| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
Worcester County, Maryland, will probably elect its county commission on November 8, 1994 by Cumulative Voting, a type of proportional representation. The election for county commission is partisan. The only other partisan election in the United States which is conducted by any form of p.r. is the election for County Commission in Chilton County, Alabama.
Since Worcester County has a 5-person County Commission, every voter in the county will have five votes. These votes can be distributed any way the voter desires. A voter can give one vote to each of five candidates, or that voter can give all five of his or her votes to a single candidate, or anything in between.
If any third party were active in Worcester County, and if it only ran one candidate for County Commission, and if it had the loyalty of 10% of the voters, it is likely that such a party could elect one candidate to the County Commission. However, in reality, no third party is on the ballot in Maryland this year and none is likely to qualify. In order to get on the ballot, a new party needs one petition signed by 10,000 voters, and a separate candidate petition for its slate of candidates, signed by 3% of the number of registered voters. In Worcester County, this would be about 650 signatures. These signatures are due August 1. Worcester County is on Maryland's Atlantic Coast, on the "eastern shore".
Worcester County's switch to a form of proportional representation represents a victory for people who have been working for greater acceptance of proportional representation. The campaign for p.r. is led by the Center for Voting & Democracy, which has a full-time Director, Rob Richie, at its headquarters at 6905 5th St., NW #200, Washington, DC 20012.
The effort for p.r. has benefitted by its association with Professor Lani Guinier of Philadelphia, who became famous when President Clinton chose her to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, and then withdrew her nomination because he was afraid that her law review articles on p.r. were too controversial. Guinier now has better name recognition than some members of Clinton's cabinet.
However, the Worcester County result came about because of a lawsuit filed in federal court in November 1992, Cane v Worcester County, no. civ-Y92-3226. The suit was filed by four Black voters, represented by the ACLU, who charged that the county's at-large system of election for county commission violates the Voting Rights Act. 19% of the county's voting age population is Black, yet under the at-large system, no Black candidate had ever been elected to the commission. On January 7, 1994, federal judge Joseph Young ruled that the old voting system did indeed violate the Voting Rights Act, and he gave the county sixty days to come up with an alternative plan.
The county refused to submit any alternate plans, so the judge then asked the plaintiffs for ideas. Plaintiffs submitted two alternatives, a plan creating five single-member districts, and cumulative voting. On April 4, the county chose cumulative voting. However, the county is appealing the January decision, and is seeking a stay. Assuming the stay is denied, cumulative voting will be used in the September primaries and also the general election in 1994. There are no county elections in 1996.
There is a small possibility that Congressman Don Edwards of California, chair of the Civil & Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, will hold hearings on repeal of the law which mandates single-member districts for U.S. House elections. If this law were repealed, it would be possible for states to elect members of the U.S. House by cumulative voting or by other p.r. methods.
Raised Bill 5528 passed the Connecticut House on April 6. It lowers the number of signatures needed for statewide third party and independent candidates, from 1% of the last vote cast (over 15,000 in 1996) to a flat 7,500 signatures. However, the Senate still hasn't voted on it, and the legislature adjourns on the evening of May 4.
Anyone may learn what happened to the bill by calling the Connecticut legislature at (203) 240-0555. If it passes the Senate, the Governor has 15 calendar days to sign or veto it.
On April 12, Lance Ward, Secretary of the Oklahoma Election Board, ruled that an unqualified party may leave the name of its presidential candidate's name off the presidential petition, if the party has not chosen its candidate yet. Instead, the petition may refer to "the nominee of the (unrecognized party name) for President of the United States".
Ward warned that his ruling could be challenged, and offered to obtain a more formal ruling from the legal representative of the State Election Board.
In the meantime, the Kentucky Secretary of State has requested an Opinion from the Attorney General, on the same question.
The Libertarian Party national committee on April 16 voted that its stand-in ticket in 1996 will be Ed Clark for president and David Bergland for vice-president. In the states which authorize a stand-in for president or vice-president, these names will be printed on the petition. After the party's national convention chooses the actual candidates, Clark and Bergland will withdraw and the true nominees' names will be substituted.
1. Kansas: HB 2998 was signed into law on April 6. It changes the petition deadline for a new party from April 10 to June 1.
2. Virginia: HB 65 was signed into law on April 1. It makes it somewhat easier for third party and independent presidential candidates to get on the ballot, by reducing some of the restrictions on who can circulate petitions.
1. California: SCA 35 passed the Senate on April 21. It would convert the election for Secretary of State from a partisan office, to a non-partisan one.
Also, SB 1518 passed the Senate Elections Committee on April 20. It would prevent the public from having access to voter registration records. An exception would be made for candidates, parties, and reporters.
2. District of Columbia: Hearings are being held on Bill 10-574 throuout the spring and summer. The bill recodifies the election laws. Third party activists have already testified in support of a proposed amendment, to eliminate an irrational law which says that only parties which have elected a president since 1950 may ever be on the ballot automatically for president, even if such party is otherwise a qualified party in D.C.
3. Florida: HB 1243-Committee Substitute failed to pass, and the legislature has now adjourned. It would have abolished filing fees for independent and third party candidates; but it would also have moved most petition deadlines for non-presidential third party and independent candidates from July to April.
The U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to hear appeals of two election law cases:
1. On April 18, the Court announced that it would not hear Clewis v Krivanek, no. 93-1057. The issue was whether an initiative can be invalidated, after the voters have passed it, because after the election was over a lower court decided that the petition which put the initiative on the ballot didn't have enough valid signatures. The case was from the Florida Supreme Court, which had annulled the initiative.
2. On April 4, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not hear Recall '92 v Edwards, no. 93-1062. The issue was whether a state may outlaw political expression within 600 feet of a polling place on election day, or within 600 feet of a building at which absentee voting is proceeding.
The Supreme Court had previously upheld a 100 foot zone, and the Fifth Circuit in this case had then upheld the Louisiana 600 foot zone. The plaintiff-voter, Theodore Schirmer, had been prevented from voting in Louisiana in November 1992 because he was wearing a T-shirt which advocated the recall of Governor Edwin Edwards.
1. (See also this update.) On June 27, there will be a trial in federal court in Colorado in American Constitutional Law Foundation v Meyer, no. 93-M-1467, over whether Colorado can force initiative circulators to wear badges showing their names. The case is before Judge Richard Matsch, a Nixon appointee.
2. On March 16, the San Francisco City Attorney asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision of the 9th circuit in Geary v Renne. The Secretary of State filed a brief in support of the city. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is no. 93-1550 and the name of the case is Corwin v Mark.
Back on September 1, 1993, the 9th circuit had ruled section 10012 of the Elections Code unconstitutional. Section 10012 makes it impossible for a candidate for non-partisan office to mention (in the Voters Handbook) that any political party supports the candidate. The 9th circuit's rationale was that the law gives too much power to a County Clerk and that only a Judge should be able to delete such language. The city agrees, but is incensed that the code section was held unconstitutional in its entirety. The U.S. Supreme Court will probably announce in June whether it will hear the city's appeal.
3. The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit, denied the request for a rehearing on April 11 in Freedom Republicans v FEC. This is the case over whether the Civil Rights Act applies to political parties. The lower court had held that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Freedom Republicans haven't decided yet whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. The hearing in New Alliance Party v FBI will be May 13 in U.S. District Court in Manhatten. The party charges that the FBI had no right to investigate it, since FBI guidelines don't permit investigations of political organizations unless there is reason to believe the organization is breaking the law. Also the party charges that the FBI slandered it, by disseminating the opinion of an outside organization that the party is a "cult".
5. The last B.A.N. stated that Louisiana had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a lower court decision. The lower court invalidated Louisiana's congressional districts because they were a "racial gerrymander". Now, though, the case has been mooted, because the state legislature on April 21 re-drew the state's districts, and the governor signed the bill (SB 1) on April 26.
6. The Nebraska Supreme Court heard arguments on April 5 in Duggan v Beerman & Nebraskans for Term Limits, a challenge to congressional term limits passed in 1992.
The Oregon Secretary of State ruled on April 14 that no vote test applies this year. Any party on the ballot in 1994 will automatically be on for 1996 as well.
Justice Harry Blackmun, who is leaving the U.S. Supreme Court in a few months, has been a solid supporter of the rights of voters and political parties.
Like many other judges, Blackmun became more and more supportive of tolerant ballot access laws, the longer he was on the Court. He was appointed in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, and he voted unfavorably on ballot access cases decided in 1971, 1974 and 1976.
However, in 1977, he had a change of heart. After the oral argument in Mandel v Bradley, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold Maryland's March petition deadline for third party and independent candidates, which meant that over 50,000 valid signatures had to be collected in winter. Blackmun was part of the narrow majority in support of the deadline. Chief Justice Burger chose Byron White to write the decision. But after White submitted his first draft, Blackmun changed his vote!
Consequently, White lost his chance to write the opinion. Instead, Justice Potter Stewart wrote a much better opinion, sending the case back to the lower court with instructions to find out how often independent or third party candidates had qualified, and stating that if very few qualified, then the law should be thrown out. Since George Wallace was the only person who had ever successfully complied with the existing law (for statewide office), the lower court had no trouble in declaring the law unconstitutional.
If Blackmun had not changed his vote, it would have been impossible for Congressman John B. Anderson to have run for president as an independent candidate in many states in 1980, and probably it would also have been impossible for Ross Perot to have run in 1992.
Blackmun voted favorably again on a ballot access case in 1983 (Anderson v Celebrezze, won by a 5-4 vote) and he was one of only 3 justices who voted in 1992 that the First Amendment protects the right of a voter to cast a write-in vote. Blackmun also voted in favor of political party rights in 1986 (Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, another 5-4 victory) and again in 1989.
Cabranes' Record
U.S. District Court Judge Jose Cabranes, who may fill Blackmun's seat, has never had a case involving ballot access, but he wrote an outstanding decision in Republican Party of Connecticut v Tashjian in 1984, upholding the right of a political party to decide for itself which voters should vote in its primary election. His decision was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This year, a number of Democratic and Republican candidates have had trouble getting on primary ballots in several states, even though the requirements were moderate and the candidates had substantial support. Examples:
1. California: Alan Uke, candidate for the legislature from San Diego County, was kept off the Republican primary ballot. He had already spent $100,000 on his campaign.
The law requires at least 40 signatures for a candidate to get on a primary ballot, but says that no more than 60 signatures may be submitted. Uke submitted 84, so he was told to choose which 60 he wanted counted. The 60 he chose included only 36 valid ones. He sued, since other California candidates who have failed to submit at least 40 valid signatures are sometimes permitted onto the ballot anyway, under a "substantial compliance" principle. However, he lost in Sacramento Superior Court, Uke v Miller, no. 377545.
After it turned out that another candidate who only had 39 valid signatures was permitted on this year's primary ballot, Uke got a rehearing. But at the rehearing, he lost again when it was revealed that the circulator of one of Uke's petitions had "whited-out" her own signature as the circulator, and someone else had signed in the same spot.
2. Illinois: Lawrence Joyce was kept off the Republican primary ballot for congress, and Chuck Baxter was kept off the Democratic ballot for state House, because their petitions didn't carry the words "at all times". Illinois petitions contain various instructions, one of which is that "petitioners must be registered voters". The legislature had added the words "at all times" and a few candidates used obsolete petition forms lacking those three words.
However, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered them onto the ballot, on March 15, just 19 hours before the polls opened. Joyce v County Officers Election Board, no. 76954, and Baxter v County Officers Election Board, no. 76958. Neither candidate won his primary. The ballots were changed at the last minute by adding stickers to Votomatic voting devices.
3. Indiana: Ann DeVore, State Auditor, intended to run for Congress this year as a Democrat, but was kept off the ballot because she didn't remember to file her declaration of candidacy by the deadline. She had already spent $50,000 on her congressional campaign.
4. New Jersey: Daniel Tauriello, Democratic candidate for Congress, 11th district, only submitted 203 signatures to meet a requirement of 200 signatures. He thought he would be unopposed in the primary and he didn't expect anyone to challenge his petition. However, John Kucek, chairman of the Populist Party in the state, was also running in that primary, and Kucek successfully found twelve invalid signatures on Tauriello's petition. Now the official Democratic organization is hoping to beat Kucek in the primary with a write-in candidate.
4. Ohio: 50 signatures are needed to get on a primary ballot for district office. However, Republican congressional candidate Charles Wilson was kept off the ballot because most of his petition sheets did not contain a copy of his declaration of candidacy. Ohio requires that each separate petition sheet must contain the declaration.
The Ohio Supreme Court refused to put him on the ballot, even though he submitted an affidavit from every voter who signed for him, stating that the voter knew they were signing a petition for Wilson for Congress. The vote against Wilson was unanimous. State ex rel Wilson v Hisrich, no. 940522, decided March 25, 1994.
In November 1992, a write-in candidate for Governor, Charlotte Pritt, received 7% of the vote (the candidate, a Democrat, had lost the primary, and her supporters carried on a write-in campaign for her). Now the group which sponsored the write-in campaign says that a new legally-qualified party was created by her November vote.
The law says that a party comes into existence if it polls at least 1% for Governor. No group other than the Democrats or Republicans has done this since 1924. The Pritt supporters calls themselves the Mountaineer Party.
The Secretary of State doesn't recognize the party, so the State Supreme Court has agreed to decide the issue. In the meantime, the party plans to run candidates for the state legislature and county office, but no candidates for federal office. Pritt herself does not back the new party.
On April 15-16, the Federation of Independent Parties, usually known as the Independence Party, held a national convention in Arlington, Virginia, and changed its name to the Patriot Party. The party has been composed of those who want to create a new party based on the issues which led so many voters to vote for Ross Perot in 1992. Most of the ballot-qualified parties brought into legal existence by the Perot vote have been participating, along with a few state parties which came into existence for other reasons, such as A Connecticut Party, formed in 1990 by Governor Lowell Weicker.
The convention also elected national party officers, passed a Statement of Principles, and revised its Constitution slightly. Nicholas Sabotine of Pennsylvania was reelected national chair. The new vice-chair is Ralph Copeland, who has been head of the party's Oregon state affiliate. Almost 200 people attended, from 24 states. A detailed platform has not been written yet.
Many of the lesser party offices were won by activists in the New Alliance Party. For some months, NAP members have been participating in the party. NAP expects to cease placing candidates on the ballot under its own name, and to participate in the Patriot Party.
Normally, B.A.N. does not print party statements of principles, but because many are curious to know what the Patriot Party stands for, the party's Statement of Principles is below.
A Connecticut Party, which had been part of the old Independence Party, is no longer affiliated with any national third party. No other state units of the party have disaffiliated, however.
At non-partisan elections last month, a Green Party candidate was elected to the city council of Albany, California; and Libertarians were elected to the city councils of Bellflower, California, and Lee's Summit, Mo., and to the School Board in Beaverton, Oregon.
1. The Iowa Grassroots Party and the Iowa Libertarian Party have virtually merged, and are running Carl Olsen for Governor under the Libertarian label. Olsen was the Grassroots Party nominee for U.S. Senate in 1992. The Grassroots Party stands for legalizing marijuana and better adherence to the Bill of Rights.
2. According to the New Party News, negotiations are underway for the Labor-Farm Party (a ballot-qualified party in Wisconsin, not affiliated with any national party) to change its name to the New Progressive Party.
Activists from the Green Party, the New Party, and Labor Party Advocates, are holding a conference in Oakland, California, June 10-12, 1994, to discuss campaign tactics. For information, contact Hank Chapot, 575 58th St., Oakland CA 94609, (510) 654-5311.
On April 23, the New York Libertarian Party chose radio star Howard Stern for Governor. Stern received 287 votes and candidates opposing him received, together, just under 100 votes. More orthodox, long-time Libertarians were nominated for U.S. Senate, Comptroller and Attorney General. The Lieutenant Governor nomination went to Stern's personal choice, Stan Dworkin, a former Rockland County legislator and a registered Democrat (under New York election law, a nonqualified party can nominate anyone, regardless of how the candidate is registered).
Jack Gargan, who had been petitioning to get on the Florida ballot as an independent candidate for Governor, announced on April 25 that he was giving that up, and would run instead in the Democratic primary.
In Louisiana, the voter registration form lists the qualified parties. The 1992 Perot vote in Louisiana accidentally created a new qualified party, called the "Prudence, Action, Results Party" (the law says a party is created if its presidential candidate polls at least 5%, which Perot did; "Prudence, etc." was Perot's ballot label in Louisiana).
Finally, 18 months after that election, Louisiana has reprinted its voter registration form to list the new party.
See this note about tables.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | GREEN | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 12,157 | 12,157 | 700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 9 | Sep 9 |
| Alaska | no procedure | 2,586 | 0 | 0 | already on | 0 | -- | Aug 22 |
| Arizona | 19,827 | (es) 7,000 | *8,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 21 | Jun 30 |
| Arkansas | 28,520 | 10,000 | too late | already on | too late | too late | Jan 4 | May 1 |
| California | (reg) 78,992 | 151,015 | already on | too late | already on | already on | Jan 4 | Aug 12 |
| Colorado | no procedure | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 2 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 15,008 | 0 | *0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 12 |
| Delaware | (reg.) 159 | 3,170 | already on | *136 | 5 | 75 | Aug 20 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 2,600 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 31 |
| Florida | 196,255 | 196,255 | 0 | *32,000 | 0 | 0 | *Jul 21 | *Jul 21 |
| Georgia | 31,771 | 31,771 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 12 | Jul 12 |
| Hawaii | 4,645 | unpredictable | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Apr 20 | Jul 19 |
| Idaho | 9,643 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | 350 | 0 | Aug 31 | Jun 24 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 8 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,909 | *38,500 | *42,500 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | *50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 19 |
| Kansas | 15,661 | 5,000 | already on | 500 | 0 | 0 | Jun 1 | Aug 2 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | -- | Sep 1 |
| Louisiana | (reg) 112,443 | 0 | 325 | already on | 38 | 0 | Jun 30 | Jul 29 |
| Maine | 26,139 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | 2,500 | 0 | Dec 15 | Jun 7 |
| Maryland | (es) 80,000 | (es) 70,000 | *2,000 | 6,000 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 1 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 33,000 | 10,000 | *700 | *0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 1 | Aug 2 |
| Michigan | 25,646 | 25,646 | already on | 0 | 0 | 500 | Jul 21 | Jul 21 |
| Minnesota | 117,790 | 2,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | May 1 | Jul 19 |
| Mississippi | just be org. | 1,000 | already on | too late | too late | already on | Apr 1 | Apr 8 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 1 |
| Montana | 9,473 | 9,473 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Mar 17 | Jun 6 |
| Nebraska | 5,834 | 2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 30 |
| Nevada | 4,920 | 5,134 | already on | 0 | 1,200 | already on | Jul 7 | Jul 7 |
| New Hampshire | no procedure | 3,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 10 |
| New Jersey | no procedure | 800 | *already on | too late | too late | too late | -- | Apr 14 |
| New Mexico | 2,850 | 17,100 | *1,500 | 0 | already on | 0 | Jul 12 | Jul 12 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 23 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 70,000 | 0 | 6,000 | 0 | 0 | Jul 14 | Jun 24 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 15 | Sep 9 |
| Ohio | 49,399 | 5,000 | too late | too late | too late | finished | Jan 6 | May 3 |
| Oklahoma | 69,518 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 31 | Jul 13 |
| Oregon | 16,681 | (att.) 1,000 | already on | already on | need 2,500 | 0 | Aug 30 | Aug 30 |
| Pennsylvania | no procedure | *23,294 | *1,300 | *3,500 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | no procedure | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 21 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | 0 | already on | in doubt | Aug 1 |
| South Dakota | 6,419 | 2,568 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 5 | Aug 2 |
| Tennessee | 19,759 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 1,000 | 0 | May 1 | May 19 |
| Texas | 38,900 | 38,900 | already on | *600 | 0 | 0 | May 22 | May 12 |
| Utah | 500 | 300 | already on | *0 | too late | too late | Mar 15 | Mar 17 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 22 | Sep 22 |
| Virginia | no procedure | 14,871 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jun 14 |
| Washington | no procedure | unpredictable | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 2 |
| West Virginia | no procedure | 4,044 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | May 9 |
| Wisconsin | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | *8,000 | Jun 1 | Jul 12 |
| Wyoming | 8,000 | 9,849 | *finished | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 29 |
LIBT = Libertarian. Other national parties on statewide ballots: Socialist Workers in N.J., Utah; Natural Law in Nev., N.J.; Populist in Nev.; Workers World in Mich.; American in Utah. "FULL PARTY REQ." is a procedure by which a new party can qualify before it nominates any candidates; not every state has such a procedure. Populist Party has 7,000 signatures in Georgia. * -- entry changed since Apr. 5 B.A.N. Arizona figures relate to petition signatures. In Virginia, both Governor Douglas Wilder and former Republican gubernatorial candidate Marshall Coleman are petitioning as independents for the U.S. Senate.
See above for article on Patriot Party convention.
"Whereas, the American People have unwillingly been deprived of their rights and responsibilities as American citizens by a system of government dominated by two entrenched political parties which have failed to represent the legitimate interests of the majority of Americans; which have excluded that majority from active and meaningful participation in government; which have ignored popular support for term limits, initiative and referendum, recall, thoroughgoing campaign finance reform, and fair and equitable access to the ballot, the media and televised debates for all qualified candidates; and which have caused widespread cynicism and distrust of our political institutions and elected officials; and
Whereas, the entrenched political parties have caused our Government to be the means by which the ever increasing power of Government is ensured, rather than the means by which individual liberty is guaranteed; and
Whereas, we agree that the electoral and governmental process must be democratized, that public officials must be made accountable to the people, and that government at all levels must be conducted in a fiscally responsible manner in which the people and not the professional politicians set priorities and policy directions for America; and
Whereas, we desire to create a new political party which embraces principles and processes which serve to unite, rather than divide the American People;
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved That:
We, the Founders of the Patriot Party, adopt the following Principles upon which we shall establish goals, formulate policies and conduct the affairs of this party;
1. The policies and activities of our party shall be based upon what is in the best interests of the American people, NOT what is in the best interest of our party or our candidates.
2. Our party shall not advocate policy on any issue which detracts from its ability to achieve its fundamental goals of fiscal and political reform.
3. Our party shall demand fiscal responsibility on the part of our government in order to preserve and enhance individual economic and social freedom.
4. Our party shall strive to enact and enforce laws which insure the right of all American people to fully participate in our constitutional system of government.
5. Our party shall seek the election of citizen legislators and the elimination of career politicians in order to ensure responsibility and accountability on the part of our elected public servants.
6. Our party shall encourage individual responsibility and accountability on the part of all Americans in order to promote domestic tranquillity and ensure the survival of our democratic system of government.
7. Our party shall promote an economic system dedicated to free enterprise in which all Americans have an equal opportunity to achieve economic rewards in proportion to their individual initiative, effort and ability.
8. Our party is committed to reducing the role of government in the lives of the American people in order to expand individual economic and social freedom.
9. Our party shall promote policies which result in the efficient utilization of our natural resources for the benefit of humankind while encouraging the survival of forms of life and the preservation of our planet for those to come.
10. We, the members of the Patriot Party, celebrate our heritage of individual liberty, recognizing that one of our greatest strengths is our diversity; and we will foster tolerance of the customs, beliefs, and private actions of all persons which do not infringe upon the rights of others."
buy viagra in uk cialis 20mg price viagra free sample cialis by mail overseas cialis one day delivery cialis buy pfizer viagra online viagra canadian sales best way to take cialis cialis buy overnight cialis 20mg viagra canadian pharmacy discount viagra online cialis australia viagra online pharmacy cialis samples discounted cialis online cheap generic cialis buy brand viagra buy cialis low price buy cialis online canada cheap discount cialis cost viagra order viagra uk free cialis cialis online prescription cialis super active order viagra uk viagra sales canada cialis online prescription generic cialis canada discount viagra without prescription cialis 10 mg buy now cialis order cheap viagra generic cialis no prescription viagra generic drug cialis from canada rx generic viagra overnight cialis next day viagra viagra canada generic order viagra usa best way to use cialis buy cialis now online viagra pfizer canada cialis 5 mg free viagra best price viagra viagra original pfizer order buy viagra cheap cialis without rx buying viagra brand viagra professional viagra in australia for sale non pescription cialis buy cheap viagra now cheapest generic viagra buy branded viagra cialis without rx best cialis price levitra or viagra cialis mail order viagra femele