| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
Third party activists scored dramatic victories in Arizona and Georgia last month. Fife Symington, Governor of Arizona, vetoed SB 1138, which would have made it much more difficult for new or third parties to nominate candidates in their own primary; and Zell Miller, Governor of Georgia, vetoed SB 148, which moved petition deadlines from July to early May.
The Arizona veto was on April 19, and the Georgia veto was on April 21. Both were only accomplished with a great deal of work. The vetoes were difficult to obtain, since the Arizona bill was sponsored by a Republican Senator and Arizona's Governor is a Republican; likewise, the Democratic bill was sponsored by Democrats and the Governor is a Democrat. It is invariably tough to get any Governor to veto the bill of one of his own party's legislators.
In both states, the Natural Law Party stimulated hundreds of messages to the Governor, proving itself a capable player in this arena. Members of other parties also helped, especially (in Arizona) Peter Schmerl, a Libertarian attorney, and (in Georgia) Jim Yarbrough, former ballot access coordinator for the Populist Party.
Governor Gary Johnson signed HB 1079 on April 6, even though both the Green and Libertarian Parties asked him not to. It makes it harder for small qualified parties to nominate candidates (although it has no effect on presidential candidates).
Also, it requires the Green Party to increase its registration to 2,700 by 1996, to preserve its status as a party which nominates by primary.
However, the Attorney General may soon rule that the vote test for a party to remain on, can be met by any statewide candidate, not just a presidential or gubernatorial candidate.
HB 66, by Representative Jack Page, Ken Guin and Johnny Morrow, raises independent candidate petitions from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 5% of the last gubernatorial vote. For statewide office, that would be an increase from 12,000 to 60,000.
The intent of the authors was to increase the signature requirement for minor parties to the same level, but due to a drafting error, at this time the bill only affects independent candidates. All of the bill's sponsors are Democrats.
The bill was introduced April 18 and passed the House Constitution & Elections Committee two days later. It has received no publicity. The bill also changes the petition deadline from early September to early July. The bill has no effect on independent presidential candidates. United We Stand America and other groups are already campaigning against it.
LD 1091 doubles the number of signatures for all ballot access petitions. Independent candidates for statewide office would need 8,000 signatures, not 4,000; members of qualified parties running for statewide office would need the signatures of 4,000 party members rather than 2,000.
The bill is sponsored by Democratic Senator Alton Cianchette and co-sponsored by 21 other legislators, 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats. It has a hearing on May 3 in the Joint State & Local Government Committee.
No overt action has been taken during April on the helpful ballot access bill in Colorado, HB 1022, nor on the restrictive bill in New Hampshire, HB 333. Action is expected on both, early in May.
On March 31, U.S. District Court Judge John Copenhaver upheld West Virginia ballot access procedures for third party and independent candidates for office other than president. Hess v Hechler, 2:92-0807. The case had been pending since 1992. It will be appealed.
The issue was whether a mid-May petition deadline is constitutional, given the extremely small number of third party and independent candidates who have been able to get on the ballot. In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court said that early petition deadlines are probably unconstitutional if third party and independent candidates rarely get on the ballot.
In West Virginia, only one third party or independent candidate for Governor has been on the ballot since 1936; and only one third party or independent candidate for U.S. Senator has been on since 1936.
Judge Copenhaver said that since there were three third parties on the ballot in 1932, and also three on in 1936, the law is not restrictive!
He failed to mention that the reason there were three parties on in 1932 was that the signature requirement that year was only 1,000 signatures; the number was increased to 1% (almost 7,000) in 1932, but the change didn't take effect until 1933. Copenhaver also ignored evidence in the record that there have been many attempts to get on the West Virginia ballot in recent years which failed.
The early petition deadline for non-presidential candidates in West Virginia is especially harmful, since petitioners must tell anyone they approach that if the signer signs the petition, then the signer cannot vote in the upcoming primary. Both common sense and historical experience tell us that this makes it almost impossible to obtain signatures.
On April 26, Senator Robert Harden offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate, to include ballot access reform in another election law bill.
Harden's amendment was defeated, after considerable debate, in a close voice vote. Unfortunately, the necessary parliamentary procedures to obtain a roll-call vote were not followed, so there is no record of which Senators voted "Yes" or "No".
However, a transcript of the debate will probably be obtained.
On April 21, the Senate Elections Committee approved Harden's own separate bill, 5-0. Harden's own SB 2580, as well as his amendment to the general bill, would abolish petitioning for third party and independent candidates who pay the filing fee (for all candidates except presidential candidates). Despite the committee vote, there is almost no hope that SB 2580 will pass, since the Florida legislature will be in session only one more week.
United We Stand America and Common Cause of Florida both worked very hard for Harden's efforts, and are eager to try again next year.
In the meantime, the omnibus general election law bill, SB 2458, which makes some lesser improvements in ballot access, passed the Senate on April 26. It would let third parties circulate a petition for president, before the party knows who the presidential candidate will be. It would also permit an earlier start for non-presidential petitioning.
Last month, Representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont stated that he will not introduce the federal ballot access bill. He had earlier said that he would. He has promised to help find another member of Congress to be the chief sponsor, and pledges to be a principle co-sponsor. He pleads that he has too many other difficult bills, to take on the ballot bill.
If it fairly likely that Representative Kweisi Mfume, Democrat of Maryland, will introduce the bill.
On April 10, four leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination publicly complained about New York State ballot access rules, for the Republican presidential primary. The four are Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, Governor Pete Wilson of California, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Representative Bob Dornan of California. The complaint was made in a letter to New York Governor George Pataki, urging him to support an easing of the law. Gramm initiated the letter.
No Republican or Democrat running for president in the primaries, who is mentioned in the news media, ever needs more than 5,000 valid signatures, in any state... except in New York, where Democrats need 15,000 signatures, and Republicans need 1,250 signatures in each congressional district (although they are free to run in some districts and not in others). The requirement of 1,250 signatures per district so intimidates mainstream Republican candidates, that no Republican presidential candidate has ever managed to comply in most districts, except for the single Republican contender in each year who is the choice of the New York Republican organization.
Editorials in the New York Times on March 30 and April 13 lambasted the existing law; so did a Wall Street Journal editorial on April 10. There are now six bills in the New York legislature to ease ballot access, but none of them has made any headway yet.
The latest ballot access improvement bill, SB 4065, would provide that precinct and legislative district numbers aren't needed on the petition, if the signature is legible and the address listed is correct.
Although this New York law is severe, it isn't nearly as severe as the New York law for a new party which wishes to run a full slate of candidates for the U.S. House. The procedures for that would be 3,500 signatures in every congressional district, almost triple the burden.
The Supreme Court may release its term limits decision on May 1 (too late for this issue). If it isn't released then, it won't be released until May 15 at the earliest, since the Court will be in recess May 2 thru May 14.
The next B.A.N. will carry quotations from the debate on term limits, held in the U.S. House in March. Much was said about the "right to vote for whomever one pleases."
On April 20, the Texas State League of Women Voters announced a liberalization of its policy on candidate debates. The new policy, for statewide candidate debates, is that anyone on the ballot will be invited into Texas League debates.
The past policy of the Texas LWV was that only the candidates of political parties which hold a primary, can ever be invited into statewide debates. This short-sighted policy automatically excluded all independent candidates and the candidates of all new political parties, no matter what their popular appeal.
Each state LWV sets its own policy on whom to invite into debates. Other state LWV units which automatically invite any candidate who is on the ballot: Delaware, West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Montana and Idaho.
Most state LWV units do not have such a generous policy. Instead, they either have very vague standards for deciding whether to invite third party or independent candidates, or they insist on some specified showing in a public opinion poll, such as 5%, 10%, or 15%.
(See also this update.)
A federal court is expected to hear a new case over whether the First Amendment protects a political party's right to decide for itself, which voters can participate in that party's primary. Ross v State of Alaska, A-95-053.
In 1990, the Republican Party of Alaska sued over Alaska's blanket primary law, which let all voters participate in the primary election of all parties. The Republican Party argued that it had a right to keep Democrats out of its own candidate selection system.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in a Connecticut case in 1986 that the First Amendment protects a party's right to decide for itself, whether to invite registered independents into its primary, the State of Alaska in 1990 simply "gave up" and didn't fight the Republican 1990 lawsuit. Since then, the state has let the Republicans have their own closed primary, whereas the other three qualified parties participate in a blanket primary.
But on February 3, 1995, the Supreme Court of Alaska ruled that the 1990 agreement which settled the 1990 case was invalid. O'Callaghan v Coghill, 888 P 2d 1302. The Alaska Supreme Court said the state had no right to refuse to defend its own election law in court, and that it would decide the issue. This was in a case filed by a voter who favors the blanket primary.
The Republican Party then moved to take the case away from the State Supreme Court and back to U.S. District Court, and the U.S. District Court is expected to approve this motion.
Party rights activists in California will be watching the Alaska case carefully, since the voters of California will vote in March 1996 whether to establish a blanket primary ballot for that state. If the federal court rules that blanket primaries are unconstitutional for parties which don't want them, the initiative may be for naught, even if it passes. The California Democratic Party has already formally opposed the initiative.
On April 19, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the First Amendment protects the right of an individual to circulate anonymous literature, advocating that voters vote in a particular way. McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission, no. 93-986. The decision was by Justice John Paul Stevens.
Back in 1960, the Supreme Court had ruled that the First Amendment protects anonymous leaflets in general. The issue in this case is whether election literature is entitled to the same constitutional protection as ordinary literature.
Ironically, the two dissenters, Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, argued that elections are so important, that free speech must yield to the state's "compelling" interest in "protecting" elections. This is the same ideology which justifies restricting a voter's choice of candidates for the "compelling" value of "stability". The real threat to free elections and stability isn't unrestricted electoral activity. The real threat is over-regulation of the election process, making it difficult or impossible for dissident groups to run candidates.
The majority opinion cites Meyer v Grant as a foundation for the McIntyre opinion. Meyer v Grant, issued in 1988, said that states may not make it illegal for someone to pay someone else to circulate a petition. Since some states this year have tried to outlaw the practice of paying people to circulate petitions, it is good that the Supreme Court has said that it stands by its Meyer decision.
1. California (1): on April 13, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Green Party of California v Eu, the case over whether the Green Party may have "none of the above" on its own primary ballots. The party will now seek relief in the state legislature. The Libertarian and Peace & Freedom Parties had filed statements with the Court, asking that the Court hear the case, but to no avail.
California (2): on April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Griset v FPPC, no. 94-1456. The issue was the constitutionality of California law which made it a crime for a campaign committee to mail large amounts of anonymous campaign literature. The lower court had upheld the law. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to let the Griset decision stand, shows that the McIntyre case discussed above will not have a great impact on campaign disclosure laws.
2. Minnesota: On May 18 there will be a hearing in the 8th circuit, in St.Paul, in Twin Cities Area New Party v McKenna, 94-3417, over whether the U.S. Constitution protects a party's right to nominate someone who is also the nominee of another political party.
3. New York: the Libertarian Party decided not to appeal Schulz v Berman to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the case over whether a state can require petitions to carry the precinct number and legislative district number of all the signers. The First Circuit upheld the requirement last year.
4. Washington state: the decision in LIMIT v Maleng has been reported, at 874 F Supp 1138 (1994). This is the case in which a law banning payment of petition circulators, per name, was held unconstitutional. Now that the decision is reported, it gains stature as a precedent, and will be useful in persuading state legislatures in other states not to outlaw paying petitioners per signature.
Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) has introduced HB 1100, "To establish a temporary commission to recommend reforms in the laws relating to elections for Federal office". The bill has 9 co-sponsors. If the bill passes, the president will choose eight individuals to form a Commission, to recommend improvements in the election process.
The bill's intent is merely to study campaign finance reform, but if the bill makes headway, it could be amended to increase its scope, to issues such as ballot access.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | GREEN | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | *finished | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 2 | Sep 2 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | 100 | already on | already on | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Arizona | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | (rg)*8,400 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 21 | Jun 30 |
| Arkansas | 21,506 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 15 |
| California | (reg) 89,006 | 147,238 | already on | (reg) 466 | already on | already on | Oct 24 95 | Aug 9 |
| Colorado | no procedure | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 6 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 7,500 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 7 |
| Delaware | (es) (reg.) 180 | (es) 3,600 | already on | (reg) 130 | (reg) 5 | (reg) 168 | Aug 17 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 3,200 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| Florida | 196,788 | 65,596 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 16 | Jul 15 |
| Georgia | 30,036 | 30,036 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 9 | Jul 9 |
| Hawaii | 4,889 | 3,829 | already on | 0 | *2,000 | 0 | Apr 24 | Sep 6 |
| Idaho | 9,644 | 4,822 | already on | 0 | 350 | 0 | Aug 31 | Aug 26 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 5 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,822 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 16 |
| Kansas | 16,418 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jun 1 | Aug 6 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 29 |
| Louisiana | 0 | 0 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | Jun 30 | Aug 29 |
| Maine | 25,551 | 4,000 | can't start | can't start | already on | can't start | De 14 95 | Jun 4 |
| Maryland | 10,000 | (es) 75,000 | *11,000 | 0 | 0 | 1,000 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 34,000 | 10,000 | already on | (reg) 13 | (reg) 40 | 0 | Jul 1 | Jul 30 |
| Michigan | 30,891 | 30,891 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 18 | Jul 18 |
| Minnesota | 89,731 | 2,000 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | May 1 | Sep 10 |
| Mississippi | just be org. | 1,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | already on | Apr 1 | Sep 6 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Montana | 10,471 | 10,471 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Mar 14 | Jul 31 |
| Nebraska | 5,741 | 2,500 | *500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 27 |
| Nevada | 3,761 | 3,761 | already on | 0 | 1,000 | already on | Jul 11 | Jul 11 |
| New Hampshire | no procedure | 3,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 7 |
| New Jersey | no procedure | 800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 29 |
| New Mexico | 2,339 | 14,029 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Jul 9 | Sep 10 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 80,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | in doubt | Jun 28 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 12 | Sep 6 |
| Ohio | 33,463 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | *3,000 | Nv 20 95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 31 | Jul 15 |
| Oregon | 18,316 | 14,601 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | Aug 27 | Aug 27 |
| Pennsylvania | no procedure | (es) 30,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | 18,069 | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | Aug 1 | Sep 6 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | 0 | already on | May 5 | Aug 1 |
| South Dakota | 7,792 | 3,117 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 2 | Aug 6 |
| Tennessee | 37,179 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 20 |
| Texas | 43,963 | 61,541 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 19 | May 9 |
| Utah | 500 | 300 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 1 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 19 | Sep 19 |
| Virginia | no procedure | (es) 16,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 23 |
| Washington | no procedure | 200 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 6 |
| West Virginia | no procedure | 6,837 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 1 |
| Wisconsin | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | already on | Jun 1 | Sep 3 |
| Wyoming | 8,000 | 9,810 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 25 |
Natural Law Party has *30,000 registrants in Calif., and is on in Nev & Vt. Other nationally-organized parties already on: Grassrts in Vt.; New Pty in Wis.; Wrkrs World in Mi. "FULL PTY" is a procedure by which a new party can qualify before it chooses candidates; not every state has such a procedure. Az. parties need either 15,062 pet. sigs. OR 14,500 registrants. "Already" in Patriot column for Ak and Ct. is only good for president, not other office. In some states it is possible to start the full party procedure now, but not the candidate procedure; for these states, the entry refers to the more commonly-used method. * -- entry changed since last issue.
| 1992 primary | 1996 primary | Notes on 1995 legislative action | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ala. | June 2 | June 4 | |
| Alas. | none | none | |
| Ariz. * | none | Feb. 27 | date set by SB 1263, signed into law 4/19/95 |
| Ark. # | May 26 | May 21 | |
| Cal. * | June 2 | March 26 | |
| Colo. | March 3 | March 5 | |
| Conn. | March 24 | March 5 | assuming SB 166 passes; bill has cleared all committees |
| Del. | none | Feb. 24 | |
| Fl. | March 10 | March 12 | |
| Ga. | March 3 | March 5 | |
| Hi. | none | none | |
| Id. * | May 26 | May 28 | |
| Ill. * | March 17 | March 19 | |
| Ind. | May 5 | May 7 | |
| Iowa | none | none | |
| Ks. | April 7 | April 2 | HB 2535 would abolish primary, but is unlikely to pass |
| Ky. | May 26 | May 28 | |
| La. * | March 10 | March 12 | HB 1560, to abolish primary, failed in House 4/18/95,
39-58 |
| Me. * | none | March 5 | LD 608, to move date to New Hampshire date, in
committee |
| Md. | March 3 | March 5 | |
| Mass. * | March 10 | March 5 | assuming House Docket 5162 (by Sec. of State) passes |
| Mich. | March 17 | March 19 | |
| Minn. * | April 7 | April 2 | H 142, to abolish primary, passed House Committee
3/20/95 |
| Miss. * | March 10 | March 12 | |
| Mo. | none | none | |
| Mont. * | June 2 | June 4 | |
| Neb. # | May 12 | May 14 | |
| Nev. | none | none | |
| N.H. * | Feb. 18 | Feb. 17 | assuming HB 333 passes; it has passed House |
| N.J. # | June 2 | June 4 | assuming A1309 doesn't pass; if it does, primary will be
3/5/96 |
| N.M. | June 2 | June 4 | |
| N.Y. * | April 7 | March 7 | |
| N.C. | May 5 | May 7 | |
| N.D. # | June 9 | Feb. 27 | HB 1432, moving primary date, was signed into law
4/12/95 |
| Ohio # | June 2 | March 19 | |
| Okla. # | March 10 | March 12 | |
| Ore. | May 19 | May 21 | assuming SB 928 doesn't pass; if it does, primary on
3/5/96 |
| Penn. | April 28 | March 19 | assuming SB 632 passes |
| R.I. * | March 10 | March 5 | assuming H6584 & S1063 pass; they cleared committee
4/6/95 |
| S.C. * | March 7 | March 9 | assuming SB 43 doesn't pass; if it does, primary will be
1/9/96 |
| S.D. * | Feb. 25 | Feb. 27 | |
| Tenn. # | March 10 | March 12 | |
| Tex. | March 10 | March 12 | assuming HB 634 doesn't pass; if it does, primary on
3/9/96 |
| Utah | none | none | |
| Vt. * | none | March 5 | SB 32, creating primary, signed into law 4/13/95 |
| Va. | none | none | |
| Wash. | May 19 | March 12 | assuming SB 5852 passes; it passed House Comm. on
3/31/95 |
| W.V. | May 12 | May 14 | |
| Wis. | April 7 | March 19 | assuming Governor signs SB 111; it passed legislature on
4/5/95 |
| Wy. | none | none | |
| D.C. * | May 5 | May 7 |
* -- means some third party is entitled to its own presidential primary; # -- means some third party could potentially be so entitled
Some of the nation's third parties have already mapped out some strategy for the 1996 presidential election:
1. Libertarian: won't choose a candidate until July 7, 1996. Author Harry Browne is the leading candidate for the nomination. He expects to campaign in Libertarian presidential primaries in New Hampshire and Arizona, and hopes to get a high percentage of independent voters (who can vote in Libertarian primaries if they wish) in those primaries to vote for him. This, he believes, will garner publicity; he also expects to gain attention from his upcoming book.
2. Patriot/Independence: holds a national convention in Minneapolis May 19-21, to discuss the presidential race, but won't nominate anyone at that meeting. Leaders of the party are optimistic that some presidential candidate with name recognition and media respect will eventually emerge, such as Lowell Weicker or Ross Perot.
3. Natural Law: the party expects to nominate physicist John Hagelin for president again. He is also writing a book for the campaign, on solutions to social problems. The party is hard at work on its California registration drive, and expects to launch ballot access petitions in many other states in the next few months.
4. U.S. Taxpayers: won't formally nominate a presidential candidate until August 1996, but is already seeking some prominent conservative. Party leaders have wooed Patrick Buchanan and Congressman Bob Dornan, but they seem disinclined. In the meantime, the party plans to launch ballot access petitions in many states in the next few months.
5. Prohibition: the nation's oldest third party, which has run a presidential candidate in all elections starting in 1872, will choose its 1996 nominee in Denver on June 29-30, 1995. For more information, call Earl Dodge at (303) 572-0646.
6. Green: leaders of various state Green Parties who are interested in thinking about party involvement in the presidential race, will attend a conference in Washington, D.C. on June 1-4. Expected to attend are activists in other third parties who are interested in working with the Greens. The conference will cover electoral activity in general, not just the presidential race. For more information, call Linda Martin at (703) 642-5710.
Burlington, the largest city in Vermont, holds a partisan election for Mayor every year, in March. This year, the Progressive Coalition elected its candidate, Peter Clavelle, with 43%; the Democrat had 41%, the Republican 15%.
This year, the New Jersey Conservative Party has 68 candidates for the Assembly (out of 80 positions). This is the largest number of candidates for this office that any third party in New Jersey has run, in over 60 years.
Any third party which polls at least 10% of the total vote cast for Assembly, becomes a fully-qualified party. The Conservative Party hopes to attain this goal.
The Conservative Party is three years old. The reason for its vigor this year is that many activists in United We Stand America have joined it. The party's platform reflects the views of UWSA; e.g., the party is pro-choice, not pro-life as its name suggests.
Other third parties have this number of Assembly candidates: Natural Law 8; New 6; Socialist Workers 2; Libertarian 2; U.S. Taxpayers 2; Socialist 1.
Last month, a Times Mirror national poll was released, showing that 57% of the public would be pleased if there were a third major party in the U.S. When the same question was asked in mid-1992, the "yes" share was 53%.