Home General May 2012 Ballot Access News Print Edition
formats

May 2012 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Published on June 2, 2012, by in General.

Ballot Access News
May 1, 2012 – Volume 27, Number 12


This issue was printed on blue paper.



Table of Contents

  1. MAINE SUPREME COURT SAYS NADER LAWSUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEHAVIOR IN 2004 MAY PROCEED
  2. ALABAMA BALLOT ACCESS BILL ADVANCES
  3. NEBRASKA BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED
  4. DEMOCRATIC AND LIBERTARIAN PARTIES ASK HIGH COURT TO TAKE TOP-TWO CASE
  5. LOWER CALIFORNIA COURT WON’T ENJOIN TOP-TWO LAW
  6. HOSTILE ACT BY VIRGINIA GOVERNOR FORCES MINOR PARTIES TO RESTART PETITIONS
  7. SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR NORTH DAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS CASE
  8. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
  9. ARIZONA PUBLIC FUNDING SURVIVES
  10. CONSTITUTION PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTION VOTE
  11. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  12. PARTIES NOT ON PETITIONING CHART
  13. ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA NOW EACH HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATOR
  14. TWO ONE-STATE PARTIES NOMINATE ROCKY ANDERSON
  15. CYNTHIA McKINNEY
  16. GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
  17. TWO NEW ONE-STATE PARTIES QUALIFY
  18. REFORM PARTY NATIONAL CONVENTION
  19. PRIMARY SEASON MATCHING FUNDS
  20. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

MAINE SUPREME COURT SAYS NADER LAWSUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEHAVIOR IN 2004 MAY PROCEED

On April 19, the Maine Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Nader v Maine Democratic Party, no. 2012-ME 57. It reverses the lower court, and clears the way for a trial on whether the behavior of the Democratic Party and its allies in 2004, trying to keep Nader off the ballot in 19 states, may entitle Nader to an award of monetary damages.

The opening paragraph of the decision is, "In this appeal we consider whether the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may be invoked to deprive a minor-party candidate of his day in court on a suit in which he alleges that he was subject to abuses of process, damaging to his candidacy, by organizations and individuals who conspired to take actions to prevent or complicate his inclusion on the ballot in Maine and other jurisdictions during the 2004 presidential election. We conclude that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims."

During 2004, the Democratic Party launched the "ballot project", spending millions of dollars to challenge Nader’s ballot position in 19 states. Most of the party’s challenges were rejected by state election officials and state courts. Nader charges that most of the challenges lacked merit and the Democratic Party knew they lacked merit, and that these challenges were filed simply to bleed the Nader campaign’s resources.

Nader also charges that, in addition to legal challenges, the Democratic Party and other groups allied with it carried out dirty tricks against his petitions, including harassment of his petitioners, especially in Oregon and Pennsylvania.

The Democratic Party had made attempts in a few states to keep various minor party and independent presidential candidates off ballots in 1936, 1948, 1976, and 1980, but those past attempts only occurred in a few states. But no minor party or independent presidential candidate, before 2004, had ever been subject to such large-scale attacks relating to ballot access.

The Republican Party had never engaged in such activity in a presidential election until 2008, when it tried to keep the Libertarian Party off the ballot in Pennsylvania.

The Maine Supreme Court decision is the first decision that permits Nader to obtain a trial. Several other similar Nader lawsuits, filed in Virginia and the District of Columbia, were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

The next step in the lawsuit will be back in the lower state court in Washington County, Maine, a venue that was chosen because one of Nader’s presidential elector candidates lives in that county. The party had challenged Nader’s ballot position in Maine partly on the grounds that the elector in question was a non-existent person. Washington County is the eastern-most county in the United States, and has a p
opulation of 32,856. The largest town is Calais.

Because the 2012 presidential election appears to be highly competitive, it is possible that either of the major parties will engage in all-out war against ballot access for various minor party and independent presidential candidates. This danger may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that Nader has established the precedent that major parties may be at legal risk for such behavior.


ALABAMA BALLOT ACCESS BILL ADVANCES

On April 26, the Alabama Senate passed SB 15, the ballot access reform bill, by 26-5. As amended, it eases the number of signatures for newly-qualifying parties from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5%. It also eases the deadline, from primary day, to 22 days after the run-off primary. If the bill passes, the number of signatures in 2012 and 2014 will be 22,415 instead of 44,829.

The bill has no effect on independent presidential candidates, who currently need 5,000 signatures by September. For independent candidates for other office, the bill reduces their signature requirement from 3% to 1.5%, but does not ease the petition deadline.

The bill has an urgency clause, so if it passes it goes into effect immediately. However, if it is signed into law, it probably won’t have any practical effect in 2012, because the 2012 petition deadline would be May 16.

The bill will be heard in the House Constitution & Elections Committee on May 2 at 9 a.m. in Hearing Room 123.

Meanwhile, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties have a lawsuit pending against the current March petition deadline.


NEBRASKA BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED

On April 10, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed LB 1035, which says that if a party meets the 5% vote test, it is then qualified for four years, not just two years. It is fairly easy for a party to meet the vote test in mid-term years, but difficult in presidential election years.


DEMOCRATIC AND LIBERTARIAN PARTIES ASK HIGH COURT TO TAKE TOP-TWO CASE

On April 18, the Democratic and Libertarian Parties asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case against the top-two system. The Democratic appeal is Washington State Democratic Central Committee v Washington State Grange, no. 11-1263. The Libertarian appeal is Libertarian Party of Washington State v Washington State Grange, 11-1266. The state’s response is due May 21. If the state doesn’t ask for more time to respond, the decision on whether the Court will hear this case could come in June, before the Court goes on summer recess.

The petitions are very strong. When this same case had been in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007-2008, the Court’s decision left open the ballot access and trademark issues, and also did not rule on whether the top-two system violates freedom of association as applied. The Court sent the case back to the lower courts and expected that both sides would introduce evidence about whether the party label on the ballot leads voters to believe that the label means the party approves of the candidate.

The parties did produce evidence, and the state did not. But the lower court rejected the parties’ evidence, which consisted of a social science experiment. The 9th circuit said the experimental evidence is not persuasive because the ballots used in the experiment are not an exact match with real ballots.

The Democratic Party’s brief makes it clear how absurd the 9th circuit’s decision is. The brief includes some real ballots, and also some experimental ballots. The real ballots do say, "READ. Each candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers. A candidate’s preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate."

However, this notice is in tiny print, in a column on the left side of the ballot that is underneath a general set of instructions for voting that is also in tiny print. The print appears to be size 9 font, with the letters approximately one-sixteenth of an inch tall. The general instructions in the space above tell voters how to cast a write-in vote, and tell voters what to do if they make a mistake, and tell voters to use a black pen and to fill in the box next to the voter’s choice. All of this verbiage, in some counties, is then repeated in Spanish.

By overwhelming contrast, the experimental ballots had the explanation about the true meaning of the party label on the ballot in large print, in a far more prominent place on the ballot. On the actual ballot, the explanation about the meaning of labels takes up 2% of the ballot, but on the experimental ballots, the explanation takes up about 25% of the ballot.

The Democratic brief has other evidence as well, and also contains arguments based on trademark law.

The Libertarian brief covers the ballot access and trademark issues, noting that the Libertarian Party of Washington long ago trademarked its name. On the ballot access issue, the 9th circuit opinion had merely said that the U.S. Supreme Court had already decided that the top-two system does not violate voting rights. This is another absurd conclusion, because the U.S. Supreme Court itself had said in footnote eleven of its 2008 decision that the issue has not been decided.


LOWER CALIFORNIA COURT WON’T ENJOIN TOP-TWO LAW

On April 10, a California Superior Court Judge in Alameda declined to issue an injunction against the California top-two law, but he gave permission for the Complaint to be re-filed after the June primary, as an as-applied challenge. Rubin v Bowen, RG11-605-301.


HOSTILE ACT BY VIRGINIA GOVERNOR FORCES MINOR PARTIES TO RESTART PETITIONS

On April 11, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell unexpectedly asked the legislature to change the effective date of HB 1151. On April 18, the legislature acceded to the Governor’s request. The result is that the Libertarian and Green petitions, which had each collected approximately 2,000 signatures, are worthless and must be restarted. The petition needs 10,000 valid signatures.<
/font>

HB 1151 said that when U.S. House districts aren’t redrawn until the election year itself, statewide petitions are valid whether they use the old district boundaries, or the new district boundaries.

Presidential petitions in Virginia must carry the name of one presidential elector candidate from each U.S. House district. Unluckily for the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, the new districts moved one of their elector candidates from one district to another one.

Those petitions had begun to circulate after the legislature passed HB 1151 unanimously on March 2. The bill, as written, was to take effect immediately. But the Governor let the bill sit on his desk until the very last day in which he was required to act. Then, he sent it back to the legislature and asked that the effective date be changed to 2013. On April 18, the legislature unanimously agreed to do that, even though the Richmond Times-Dispatch had editorialized that the Governor’s action was unfair.

It is possible the parties will sue to reduce the number of signatures required this year. There is a 4th circuit precedent from Maryland in 1981 that says when the normal petitioning time is not available, the ballot access requirements should be adjusted to compensate. There are also 10th circuit and 11th circuit opinons that agree.


SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR NORTH DAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On April 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger, the case that challenges the law on how qualified parties place candidates for the legislature on the November ballot. No minor party candidate for the legislature has been able to qualify since 1976. This was the 51st case in a row filed by a minor party or independent candidate on ballot access that the Court had refused to hear (not counting a 1996 case on drug testing for candidates).


MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

Arizona: on April 6, the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Tucson may continue to use partisan elections for its own city elections. The legislature had passed a bill requiring all cities to use non-partisan, even if they are charter cities. The Court said the law violates the state Constitution. City of Tucson v State, cv-11-0150.

Arizona (2): on April 17, an en banc panel of the 9th circuit reaffirmed an earlier decision of the 9th circuit, and said that Arizona cannot require people who register to vote using the federal voter registration form to include proof that they are citizens. The decision says that when Congress passed the law authorizing the federal voter registration form, Congress didn’t intend to let states add more questions to the form. Gonzalez v State, 08-17094.

The federal form is a postcard, but Arizona was requiring certain kinds of voters to attach copies of a passport or a naturalization certificate, which to some extent defeats the convenience of a postcard form.

California: on April 26, U.S. District Court Judge Garland Burrell, a Bush Sr. appointee, declined to issue an injunction requiring the Secretary of State to place Peta Lindsay on the Peace & Freedom Party’s presidential primary ballot.

Lindsay is the presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and she is under age 35. Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen, eastern district, 2:12-cv-853. The primary is June 5.

The California Secretary of State has been sued four times by people who don’t believe that President Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president. In those cases, the Secretary of State always takes the position that she has no legal duty to determine if a presidential candidate is qualified. In this case, the Judge distinguished the Lindsay situation from the Obama situation by saying that Obama’s qualifications are disputed, whereas there is no dispute in the Lindsay matter. The case is not over because the judge ruled that it is not moot and the issue may recur in future elections.

Hawaii: on April 23, voter-plaintiffs asked a U.S. District Court to postpone the August 11 primary, because the state’s redistricting may be held unlawful. Kostic v Nago, cv12-184. If the request is granted, that will make it easier for the Justice Party and the Constitution Party to pursue a proposed lawsuit against the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. Both parties submitted petitions by the February deadline, but both parties’ petitions were held to lack enough valid signatures. Since then they have been collecting more signatures.

New Mexico: although the Constitution and Green Parties recently filed a lawsuit against the April petition deadline, the state now says both parties have enough valid signatures on their petitions, so there is no longer a pressing need for relief against this deadline in 2012. Constitution Party of New Mexico v Duran, 1:12-cv-325.

North Carolina: the lawsuit filed by the Green and Constitution Parties against the May petition deadline has a hearing on May 8 in U.S. District Court in Charlotte, at 2 p.m. Pisano v Bartlett, 3:12-cv-192.

Ohio: on April 16, the Sixth Circuit voted 2-1 to require election officials to count certain provisional ballots that were cast in a partisan Cincinnati race for Juvenile Court Judge in 2010. The particular kinds of provision ballots in this case are not legal under Ohio law, because they were cast in the wrong precinct. But because election officials had counted certain other kinds of provisional ballots even though they were also not legal, the 6th circuit said Equal Protection applies. Hunter v Hamilton County Board of Elections.

Oklahoma: the Libertarian Party is about to file its brief for declaratory relief, arguing that the March 1 petition deadline is unconstitutional. Libertarian Party of Oklahoma v Ziriax, western dist, 5:12cv-119.

Tennessee: on April 2, the state asked the 6th circuit to stay the decision of the U.S. District Court that put the Green and Constitution Parties on the ballot. However, the state is not asking that the matter be expedited, and the parties seem safe for 2012.

Tennessee (2): on April 23, the 6th circuit invalidated the policy of Tennessee Technological University that requires a non-student who wants to come on campus and talk to students to give 14 days advance notice. This ruling was won by a Christian evangelist, and it will also help petitioners. The school is public, not
private. McGlone v Bell, 10-6055.


ARIZONA PUBLIC FUNDING SURVIVES

The sponsor of the Arizona bill that would have put the public funding program at risk has withdrawn the bill. SCR 1021 would have asked voters in November 2012 if they wish to de-fund the program.

In a related development in Maine, the bill to delete the question on the state income tax form, asking voters if they wish to send a small donation to the party of their choice, has not yet passed. The legislature returns on May 15.


CONSTITUTION PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTION VOTE

STATE

Votes Cast

Goode

Castle

Wells

Ducey

Roth

Arizona

6

0

6

0

0

0

California

8

8

0

0

0

0

Colorado

14

9

0

5

0

0

Connecticut

3

1

1

1

0

0

Florida

35

25

5

5

0

0

Georgia

4

2

0

2

0

0

Illinois

5

0

1

4

0

0

Indiana

3

0

2

1

0

ze="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">0

Iowa

7

7

0

0

0

0

Kansas

10

0

0

0

10

0

Louisiana

8

8

0

0

0

0

Maryland

15

7

1

6

0

1

Massachusetts

3

3

0

0

0

0

Michigan

26

10

0

6

5

5

Minnesota

14

2

6

6

0

0

Mississippi

12

2

6

4

0

0

Missouri

18

11

0

7

0

0

Nebraska

5

5

0

0

0

0

Nevada

10

10 <
/td>

0

0

0

0

New Jersey

22

11

11

0

0

0

New York

8

2

3

3

0

0

North Carolina

3

2

0

1

0

0

Ohio

20

20

0

0

0

0

Oklahoma

9

9

0

0

0

0

Pennsylvania

12

10

2

0

0

0

South Carolina

15

0

15

0

0

0

South Dakota

11

1

9

1

0

0

Tennessee

20

0

20

0

0

0

Texas

6

3

3

0

0

n="RIGHT">0

Utah

16

3

13

0

0

0

Vermont

3

3

0

0

0

0

Virginia

23

23

0

0

0

0

Washington

19

3

16

0

0

0

West Virginia

6

0

0

6

0

0

Wyoming

4

3

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

403

203

120

58

15

6

Candidates seeking the 2012 Constitution Party presidential nomination were Virgil Goode of Virginia, Darrell Castle of Tennessee, Robby Wells of North Carolina, Susan Ducey of Kansas, and Laurie Roth of Washington. For vice-president, Jim Clymer of Pennsylvania was nominated by acclamation. The convention was April 18-21 in Nashville.

The 15 states not listed did not send any delegates to the convention: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. By contrast, in 2008, these eleven states had no delegates: Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

C-SPAN carried Goode’s acceptance speech. Goode is the first presidential nominee of the Constitution Party who had previously been elected to important public office. He was in Congress 1996-2008, and was defeated for re-election in 2008 by only 737 votes. He was elected as a Democrat to his first two elections, then as an independent in 2000, and afterwards as a Republican.

The party’s new national chair is Frank Fluckiger of Utah, replacing Jim Clymer of Pennsylvania.


2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

d width="11%" valign="TOP">

0

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
DEADLINES
FULL PARTY
ce="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CAND
LIB’T
GREEN
CONSTI
AM. ELE
Party
Indp.

Ala.

44,829

5,000

in court

in court

in court

finished

Mar. 13

Sep. 6

Alaska

(reg) 7,406

#3,271

already on

*2,016

*50

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

already on

0

already on

April 7

Aug. 1

Calif.

(reg) 103,004

172,859

already on

already on

negotiation

already on

Jan. 2

Aug. 10

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

already on

already on

Jan. 8

June 4

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

0

*1,500

0

0

- – –

Aug. 8 <
/td>

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

570

454

0

Aug. 21

July 15

D.C.

no procedure

(est.) #3,900

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

- – –

*Aug. 8

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

finished

*July 10

August 6

Hawaii

691

#4,536

already on

already on

0

*already on

*Feb. 23

Sep. 7

Idaho

13,102

1,000

already on

0

already on

*13,700

Aug. 30

Aug. 24

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

*10,000

*3,500

*2,000

0

- – –

June 25

Indiana

no procedure

#34,195

already on

*250

0

0

- – –

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

0

*60

*30

*finished

- – –

Aug. 17

Kansas

16,776

5,000

already on

0

0

already on

June 1

Aug. 6

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

0

0

0

0

- – –

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

already on

Dec 8, 11

Aug. 8

Md.

10,000

(est.) 35,000

already on

already on

*1,200

finished

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Mass.

(est) (reg) 40,000

#10,000

*0

already on

0

0

Nov. 1, 11

July 31

Mich.

32,261

30,000

already on

already on

already on

idth="11%" valign="TOP">

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

already on

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

already on

Mar. 15

Aug. 15

Nebr.

4,880

2,500

already on

0

0

already on

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

*17,850

50

0

*25,000

Aug. 8

Aug. 8

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

- – –

July 30

N. M.

3,009

18,053

already on

*already on

*already on

already on

Apr. 3

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

*2,000

3,000

already on

May 16

June 14

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

*already on

0

*already on

*already on

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

in court

in court

0

already on

March 1

July 15

Oregon

21,804

18,279

already on

9,025

already on

finished

Aug. 28

Aug. 28

Penn.

no procedure

#20,601

th="11%" valign="TOP">

*19,000

*3,000

*1,500

0

- – –

Aug. 1

R.I.

17,115

#1,000

0

0

0

already on

June 1

Sep. 7

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

finished

May 6

July 15

So. Dak.

7,928

3,171

already on

0

*already on

*already on

Mar. 27

Aug. 7

Tenn.

40,042

275

0

already on

already on

finished

April 5

Aug. 16

Texas

49,729

80,778

already on

already on

0

*27,000

June 29

June 29

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

Feb. 15

Aug. 15

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

0

*100

already on

Jan. 1

Jun 14

Virginia

no procedure

#10,000

*0

*0

*250

0

- – –

Aug. 24

Wash.

no procedure

#1,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

- – –

*July 28

West Va.

no procedure

#7,135

*3,600

already on

*75

*finished

- – –

Aug. 1

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

0

0

already on

*already on

April 1

Aug. 7

Wyo.

3,740

3,740

already on

0

already on

already on

June 1

Aug. 28

TOTAL STATES ON
31*
21*
17*
25*
`

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


PARTIES NOT ON PETITIONING CHART

The only party that finished any petition in the last month, and which is not on the petitioning chart, is the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which has finished the Arkansas presidential petition.


ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA NOW EACH HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATOR

California and Arizona each now have an independent state legislator. On March 28, California Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher changed from Republican to independent. He is not running for re-election, and instead is running for Mayor of San Diego, a non-partisan post. He changed after the Republican Party had endorsed someone else for Mayor. He is California’s first independent legislator since 2010, when Assemblyman Juan Arambola had switched from Democratic to independent.

On April 2, Arizona Representative Daniel Patterson changed from Democrat to independent. Then he resigned. Under Arizona law, when a vacancy occurs in the legislature, there is no special election. Instead, the party membership of the member who vacated the seat is used to determine who fills the vacancy. Since Patterson was an independent before he quit, the Pima County Board of Supervisors replaced him with another independent, Nicholas Fontana. Arizona has never before had any state legislators who weren’t Republicans or D
emocrats.


TWO ONE-STATE PARTIES NOMINATE ROCKY ANDERSON

Two parties that nominated Ralph Nader for President in 2008 have decided to nominate Rocky Anderson this year. The Oregon Progressive Party formally nominated Anderson on April 8, and the New Mexico Independent Party will do so at its caucus in June. The New Mexico Independent Party will change its name to the Justice Party. New Mexico, like many other states, permits a qualified party to change its name.


CYNTHIA McKINNEY

Cynthia McKinney plans to get on the ballot for U.S. House, 4th district, as the Green Party nominee. She needs almost 19,000 valid signatures by August 6.


GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

D.C.: at the April 3 primary, Jill Stein was the only name on the ballot. She received 216 votes. Roseanne Barr received 73 write-ins, and there were 27 other write-ins.

Massachusetts: the vote at the March 6 primary is: Jill Stein 1,018, Kent Mesplay 89, Harley Mikkelson 84. There were also 232 votes for a "no preference" option, and 95 write-ins, which were not tallied.


TWO NEW ONE-STATE PARTIES QUALIFY

The Independent American Party recently obtained status as a qualified party in New Mexico. It has no interest in the presidential election, but it will nominate Jon Barrie for U.S. Senate, and it expects to also nominate some legislative candidates.

The Country Party has almost certainly qualified in Wyoming. It also has no interest in the presidential race, but is planning to run candidates for the legislature.


REFORM PARTY NATIONAL CONVENTION

The Reform Party presidential convention will be in Philadelphia, August 10-12.


PRIMARY SEASON MATCHING FUNDS

Buddy Roemer, who is seeking the Americans Elect nomination and the Reform nomination, has already received $285,470 in primary season matching funds. On April 27, Gary Johnson applied for primary season funds.


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 © 2012 Ballot Access News

2 Responses

  1. Nick Kruse

    The petition that the constitution party of Illinois is circulating is not in accordance with the Illinois Election Code. It does not list the 20 presidential electors on the petition like it is supposed to. Here is the link to the petition: http://constitutionpartyil.com/index.php/downloads/finish/3-petitions/3-2012-presidential-petition/0

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>