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Hawaii

691

#4,536

already on

*500

0

finished

Feb. 22

Sep. 7

Idaho

13,102

1,000

already on

0

already on

0

Aug. 30

Aug. 24

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – –

June 25

Indiana

face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. 7

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

*500

Dec 8, 11

Aug. 8

Md.

10,000

(est.) 35,000

already on

already on

0

0

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Mass.

(est) (reg) 40,000

#10,000

15,857

already on

0

0

Nov. 1, 11

July 31

align="TOP">

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. 21

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

*200

0

Mar. 15

Aug. 15

Nebr.

4,880

2,500

already on

0

0

0

Aug. 1

Sep. 1

Nev.

7,013

7,013

already on

0

already on

already on

April 13

July 6

N. Hamp.

13,698

#3,000

*12,500

0

0

0

Aug. 8

n="RIGHT">Aug. 8

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

- – –

July 30

N. M.

3,009

18,053

already on

700

0

0

Apr. 2

June 27

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

*already on

*unclear

*unclear

*unclear

unsettled

Aug. 8

Okla.

51,739

43,890

*12,000

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

*2,800

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

already on

*finished

Feb. 15

Aug. 15

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

0

0

valign="TOP">

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

*3,300

0

June 1

Aug. 28

TOTAL STATES ON
29*
15
11
6*
`

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


20% OF VOTERS SAY THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, OR INDEPENDENTS

Many polls ask voters if they are Democrats, Republicans, or independents. On August 26, Roper Polls released a poll that asks voters if they are any of these categories, or "None of these". The results: Independent 30%, Democrats 29%, Republicans 21%, "none of these" 20%. The poll was conducted August 18-22 and had 1,000 respondents. The sponsor of the poll was the Associated Press.


NEW YORK SPECIAL ELECTIONS

On September 13, New York held special elections to fill one vacant seat in the U.S. House, and six vacant Assembly seats. The official returns still aren’t known. However, unofficial returns show that both the Green Party, and the Working Families Party, set new records for New York legislative races.

The Green Party polled 8% in the 144th district, the highest it has ever done in a
New York legislative race with both major parties also in the race. The Democrat won with 71%, and the Republican received 21%.

The Working Families Party polled 32% in the 54th district, the best it has ever done for a New York legislative race. The district is in Brooklyn. The winner, who was the nominee of the Democratic, Republican, and Conservative Parties, received 44%, and an independent received 23%. The previous best showing for the WFP in a New York legislative race had been 22.62%, in 2006.


NEVADA SPECIAL ELECTION

On September 13, Nevada held a special election for U.S. House, 2nd district. The results: Republican Mark Amodei, 57.92%; Democrat Kate Marshall 36.07%; independent candidate Helmuth Lehmann 4.14%; Independent American Party nominee Tim Fasano 1.87%.


MISSISSIPPI RECOGNIZES SHAWN O’HARA FACTION OF REFORM PARTY

On September 9, the Mississippi Electoral Board met and determined that the Reform Party faction associated with Shawn O’Hara is the legitimate faction of the party. It ruled against the faction that is more closely associated with the national officers of the Reform Party.

As a result, the O’Hara faction nominees will be on the November 8, 2011 ballot for state office. They include nominees for Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, and three legislative seats.


LOUISIANA 2011 ELECTION

Louisiana elects all its executive and legislative officers for four-year terms on October 22. In the 38 State Senate races, only one person filed in 20 races. In the 100 State House races, only one person filed in 41 races.

Louisiana has three qualified parties, other than the Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians have a candidate for Governor, and the Reform Party has a candidate for Agriculture Commissioner. The Green Party has no nominees for state office.


VIRGINIA 2011 ELECTION

Virginia elects all members of its state legislature on November 8, 2011. Out of the 100 State House races, only 29 have both a Democrat and a Republican running. In most districts, only one person is on the ballot.

There are five independent candidates for the State House, two Independent Green Party nominees, and two Libertarians. There is also an Independent Green nominee for one of the State Senate seats.

Representative Lacey Putney is running for re-election. He is 83, and has been elected as an independent to the House every two years starting in 1971.


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

3 Responses

  1. […] October 2011 Ballot Access News reports the following data for Americans Elect ballot drives from about a month […]

  2. […] October 2011 Ballot Access News reports the following data for Americans Elect ballot drives from about a month […]

  3. Merle.LANFORD

    Can the injection kill me?.im planning on taking testosterone . Don’t tell me I shouldn’t take steroids their bad….i know. I was just wondering where do you inject it and can the injection kill you if you don’t do it correctly?.

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>