| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
Table of Contents
LEGAL FLAWS DISCOVERED IN CALIFORNIA’s PROPOSITION 62 AND WASHINGTON STATE’s INITIATIVE-872
On November 2, voters in California and Washington will be voting on whether to install an election system that would remove minor party candidates from the November ballot, for all partisan office except president.
It is difficult to know whether the initiatives will pass. California’s Prop. 62 had the support of 44% of the voters in early September, according to the Field Poll. 31% were opposed; 25% were undecided. Another poll in late September showed the measure losing narrowly.
In Washington, a poll in October showed 52% support for I-872, and 35% opposition; 13% were undecided. But when the voter being polled learned that the initiative would leave only two choices on the November ballot, and that the two choices might both be Democrats, or both might be Republicans, support dropped dramatically.
Fortunately, both initiatives have been imperfectly written, a point that is helping the "no" campaigns, and which will be helpful in court if the initiatives do pass.
In California, Prop. 62 accidentally deletes the requirement that makes it illegal for anyone to run simultaneously for multiple offices. That requirement is currently in sec. 8003(b). The Los Angeles Times is about to run a story about this drafting error.
In Washington, I-872 creates internal conflicts inside the election code. Although it adds new language saying that all candidates run in the September primary on a single ballot, it fails to repeal existing language that members of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, can petition directly onto the November ballot. These unrepealed sections are 29A.24.101, 29A.36.011, and sections 29A.20.110-29A.20-200.
Even without these drafting errors, a strong case can be made that both initiatives conflict with federal law, and with Article One of the U.S. Constitution, concerning congressional elections. In 1872, Congress passed a law telling the states to hold their congressional elections in the first week in November. That same law also lets states hold a run-off afterward. As a result, in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously told Louisiana (the only state with an election system similar to the California and Washington initiatives), to stop holding its first round of congressional elections in September.
As a result of that case, Foster v Love, Louisiana now holds its first congressional elections in November, and holds a run-off five weeks later if no one got at least 50% in November.
The California and Washington initiatives provide for the first round in June (California) and September (Washington). To avoid the Foster v Love problem, both initiatives provide for a second election in November, even if someone gets over 50% in the first round. Even if someone gets 98% in the first round, or even 100%, he or she would not be elected, and would run again against a solitary opponent, or alone against a potential write-in candidate, in November.
The problem with that is: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional candidates who (1) enjoy a modicum of voter support; (2) meet the constitutional requirements to sit in Congress; and (3) have not sabotaged their own party, cannot be kept off the November ballot. "Modicum of support" means 5%. The Court has said it doesn’t matter whether "modicum of support" is measured with a 5% (of the number of voters) petition, or whether it is measured by a vote test in a preceding primary.
Since it takes approximately 30% to place second (according to actual primary election returns in past California and Washington blanket primaries), the two initiatives are telling candidates they cannot qualify for "the" congressional election (which Congress says must be in November), unless they show 30% voter support some months in advance. This is something that the states may not do. The congressional election belongs to all the people, not just the supporters of the two most popular candidates in the district (as determined months in advance).
Proponents of Prop. 62 never explain why they didn’t write it to follow the Louisiana timing. Supporters also fail to explain why, if their system would produce more "moderate" legislators and congressmen, the previous California experiment with the blanket primary didn’t seem to elect more "moderates". The legislature that sat between 1999 and 2002 was composed of members elected in the blanket primary, and it behaved almost identically to the legislature prior to 1999, and the current legislature.
Since October 3, Ralph Nader has prevailed in only one of his ballot access cases. The Maine Supreme Court voted to leave him on the ballot on October 8. Nader requests for injunctive relief in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were denied. However, none of these cases is over, and Nader will pursue declaratory relief (except in Idaho) after the election.
Also in October, Nader lost declaratory relief against Texas. He will pursue that case to the U.S. Supreme Court. See the next page for more details.
TEXAS INDEPENDENT PROCEDURE UPHELD
On October 6, the 5th circuit upheld Texas procedures for independent presidential candidates. Nader v Connor, 04-50901. The hearing had been only two days earlier, and the 5th circuit merely issued a one-page decision saying the U.S. District Court’s "well stated" decision is affirmed. The three judges were Edith Clement (a Bush Jr. appointee), Harold DeMoss (Bush Sr.) and James Dennis (Clinton). The District Court Judge had been Lee Yeakel, a Bush Jr. appointee.
It is difficult to understand how the 5th circuit said what it did. Texas law discriminates against independent presidential candidates in three ways: (1) Independent presidential candidates need 64,077 signatures, but independent candidates for other statewide office only need 45,540; (2) Independent presidential candidates must turn in their signatures in early May, whereas the deadline for minor parties is two weeks later; (3) Minor parties only need 45,540 signatures.
The U.S. District Court decision didn’t even mention point one. Concerning point two, the U.S. District Court said the deadline difference is not discriminatory because minor party presidential candidates (unlike independent presidential candidates) must file a declaration of candidacy in January. However, this is factually untrue. Minor party presidential candidates do not need to file any declaration of candidacy in Texas, ever.
Concerning point three, the U.S. District Court said minor parties must hold precinct conventions, county conventions, and a state convention, so there is no discrimination against independent candidates, who need not hold conventions. However, a minor party is only required to hold one precinct convention, one county convention, and a state convention. It is not that burdensome to hold three meetings (which need not have any minimum number of attendees). It is far, far easier to hold three tiny meetings than to collect an extra 20,000 valid signatures.
The 5th circuit knew that the U.S. District Court made a mistake when it said that minor party presidential candidates must file a declaration of candidacy in January. The point was well-covered at the oral argument, and the state did not contest it. It is shocking that the 5th circuit, knowing the U.S. District Court had made an important factual error, still endorsed the lower court decision. Nader will ask for U.S. Supreme Court review.
In six states, Nader failed to get injunctive relief. Also, in Utah, David Cobb failed to gain injunctive relief. In Ohio, Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality presidential candidate, failed to gain relief. In Hawaii, Michael Peroutka failed to gain relief. However, next year, all these cases (except the Cobb case and Nader’s Idaho case) will pursue a finding that the challenged laws are unconstitutional. Injunctive relief was denied on the basis that the ballots were already printed and it was not yet obvious that the challenged laws are unconstitutional.
Arizona: on October 15, the 9th circuit refused injunctive relief, because it was simply too late. Nader v Brewer, 04-16880. The issues are whether out-of-staters should be allowed to circulate a petition, and the early June deadline.
Hawaii: on October 13, a federal court refused an injunction. Nader v Yoshina, 04-611. Peroutka was a co-plaintiff. The issue is discrimination against independent presidential candidates. New parties only need 677 signatures, and independent candidates for other office only need 25, so why should independent presidential candidates need 3,711? U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra, a Reagan appointee, said he isn’t convinced that such discrimination is unconstitutional. He said the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to approve of such laws, because he said the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld such discrimination in a 1974 case. Judge Ezra misunderstood that case, and when the next briefs are filed, it should be possible to show this.
Nader and Peroutka are also suing Hawaii in state court over the sloppy job the state did in checking their petitions, but that case, while still technically undecided, is realistically too late for injunctive relief. Nader v Yoshina, 04-1-1905.
Idaho: Nader’s campaign was told that it didn’t have enough valid signatures, but the campaign found enough validation errors to reverse that finding. However, on October 6, a state court said he should have sued the counties, not the Secretary of State. Nader v Cenarrusa, cv-oc-04-7234, Boise. Nader refilled on October 13, suing Ada and Canyon Counties. He dropped the case on October 20 when he discovered another law that said disputes over petition validity had to be filed within 3 days of the initial determination. Nader v Navarro, cv-oc-04-8074.
Illinois: on October 15, the 7th circuit denied a rehearing en banc. Nader v Keith, 04-3183. The issues are whether signatures are valid if the signer has moved; and whether a June petition deadline is too early. On October 22, the State Court of Appeals denied relief in Nader v State Bd. of Elections, 04-co-el 000026. The issues in the state case are whether the Board violated its own regulations when it checked the validity of the signatures. That case is now in the State Supreme Court.
Ohio: on October 12, U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus, a Clinton appointee, denied injunctive and declaratory relief. Blankenship v Blackwell, 2:04-cv-965. The issue is whether out-of-staters may circulate petitions. Judge Sargus virtually stated that the law is unconstitutional, but since the circulators allegedly lied about their residence, he refused to rule on the constitutional issue. He said, "This case is wholly different from one in which out-of-state circulators, untainted by fraud, challenge a residency statute on First Amendment grounds. In such a case, the Court would consider the First Amendment issue." Nader is appealing to the 6th circuit, which has not yet considered declaratory relief. The 6th circuit did deny injunctive relief on October 18.
Ohio (continued): Nader and Van Auken sued in the Ohio Supreme Court over Ohio’s procedures for checking signatures. Blankenship v Blackwell, 04-1652; and Van Auken v Blackwell. The Court denied injunctive relief on October 22, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined relief in the Nader case on October 26. Nader, along with Van Auken, proved that the counties check signatures with out-dated voter registration lists. Their cases are still alive in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania: on October 13, the Commonwealth Court ruled that Nader’s petition did not have 25,697 valid signatures. In re Nomination Paper of Nader, 568 m.d.2004. Nader appealed to the State Supreme Court, arguing that the law actually doesn’t require signers to be registered voters, just people eligible to register. The State Supreme Court refused injunctive relief, over the dissent of a single judge. On October 23 the U.S. Supreme Court also declined injunctive relief.
Utah: on October 5, the State Supreme Court refused injunctive relief to David Cobb. Green Party of Utah v McKeachnie, 2004-813. The issue was whether the party properly notified the state that it had nominated David Cobb. The Court didn’t explain why it refused relief.
REPUBLICAN ELECTOR WON’T VOTE FOR BUSH
Richie Robb, who was chosen in June by the West Virginia Republican state convention to be a Republican candidate for presidential elector this year, has told the press that he will not vote for President Bush, should he be elected to the electoral college. Robb says he disagrees with the president’s economic policies, as well as his Iraq policy.
Robb did not ask to be a Republican elector. He was not present at the state convention that nominated him, and no one gave him advance notice that he was likely to be chosen. Thus, he feels he has not broken faith with anyone. Robb has been Mayor of South Charleston for 29 years.
ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN DEBATE LAWSUIT
On October 12, Arizona State Judge Pendleton Gaines refused to interfere with the Bush-Kerry debate set for October 13. The Libertarian Party had charged that the state constitution forbids the government from spending tax dollars on a campaign event that only benefits two particular candidates. Arizona Libertarian Party v Arizona State University, cv2004-19089.
The state university had contributed $2,000,000 toward the costs of the debate, although it said it was trying to persuade various wealthy individuals to contribute the same amount, so that eventually the University will not be any poorer as a result of its gift to the debates. The next phase of the case will decide whether the party is entitled to damages.
On October 6, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson held a hearing in Swanson v Bennett, 02-T-644. The issue is the constitutionality of the June petition deadline for minor party petitions. Although Judge Thompson has issued disappointing rulings in previous minor party cases, this hearing seemed to go very well. The case was filed back in 2002 and still doesn’t have an opinion on the issue of the legislature’s changing the petition deadline from July to June.
CALIFORNIA EASES NEW PARTY DEADLINE
On September 27, California Senate Bill 1730 was signed into law. It moves the primary, in all years, from March to June. This has the indirect result of moving the new party qualification deadline from October of the year before the election, to January of the election year. Ohio is now the only state in the nation with a party qualifying deadline that is in the year before the election. This fact will help to win the pending Libertarian lawsuit against that early deadline.
DISSENT MAKES PLEA FOR PUERTO RICO
On October 14, the First Circuit released its opinion in Igartua-de la Rosa v USA, 04-2186. Two of the three judges upheld federal law which lets U.S. citizens living in foreign countries continue to vote, while U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico may not vote for president or voting member of Congress.
Judge Juan Torruella wrote a 14-page dissent. The first section discusses social conditions in Puerto Rico (half the population lives below the poverty level). The second section criticizes U.S. Supreme Court precedents from 1901 through 1914 on the somewhat lowly status of U.S. citizens in U.S. territories, and says they should be reversed. The third section discusses treaties that the U.S. has signed, which seem to forbid the U.S. from denying voting rights to its citizens living in territories.
The dissent closes by pointing out that Puerto Ricans serving in the U.S. military have suffered the 4th highest jurisdiction per capita, in the number of combat deaths in Iraq. It notes U.S. failure to change Puerto Rico’s voting problem, and says, "This total inaction is particularly poignant at this moment in our history, when we seek to convince the inhabitants of far-flung places of the world of the democratic process and the validity of its expression through the ballot box." Finally, the dissent says, "I would issue a declaratory judgment stating that the United States has failed to meet its obligations under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
DEMS, REPS FAIL TO NOMINATE IN 2004
This year, either the Democrats or Republicans failed to nominate anyone for the legislature in 38.7% of all legislative races. This is typical; in 2002, there was no Democrat-Republican contest in 36.9% of the races; in 2000, 40.6%; 1998, 41.1%; 1996, 32.7%; 1994, 35.8%; 1992, 32.8%. See the October 1, 2004 B.A.N. for the 2004 data by state.
| - |
Libertarian |
Constitut. |
Green |
SWP |
Reform |
Marijuana |
other |
Indp. |
|
Alabama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Alaska |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
Alas Indpc |
two |
|
Arizona |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Arkansas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
California |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
Peace & Fr |
- |
|
Colorado |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
|
Concerns |
three |
|
Conn. |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Florida |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veteran |
- |
|
Georgia |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Hawaii |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
one |
|
Idaho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Illinois |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
one |
|
Indiana |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Iowa |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
-- | - |
|
Kansas |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
- | - |
|
Kentucky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Louisiana |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
one |
|
Maryland |
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Missouri |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Nevada |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
Nat. Law |
- |
|
N. Hamp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
New York |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Conservtive |
one |
|
No. Caro. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
No. Dak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Ohio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Oklahoma |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- |
one |
|
Oregon |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
- | -- |
|
Pennsy. |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
- | - |
|
So. Caro. |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
United Cit. |
- |
|
So. Dak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Utah |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
Per. Ch. |
- |
|
Vermont |
|
|
X |
|
|
X |
Lib Union |
one |
|
Wash. |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
- | - |
|
Wisc. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
one |
|
TOTAL |
21 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
12 |
| - |
Libertarian |
Constitution |
Pers. Ch. |
Lib Union |
Marijuana |
Mountain |
independent |
|
Delaware |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Missouri |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montana |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hamp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. Caro. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. Dakota |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Vermont |
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
X |
|
Wash. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Va. |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
TOTAL |
8 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2004 BALLOT STATUS FOR PRESIDENT
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian: 98.3% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in all jurisdictions except New Hampshire and Oklahoma. He is not on in New Hampshire because the party failed to collect 3,000 valid signatures (with 1,500 required from each of the two U.S. House districts). He is not on in Oklahoma because the number of signatures required, 51,781, was too great. The party’s lawsuit, alleging that the requirement violates the state Constitutional guarantee of "free and equal elections", will be settled in 2005 or 2006. New Hampshire will tally write-ins for Badnarik, but Oklahoma bans write-ins.
Michael Peroutka, Constitution: 66.5% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in all jurisdictions except the 11 places in which the requirements were too difficult to attempt (Arizona, D.C., Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia), and the 4 states in which something went wrong. Those states are Hawaii, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wisconsin. In Hawaii and New Hampshire, Peroutka probably had enough valid signatures, but elections officials did a sloppy job of checking signatures. In Vermont and Wisconsin, state party officers forgot to complete certain paperwork. Peroutka has write-in status in Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. New Hampshire and Vermont count all write-ins, without the need for a write-in candidacy declaration.
David Cobb, Green: 54.3% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in all jurisdictions except 13 places in which the requirements were too difficult to attempt (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming), and 8 places in which made the party made a good attempt but fell short (Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Tennessee), and in 2 places where the party was on the ballot but something still went wrong. In Utah, a minority within the party blocked Cobb’s certification, and in Vermont a majority within the party blocked it. Cobb can receive write-ins in all the states where he isn’t on the ballot, except Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota. In Alabama, New Hampshire and Vermont, all write-ins must be counted, not just write-ins for declared write-in candidates. However, Alabama and Vermont are not in the habit of doing so, and the campaign will need to persuade them to make a tally.
Ralph Nader, independent/Reform: 50.3% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on the ballot in all jurisdictions except the 4 places in which the requirements were too difficult to attempt (Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina and Oklahoma), one state in which he made a substantial attempt that still fell far short (California), eight states in which he submitted more signatures than were required, but the state said not enough signatures were valid (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia), and 3 states in which the state initially put him on the ballot, but challengers removed him (Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania). Nader can receive write-ins in all places where he isn’t on the ballot, except Hawaii, Ohio and Oklahoma. In Ohio, he didn’t file for write-in status by the September deadline because he expected to be on the ballot; and Hawaii and Oklahoma ban all write-ins. He will probably sue Ohio to get his write-ins counted.
Socialist Workers: 29.7% of the voters will see either of the party’s two presidential candidates’ names on the ballot. Those two candidates are Roger Calero, who is not a citizen, and his stand-in, James Harris. Calero is on in Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. Harris is on in Colorado, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. The S.W.P. has presidential write-in status in California, Illinois, and Ohio. The only ballot access drive the party attempted, and failed, was a Delaware registration drive to qualify as a party.
Walt Brown, Socialist: 20.1% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. He tried and failed to get on in California via the Peace & Freedom Party, and in Vermont via the Liberty Union Party. He has write-in status in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality: 10.6% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington. He has write-in status in Kansas, Maine and New York. The only ballot drive the party attempted, and failed, was Ohio.
Leonard Peltier, Peace & Freedom: 10.4% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in California. He does not have write-in status anywhere.
Prohibition: 3.3% of the voters will see Gene Amondson’s name on ballots. He is one of the two rival party presidential candidates, and is on in Colorado and Louisiana. Earl Dodge, the other, is only on in Colorado. Amondson’s Tennessee petition drive failed. The party does not have write-in status anywhere for either candidate.
John Parker, Workers World: 3.0% of the voters will see his name on ballots. He is on in Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. He has write-in status in California.
Thomas Harens, Christian Freedom Party: 2.3% of the voters will see his name. He is only on in Minnesota.
Stanford Andress, independent: 1.7% of the voters will see his name. He is only on in Colorado.
Charles Jay, Personal Choice Party: .7% of the voters will see his name. He is only on in Utah.
Methodology: no one knows how many voters will be cast in each state on November 2. Therefore, data for this page (i.e., the total number of votes cast for president in each state) comes from the November 2000 presidential election. Obviously, when the 2004 votes are counted, these percentages will be slightly different.
NEWSPAPERS ENDORSE MINOR PARTY NOMINEES IN THREE STATES
The Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in California, and the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Iowa, have each won the endorsement of a major newspaper. Jim Gray was endorsed by the Long Beach Press-Telegram October 21. Daryl Northrup was endorsed by the Iowa City Press-Citizen October 19. Also, the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Mark Andrews, a Constitution Party nominee for the State Assembly, on October 21.
The California paper wrote, "Gray won’t win, but he is qualified and we would be pleased to have him as a Senator. A vote for Gray is a powerful way to force the two major parties to acknowledge where they’ve gone wrong. One of those places is the drug war."
The Iowa paper wrote, "While Northrup’s positions aren’t that different from Democratic candidate Art Small, Northrup would bring vigor and energy to the Iowa congressional delegation. Small, in contrast, has been rather silent since leaving the legislature several years ago."
A Constitution Party attorney, Joel Hansen, may be elected to the Nevada Supreme Court. Polls show him slightly leading incumbent Justice Michael Douglas. The two-way race is non-partisan.
NADER MAY NOT BE HURTING KERRY
The Washington Post carried a story on October 22, quoting officials of four leading national pollsters that Nader’s presence on the ballot does not hurt Democratic nominee John Kerry. Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said his research has shown for months that when Nader is removed from poll questionnaires, the margin separating the two major candidates is unaltered. Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center, Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, and Richard Bennett of the American Research Group, agreed.
On October 15, five presidential candidates debated each other. They were the nominees of the Green, Personal Choice, Socialist, Socialist Equality, and Workers World Parties. 150 people attended the event, held at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City. Also debating was Libertarian Gary Nolan, standing in for Michael Badnarik.
TWO RIVAL SLATES OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS FOR NADER IN NEW YORK
Bush, Kerry and Nader are each listed twice on the New York ballot, since each is the nominee of two political parties in that state. Oddly, though, the two parties that nominated Nader (Independence, and Peace & Justice) are running separate slates of presidential electors. Normally, when two different parties nominate a presidential candidate, those parties jointly nominate the same candidates for elector. If Nader were to win the most votes in New York (which, of course, is overwhelmingly unlikely), he still wouldn’t carry the state because the true candidates are the presidential elector candidates. Nader’s two slates are competing with each other.
In 1968, two competing slates of presidential elector candidates pledged to George Wallace each qualified in South Carolina and Virginia. However, Wallace went to court in each state to force one of the rival slates to withdraw.
Zogby national poll results as of October 22 were: Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader .8%, Badnarik .7%, Cobb .2%, Peroutka .1%., undecided or other 6%.
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 ban@richardwinger.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!