Home General November 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition
formats

November 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Published on November 25, 2011, by in General.

Ballot Access News
November 1, 2011 – Volume 27, Number 6


This issue was printed on gray paper.



Table of Contents

  1. SUPREME COURT REJECTS TWO MORE MINOR PARTY CASES
  2. CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETOES HARMFUL BILL
  3. 8th CIRCUIT UPHOLDS NORTH DAKOTA LAW
  4. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY SEASON IS LONGER THAN EVER
  5. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  6. SOCIALIST PARTY CONVENTION
  7. GREEN PARTY CONVENTION
  8. WEST VIRGINIA ELECTION RESULTS
  9. LOUISIANA 2011 ELECTION
  10. GREENS ALMOST ELECT A LEGISLATOR
  11. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

SUPREME COURT REJECTS TWO MORE MINOR PARTY CASES
COURT HAS SHUNNED ALL SUCH CASES FOR 20 YEARS

During October, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian Party ballot access cases from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This continues the Court’s policy of refusing to hear any election law appeal brought by a minor party or an independent candidate. The Court has refused all 49 such cases during the last twenty years, unless a major party was in the same case and on the same side as the minor party.

The only exception to that statement is that in 1996 the Court did accept a Georgia Libertarian case against a state law mandating drug tests for candidates for state office, but that decision, Chandler v Miller, was based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches, and did nothing to help minor parties and independents with their particular election law problems.

The two cases the Court refused to hear last month are (1) Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardiner, which challenged the state policy that prints party labels on the general election ballot for candidates who were not nominated by that party; and (2) Barr v Galvin, which challenged Massachusetts policy of having no objective standards on when an unqualified party may list a stand-in presidential candidate on a petition. This policy makes it impossible for a minor party that is not ballot-qualified in Massachusetts to hold its presidential convention in June of presidential election years, and leaves the law ambiguous for parties that hold conventions in July.

During those same twenty years, when a minor party or independent candidate won in the court below, and the losing state appealed to the Supreme Court, half the time, the Supreme Court accepted the case.

Each time during the past twenty years when the Court accepted a state’s appeal, the Court then reversed the lower court and awarded a victory to the state.

The Supreme Court’s hostility toward minor parties and independent candidates is documented in the chart on page 3, which lists the 49 cases the Court refused to hear in the last twenty years.

In the last twenty years, states that lost a lawsuit in the court below to a minor party or independent candidate appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court at six instances. The Court accepted these three: (1) Arkansas Educational TV Foundation v Forbes; (2) Clingman v Beaver; (3) Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party. The subjects of these cases were debates, whether a minor party can demand an open primary for itself, and fusion.

The three instances at which a state appealed to the Court, and the Court refused to hear the case, are: (1) Brewer v Nader; (2) Davidson v Campbell; (3) New York State Board of Elections v Lerman. The issues in these three cases were an early petition deadline, residency requirements for petition circulators, and whether a congressional candidate must be a registered voter.

The record above means that when a state asks for help from the U.S. Supreme Court, it gets help 50% of the time. But when a minor party or independent asks for help from the Court, over the last twenty years, they get help zero percent of the time.

Lack of Basis for Court Behavior

There is no justification for the Court’s hostility toward minor parties and independent candidates.

The language of the Constitution, the writings of the founding fathers, the opinions of political scientists, and the language of international treaties that the U.S. has signed, all condemn state election laws that discriminate against minor parties and independent candidates, and prevent voters from voting for such candidates.

The Constitution: In decisions between October 1968 and January 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court itself interpreted the First and Fourteenth Amendments to protect the right of voters to vote for minor party and independent candidates. Furthermore, in 1995, the Court interpreted Article One to protect the right of voters to vote for anyone for Congress who meets the qualifications to be in Congress, a decision that protects major party voters and candidates as well as minor party and independent voters and candidates.

The Court has never said that any of these good precedents are no longer good law. But the Court won’t act when lower courts don’t follow t
hose precedents. For example, in 1979 and again in 1992, the Court said states can’t require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than in the state as a whole. But Alabama violates this principle, and when the lower courts upheld the Alabama law, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

Opinions of the Founding Fathers: in Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison said factionalism is bad, but it can be ameliorated if there are many factions instead of just two. "Faction" means "party". Madison wrote of the "security afforded by a greater variety of parties…In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security."

The Founding Fathers would have been aghast at the thought of giving legal advantages to two particular "factions", relative to all others. In their day, there were no restrictions on whom a voter could vote for, because there were no government-printed ballots, no candidacy declaration forms, no filing fees, no petitions. There were provisions on who was eligible to hold office, but they did not prevent voters from voting for someone who didn’t meet the qualifications; they just meant, if such candidates were elected, they ran a risk of not being sworn in.

Treaties the U.S. has signed: in 1990 the United States signed the Copenhagen Document of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, known informally as the Helsinki Accords. The United States, and the other signatory nations, promised "to respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law."

Opinions of Academics: some Supreme Court Justices believe that it is bad policy to encourage voters to support minor parties and independents, but there is no academic support for this view. A review of scholarly books and articles published in the last twenty years about ballot access for minor parties and independent candidates finds many writings criticizing harsh ballot access laws, but none defending them.

The last scholarly writing that did defend harsh ballot access laws for minor parties and independent candidates was Political Scientist Larry Sabato’s 1988 book, "The Party’s Just Begun." But Sabato changed his mind about that, and commented in 1994 that it was very good that the Virginia ballot access laws that year were easy enough that four candidates for U.S. Senate qualified for the November ballot.

Vox Pop, the newsletter of the section of the American Political Science Association that deals with Political Parties, featured in its Spring 2011 issue an article by Professor J. David Gillespie, a political scientist/historian who was highly critical of restrictive ballot access laws in that article, and also in his books. Political scientists have several times filed amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to hear ballot access cases. No political scientists have ever filed an amicus with the Court opposing liberal ballot access for minor parties and independents.

Political scientist W. Dean Burnham testified in favor of the New Party, in its lawsuit that argued that states must let two different political parties jointly nominate the same candidate. That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the 8th circuit had agreed with the New Party. The U.S. Supreme Court opinion which reversed the 8th circuit, Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, quoted Professor Burnham to make it seem as though that the Professor was opposed to the position of the New Party, when the truth was the opposite.

Only three members of the current Court have ever written any opinion, concurrence or dissent while they were on the Supreme Court that defends minor parties or independents. Those justices are Stephen Breyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.

U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSALS TO HEAR MINOR PARTY, INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE ELECTION LAW LAWSUITS, 1991-2011

width="33%" valign="TOP">

Cartwright v Barnes

STATE

REFUSAL DATE

NAME OF CASE

ISSUE

N.H.

Oct. 11, 2011

Libertarian Party of NH v Gardner

Political party protection of its name on ballot

Mass.

Oct. 3, 2011

Barr v Galvin

Presidential stand-ins on petition

Ct.

June 28, 2011

Green Party of Ct v Lenge

Discriminatory public funding

Hawaii

May 5, 2011

Nader v Nago

Independent candidate number of signatures

Georgia

Jan. 18, 2011

Coffield v Kemp

Independent candidate number of signatures

Virginia

Sep. 30, 2010

Lux v Rodrigues

Residency requirement for circulators

Ala.

June 7, 2010

Shugert v Chapman

Independent candidate number of signatures

La.

June 7, 2010

Libertarian Party v Dardenne

Deadline for qualified party to submit electors

Illinois

May 18, 2009

Stevo v Keith

Independent candidate number of signatures

Maine

Aug. 20, 2008

Hoffman v Dunlap

Validity of signatures

Ala.

Jan. 7, 2008

Swanson v Chapman

Independent candidate number of signatures

Mont.

Oct. 9, 2007

Jones v Montana University System

Government-sponsored discriminatory debates

Pennsy.

Oct. 1, 2007

Rogers v Cortes

Petitions needed for nominees of qualified parties

Pennsy.

Feb. 16, 2007

Romanelli v Election Board

Large fees when petition is held invalid

Pennsy.

Jan. 8, 2007

Nader v Seroty II

Large fees when petition is held invalid

Ohio

June 5, 2006

Lawrence v Blackwell

Independent candidate petition deadline

Oregon

May 23, 2005

Kucera v Bradley

Arbitrary invalidation of petition signatures

Texas

March 21, 2005

Nader v Connor

Independent candidate number of signatures

Pennsy.

Jan. 10, 2005

Nader v Seroty I

Burdensome procedure for checking signatures

Calif.

Nov. 29, 2004

Baum v Superior Court

Validity of certain type of write-in votes

Ohio

Oct. 26, 2004

Blankenship v Blackwell

Residency requirement for circulators

Pennsy.

Oct. 4, 2004

Zulick v Wise

Discriminatory law on fusion

Calif.

Jan. 13, 2004

Van Susteren v Shelley

Party can’t nominate a non-member

Georgia

March 10, 2003

Minor party U.S. House number of signatures

Arizona

Dec. 16, 2002

Browne v Bayless

Independent candidate petition deadline

Ohio

Oct. 7, 2002

Nader v Blackwell

Ballot labels, candidates who use indp. procedure

Ill.

March 18, 2002

Tobin for Gov. v Bd. of Elections

Immunity for election officials

Ohio

Oct. 1, 2001

Schrader v Blackwell

Ballot labels, candidates who use indp. procedure

Virginia

April 30, 2001

Wood v Quinn

Independent candidate petition deadline

federal

April 30, 2001

Nader v Fed. Elec. Commission

Access to corporate-funded presidential debates

Mich.

Oct. 9, 2000

Buchanan v Miller

State fails to adjudicate internal party dispute

P.R.

Oct. 2, 2000

Civil Action Party v Puerto Rico

Only notary-attorney may circulate petition

So. D.

Oct. 2, 2000

Nader 2000 v Hazeltine

When deadline held invalid, what relief due

Idaho

Sep. 28, 2000

Nader 2000 v Cenarrusa

Independent candidate number of signatures

Virginia

March 20, 2000

DeBauche v Trani

Government-sponsored discriminatory debates

Iowa

Jan. 11, 1999

Marcus v Iowa Public Television

Government-sponsored discriminatory debates

Ohio

Oct. 5, 1998

Miller v Lorain Co. Bd. Elections

Independent candidate number of signatures

Fla.

Oct. 6, 1997

Libertarian Party of Fl. V Smith

Discriminatory filing fees

Ill.

Oct. 6, 1997

Libertarian Party of Il. V Rednour

Minor party U.S. House number of signatures

Maine

March 25, 1996

McLaughlin v N.C. Bd. Elections

How a party remains on ballot

Okla.

Oct. 2, 1995

COFOE v McElderry

Write-in ban combined with tough ballot access

Ark.

Feb. 21, 1995

Langguth v McKuen

Independent candidate petition deadline

Kansas

Jan. 23, 1995

Hagelin for President v Graves

Independent candidate petition deadline

Me.

Oct. 11, 1993

Libertarian Party of Me. v Diamond

Number of signatures in small party primary

Illinois

June 21, 1993

Reed v Kusper

Must new party run a full slate

Calif.

Feb. 22, 1993

Lightfoot v Eu

Number of write-ins to win a party primary

Cal.

Sep. 24, 1992

Natural Law Party v Eu

Independent candidate petition deadline

Wisc.

June 22, 1992

Swamp v Kennedy

Ban on two parties nominating same candidate

Colo.

Apr. 20, 1992

Libertarian Party v Colo. Sec. of State

Party can’t nominate a non-member

Most of these instances are denials of cert petitions; a few are denials of injunctive relief.


CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETOES HARMFUL BILL

On October 7, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 205, which would have made it illegal to pay registration workers on a per-registration basis. Because (due to Proposition 14) the only way California minor parties can remain ballot-qualified is to have approximately 110,000 registrants, this bill, if it had taken effect, would have crippled registration drives needed to preserve party existence.


8th CIRCUIT UPHOLDS NORTH DAKOTA LAW

On October 17, the 8th Circuit upheld a North Dakota law that has kept all minor party legislative candidates off the general election ballot since 1976. Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger, 10-3212. The decision is by Judge Kermit Bye, a Clinton appointee, and co-signed by Judge Roger Wollman, a Reagan appointee, and Judge Bobby Shepherd, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The law requires that no one may be nominated for the legislature in a party primary, even if that person got the most votes, unless he or she polls a number of votes that equals 1% of the population (including children and aliens). In 2010, the turnout in all three primaries (Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian) was low, so that in some districts, 15% of the voters who voted in all three primaries put together would have needed to choose the Libertarian primary ballot, in order for the party to place its nominee on the November ballot. In other words, 1% of the population equaled 15% of the actual voters in all party primaries put together.

Minor parties, even when they have considerable voter appeal, almost always have very low turnout in their primaries. In 1998, only 3% of the voters who actually voted in all party primaries chose to vote in the Minnesota Reform Party primary. Notwithstanding that, the Reform Party elected the Governor in November.

The judges erroneously believed that once a party submits 7,000 valid signatures, it is on the ballot forever after. The decision says that the primary vote restriction is needed to keep the ballot from being crowded with too many candidates, because party qualification is so easy.

Actually, submitting the petition only puts a party on the ballot for one election year, and the party must re-do that same petition every two years unless it polls 5%. On October 31, the party filed a request for a rehearing that points out this error.


PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY SEASON IS LONGER THAN EVER

Americans Elect says one reason it exists is because the system by which the major parties choose presidential nominees is so unfair and chaotic. This argument is especially powerful in 2012, when the length of the presidential primary season is an unprecedented 178 days long, almost six months. The first primary is on January 10 and the last is June 26. By contrast, in all presidential elections from 1912 through 1972, the primary season was never more than 90 days long.

The chart on page 4 has all presidential primary dates for elections 1988-201
2. The chart also shows the median date (i.e., the date on which half the primaries are over) for the years 1988-2012. The 2012 median date is two months later than it was in 2008. This is because so many states that used February presidential primaries in 2008 have shifted to later months for 2012.

DATES OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

State
2012
2008
2004
2000
1996
1992
1988

Alabama

March 13

February 5

June 1

June 6

June 4

June 2

March 8

Arizona

February 28

February 5

February 3

February 22

February 27

- – -

- – -

Arkansas

May 22

February 5

May 18

May 23

May 21

May 26

March 8

California

June 5

February 5

.March 2

March 7

March 26

June 2

June 7

Colorado

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

March 5

March 3

- – -

Connecticut

April 24

February 5

March 2

March 7

March 5

March 24

March 29

Delaware

April 24

February 5

February 3

February 5

February 24

- – -

- – -

D.
C.

April 3

February 12

January 13

May 2

May 7

May 5

May 3

Florida

January 31

January 29

March 9

March 14

March 12

March 10

March 8

Georgia

March 6

February 5

March 2

March 7

March 5

March 3

March 8

Idaho

May 15

May 27

May 25

May 23

May 28

May 26

May 24

Illinois

March 20

February 5

March 16

March 21

March 19

March 17

March 15

Indiana

May 8

May 6

May 4

May 2

May 7

May 5

May 3

Kansas

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

April 7

- – -

Kentucky

May 22

May 20

May 18

May 23

May 28

May 26

March 8

Louisiana

March 24

February 9

March 9

March 14

March 12

March 10

"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">March 8

Maine

- – -

- – -

- – -

March 7

March 5

- – -

- – -

Maryland

April 3

February 12

March 2

March 7

March 5

March 3

March 8

Mass.

March 6

February 5

March 2

March 7

March 5

March 10

March 8

Michigan

Feb. 28

January 15

- – -

February 22

March 19

March 17

- – -

Minnesota

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

April 7

- – -

Mississippi

March 13

March 11

March 9

March 14

March 12

March 10

March 8

Missouri

February 7

February 5

February 3

March 7

- – -

- – -

March 8

Montana

June 5

June 3

June 8

June 6

June 4

June 2

June 7

Nebraska

May 15

May 13

May 11

May 9

May 14

valign="TOP">

May 12

May 10

Nevada

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

March 26

- – -

- – -

New Hamp.

Jan. 10

January 8

January 27

February 1

February 20

February 18

February 16

New Jersey

June 5

February 5

June 8

June 6

June 4

June 2

June 7

New Mex.

June 5

June 3

June 1

June 6

June 4

June 2

June 7

New York

April 24

February 5

March 2

March 7

March 7

April 7

April 19

No. Car.

May 8

May 6

- – -

May 2

May 7

May 5

March 8

No. Dakota

- – -

- – -

- – -

- – -

February 27

June 9

June 14

Ohio

June 12

March 4

March 2

March 7

March 19

June 2

May 3

Oklahoma

March 6

February 5

February 3

March 14

March 12

March 10

March 8

Oregon

May 15

May 20

May 18

May 16

March 12

May 19

May 17

Pennsyl.

April 24

April 22

April 27

April 4

April 23

April 28

April 26

Puerto Rico

- – -

June 1

- – -

February 27

- – -

April 5

March 21

Rhode Is.

April 24

March 4

March 2

March 7

March 5

March 10

March 8

So. Caro.

Jan. 21

January 19

February 3

February 19

March 2

March 7

March 5

So. Dakota

June 5

June 3

June 1

June 6

February 27

February 25

February 23

Tennessee

March 6

February 5

February 10

March 14

March 12

March 10

March 8

Texas

March 6

March 4

March 9

March 14

March 12

March 10

March 8

Utah

June 26

>February 5

February 24

March 10

- – -

- – -

- – -

Vermont

March 6

March 4

March 2

March 7

March 5

- – -

March 1

Virginia

March 6

February 12

February 10

February 29

- – -

- – -

March 8

Washington

- – -

February 19

- – -

February 29

March 26

May 19

- – -

West Va.

May 8

May 13

May 11

May 9

May 14

May 12

May 10

Wisconsin

April 3

February 19

February 17

April 4

March 19

April 7

April 5

MEDIAN

April 13

February 12

March 2

March 14

March 12

April 7

March 8

RANGE

168 days

147 days

147 days

126 days

105 days

112 days

119 days


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

*53,000

Mar. 13

Sep. 6

Alaska

(reg) 7,406

#3,271

already on

*2,158

*19

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

*3,500

0

0

June 30

Aug. 1

Calif.

1,030,040

172,859

already on

already on

negotiation

finished

Jan. 2

Aug. 10

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

already on

*finished

Jan. 8

June 4

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – -

"2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aug. 8

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

540

*finished

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

*50,334

#*51,845

already on

0

0

*25,000

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

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

*5,000

Dec 8, 11

Aug. 8

Md.

10,000

(est.) 35,000

already on

already on

*300

0

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

nt size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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

*3,000

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

*14,000

0

0

0

Aug. 8

Aug. 8

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

gn="RIGHT">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

*500

3,000

*2,000

May 16

June 14

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

*150

0

0

0

Apr. 13

Sep. 7

Ohio

*show support

5,000

already on

*already on

*already on

*already on

unsettled

Aug. 8

Okla.

51,739

43,890

*19,000

0

0

*5,000

March 1

July 15

Oregon

21,804

18,279

already on

*8,956

already on

*12,000

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

*4,000

June 1

Sep. 7

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

*3,000

May 6

July 15

So. Dak.

7,928

3,171

*6,300

0

0

0

Mar. 27

Aug. 7

Tenn.

40,042

275

0

0

0

*5,000

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

organizing

0

organizing

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

*3,500

0

June 1

Aug. 28

TOTAL STATES ON
29
16*
12*
7*
`

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


SOCIALIST PARTY CONVENTION

On October 14-16, the Socialist Party held its presidential convention in Los Angeles. Stewart A. Alexander, 60, of Murrieta, California, was nominated for President. He is black and is the first racial or ethnic minority the Socialist Party has ever nominated for President. He was the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2008.

The Socialist Party has not had its presidential nominee on the California ballot since 1940. Stewart hopes the Peace & Freedom Party will nominate him so that he can be on in California.

For vice-president, the convention chose Alejandro Mendoza, 35, who is currently seeking his Masters Degree in Geosciences at the University of Texas in Dallas.


GREEN PARTY CONVENTION

The Green Party presidential convention will be July 14-15, either in Baltimore or Sacramento.


WEST VIRGINIA ELECTION RESULTS

West Virginia elected a Governor on October 4. The results: Democrat Earl Tomblin 149,346 (49.54%); Republican Bill Maloney 141,991 (47.10%); Mountain Party nominee Bob Henry Baber 6,083 (2.02%); Marla Ingalls, independent, .2,875 (.95%); Harry V. Bertram of American Third Position, 1,111 (.37%). The Constitution Party candidate, Phil Hudok, received 79 write-ins.


LOUISIANA 2011 ELECTION

Louisiana held its election for state officers on October 22.
For Governor, Republican Bobby Jindal, received 673,239 (65.80%). The four Democrats received 288,161 (28.16%). The Libertarian, Scott Lewis, received 12,528 (1.22%). The four independents received 49,235 (4.81%).

For Agriculture and Forestry Commission, the results are: Republican Mike Strain 640,886 (66.50%); Democrat Jamie LaBranche 267,942 (27.80%); Reform Party nominee Belinda Alexandrenko 54,888 (5.70%).


GREENS ALMOST ELECT A LEGISLATOR

On October 18, Massachusetts held a special election for State House, Berkshire 3 District. The official results are still not available, and the Secretary of State will not release unofficial results. Press reports vary. One report says the Green Party nominee, Mark C. Miller, lost to the Democrat by only 92 votes; another report says he lost by 192 votes. Miller easily outpolled the Republican nominee and the independent nominee. The next issue of B.A.N. will carry the official results.

Minnesota also held a special legislative election on October 18, and in the State Senate 61st district, the Green Party nominee placed second and outpolled the Republican nominee. The results are: Democrat Jeff Hayden 1,856 (68.34%); Green Party nominee Farheen Hakeem 595 (21.91%); Republican Bruce Lundeen 221 (8.14%); Independence Party nominee Matt Brillhart 44 (1.62%).


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

4 Responses

  1. Robert Winn

    The two major parties have turned the United States into a judicial dictatorship. The judicial branch of government was supposed to be the weakest. All major decisions are now made by judges appointed for life. Congress does nothing except borrow money. The President does nothing except borrow money.
    It is time for the people to support the United States instead of these two self-created societies, the classification George Washington gave to political parties. There is a government agency which is required to apply all contributions toward payment of the national debt. Send your political contributions to Attention Dept G, The Bureau of the Public Debt, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, W.V. 26106-2188
    As independent voters, we are still required by law to pay taxes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, but realistically speaking, we cannot expect to see our tax money applied to free and open elections. That being the case, we can regard anything we pay in taxes as money stolen by the two major parties and expect it to be applied to generating excuses for increasing the national debt.
    The best political option independent voters have is to contribute money to pay the national debt until party politicians beg for mercy. It would not take long for them to become alarmed and start denouncing payment of the debt as un-American.

  2. I think it would be insane for private citizens to try to pay down the US debt. What, all 78 trillion in unfunded liabilities? Sorry. Not possible.

    Also, the fourth and supreme branch of government is the jury. We might not be able to stop the jerks at the Federal Reserve from sticking guns in our faces and outlawing our use of real money (via the legal tender laws), but we can at least play damage control when the state asks us to participate in the destruction of our fellow man (like Bernard von Nothaus).

    Until the US public gets serious about comprehending and using their power as members of the jury, the USA will be a tyrannical place to live, and it will get a lot worse. When the jury gets organized, we will have the prospect of peace and freedom.

    All it takes is a simple “Yes, I could apply the law as it’s given to me.” and then a “not guilty.” And if you want to do more, let your family and friends know that they must behave with the same integrity. And if you want to do more than that, stand in front of your local courthouse and hand out FIJA pamphlets that inform the incoming jury members. With 6 degrees of separation, this allows us to take back our republic without a single intervening election, and without violence.

    …But we have to want freedom badly enough to pursue it.

    Until then, I’ll be supporting Ron Paul and any other candidates that are smart enough to not bow and scrape before their Federal Reserve overseers.

    Who knows? Maybe even the independent that’s being chosen online this time will be a good choice. Noone can deny that Demopublican and Republicrat power-seeking sociopaths are the problem. Just walk into any courtroom and watch the mala prohibita being enforced on the unwitting.

    -J

  3. Robert Winn

    Well, go ahead and invest your money in contributions for political party candidates, Jake. The only thing left to United States citizens after two hundred years of political party rule is a 15 trillion dollar debt. I think it is time someone is honest about it. I am choosing the debt because it is real. So I will invest in reality by sending a contribution to reality from time to time.
    For you people who still believe in Santa Claus, the Republicans and Democrats will be happy to take your money in taxes, political contributions, and any other way you choose to contribute to their deception. I will pay the taxes to keep from going to jail, but I do not regard it as anything but stealing.
    Your post only proves what I have said all along. Political parties and their followers have no loyalty to the United States. Everything they do is calculated to provide excuses for increasing the national debt.

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