| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
On June 23, election officials in both Kentucky and West Virginia stated that they have tentatively approved a procedure by which new or previously unqualified parties may get on the ballot for president, before such parties have chosen a presidential candidate.
Neither state has a statutory provision for a new party to circulate a petition to get itself on the ballot, before it has chosen any candidates. Instead, Kentucky and West Virginia only have candidate petition procedures (in other words, the petition must include the names of the group's candidates). This explains why these two states, along with twelve other states, have a "no procedure" listing on the petitioning chart shown on page five of this, and most, issues of B.A.N.
Most of the states which only have candidate petition procedures, and no party petition procedure, permit a new party to use "stand-in" candidates on the petition, at least for president, if not for all office. Now Kentucky and West Virginia also will permit stand-ins. The advantage of that is that the party can be working on its petition, before it has chosen its presidential candidate.
Both states had approved stand-ins for vice-president, back in 1980 and again in 1992, but the question had not been settled previously as to whether presidential stand-ins would be permitted.
The Kentucky decision was made by the Attorney General's office, but the author of the opinion wants to re-read some old rulings before she is willing to commit the decision to writing. The West Virginia decision was made by the Secretary of State's elections attorney, but it won't be considered final until the Secretary of State himself, Ken Hechler, approves it. Both should be final by mid-July.
The only states which now lack a party qualification procedure, and which don't permit stand-ins for president, are Iowa, the District of Columbia, and New Hampshire (also, the New Jersey stand-in procedure is inconvenient, since it requires the group to re-do the petition all over again, but with a much later deadline). None of these four jurisdictions requires more than 3,000 signatures.
The Kentucky and West Virginia rulings were sought by the Libertarian Party, which won't choose its presidential candidate until July 7, 1996, and wishes to start petitioning before then. The Kentucky procedure will require an actual stand-in (the Libertarian Party has already chosen a 1996 stand-in presidential candidate, Ed Clark; he was the party's actual presidential candidate back in 1980). The West Virginia procedure is different: the candidates for presidential elector will be shown on the petition, as pledged to the "presidential nominee chosen by the party's national convention".
The Libertarian Party still has not completely solved the problems caused by the party's convention date, since it isn't strong enough to use the full party procedures in Florida and Maine, and the alternate presidential candidate petitions in those states do not permit stand-ins. The party recently asked the ACLU to bring a lawsuit in its behalf, to force the state to accept stand-ins for president. In 1980, Florida lost a lawsuit over whether it had to permit stand-ins for vice-president, Anderson v Firestone, 499 F Supp 1027.
The Kentucky and West Virginia rulings, like similar rulings won last year in Washington state and Oklahoma, will help all third parties in the future which wish to get on the ballot before they have chosen their presidential candidate.
On June 16, the 4th circuit ruled that Worcester County, Maryland, must elect County Commissioners by district, and that the county must draw the lines so that one of the five districts has a majority of Black registered voters. Cane v Worcester County, 95-1122. The decision was by Judges William Wilkins (Reagan appointee), and Paul Niemeyer and Karen Williams (Bush appointees).
The decision overturned a decision of the U.S. District Court of January, 1995, that the county should use cumulative voting in the general election for county commission.
The 4th circuit panel didn't say anything bad about cumulative voting, but pointed out that since neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants any longer desire cumulative voting, it is inappropriate for the lower court to order it, instead of the more traditional district remedy.
The case was filed back in 1993 by Black voters who charged that at-large elections in the county violate the Voting Rights Act, since Blacks are 21% of the population but no Black has ever been elected to the County Commission. The county opposes district elections and is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to restore at-large elections.
Supporters of proportional representative are sorry that the county won't use cumulative voting (the election will be in November 1995). Although cumulative voting is not the favorite method for proponents of proportional voting, it does permit a party or a group to elect a single candidate (to a legislative body of five members) even if the party or group has the support of only one-fifth or so of the electorate. County commission elections in Maryland are partisan.
On June 7, federal judge William L. Standish, a Reagan appointee, upheld Pennsylvania law which says that qualified major parties may cross-endorse each other's candidates for School Director, but qualified minor parties may not cross-endorse the nominees of other parties. Patriot Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny Co. Dept. of Elections, no. 93-1884, Western Pa.
The decision contradicts the only reported precedent, United Ossining Party v Hayduk, 357 F Supp 962 (N.Y., 1971), and Judge Standish didn't even mention the Hayduk case.
The decision barely discusses the issue. It says "The election code merely requires that candidates choose whether they wish to pursue and accept the nomination of a major party or a minor party". There is no discussion of why it is OK for a candidate to be listed on the November ballot as the candidate of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, but not OK to be listed as the candidate of the Democratic and Patriot Parties. Instead, the judge went off on a lengthy discussion of "sore loser" laws, which is irrelevant.
Candidate Michael Eshenbaugh, a registered member of the Patriot Party, won the May 1993 Democratic primary for School Director, and he also received the nomination of his own party, the Patriot Party. The Patriot Party is a qualified minor party in Pennsylvania.
The November ballot listed him only as a Democrat, not as a Patriot and a Democrat. If Eshenbaugh had won both the Democratic and Republican primaries, he would have been listed on the November ballot as a Democrat and a Republican. Since Eshenbaugh won the November election, the Patriot Party was deprived of the right to say that it had won a partisan election, even though its candidate was elected.
The Patriot Party is appealing. The case is being handled by attorneys for the Center for a New Democracy, which has been fighting for the right of parties to cross-endorse the candidates of other parties.
On June 27, a hearing was held in federal court in Albany, New York, before Judge Howard Munson, a Ford appointee, in Fulani v Black, no. 95-cv-802. Plaintiffs, dissident members of the New York Independence Party, argue that the Independence Party bylaws are invalid because they were never cleared by the U.S. Justice Department. New York is one of the states in which election law changes must be cleared by the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department. A decision is expected very quickly.
The Independence Party bylaws put party control in the hands of the party's members in western New York state, since the apportionment of committee members is linked to how many votes each area cast for the party's 1994 gubernatorial candidate, Thomas Golisano of Rochester. He received 52,369 votes in his home county alone, but only 16,516 votes in New York City.
The issue of whether the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance procedures apply to party rules, as well as to state election laws, will be argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in October 1995 in a Virginia case, Morse v Virginia Republican Party, no. 94-203.
On June 23, the 10th circuit ruled that when the Republican Party spent money to run advertisements criticizing a Democratic Congressman, those expenditures should have counted toward the party's spending ceiling for the upcoming election. FEC v Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, no. 93-1433.
The decision was signed by Judges James Logan and Edward Reed (Carter appointees), and Robert Henry (Clinton appointee). The Republican Party had argued that campaign spending limits on political parties only apply to party speech in favor of its own candidates and positions, and its advertising had not mentioned its own candidate or positions.
On April 17, federal judge I. Leo Glasser, of Brooklyn, New York, ruled that a Democratic nominee for Congress has no standing to challenge the current system of campaign finance for Congress. Albanese v FEC, no. 94-cv-3299. The National Voting Rights Institute, which brought the lawsuit, is appealing.
The National Voting Rights Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a new non-profit organization formed to advance the idea that the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that campaign finance laws be changed so that wealthy candidates, and candidates with easy access to large campaign contributions, no longer enjoy the advantages in campaigns that they now enjoy. The Wealth Primary, a book by Jamin Raskin and John Bonifaz which explains the logical and legal underpinnings of the theory, is available for $10 from the Center for Responsive Politics, 1320 19th St., NW #700, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-0044.
The National Voting Rights Institute is greatly heartened that on June 13, the Governor of Tennessee signed HB89, which makes it illegal for anyone running for any state office to spend more than $250,000. This law directly contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Buckley v Valeo (1976). Therefore, even if the Albanese case is never able to overcome standing problems, the Institute's ideas will eventually be heard in a future Tennessee case. It is inevitable that someone will sue Tennessee, and clearly there will be no standing problem in that case.
On June 5, the 7th circuit upheld the federal voter registration act of 1993. Association of Community Organizations v Edgar, no. 95-1800. The decision was no surprise, since every U.S. District Court which has heard challenges to the law, has also upheld it. This case had been brought by Illinois, which does not plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On June 22, the Alabama Senate Constitution & Elections Committee held a hearing on HB 66, which would increase the number of signatures for new parties and independent candidates (except independents for president) from 1%, to 5%, of the last vote.
The Committee will vote on June 29. Opponents are cautiously optimistic, since the committee chairman announced during the hearing that he would vote against it. No one testified for it, and representatives of United We Stand America, Common Cause, the Rainbow Coalition, and the Libertarian, Patriot, and Natural Law Parties, all testified against it.
Alaska Governor Tony Knowles, a Democrat, signed SB 5 into law on May 31. It changes the petition deadline for independent candidates, and for candidates of unqualified parties, from mid-August to June 1. However, the bill has no effect on presidential petitions, which continue to be due in August.
The old June 1 deadline was declared unconstitutional by a state court in 1988, and the state didn't appeal. The only difference between the old law found unconstitutional in 1988, and the new law, is that now independent candidates, and the candidates of unqualified parties, will have their names placed on the blanket primary ballot. The only purpose of placing these candidates on the primary is to screen out any independent candidate for a particular office who polls fewer votes than any other independent running for the same office.
If the Republican Party wins its pending lawsuit to stay out of the blanket primary, the whole Alaska primary system (under which all voters get the same primary ballot, containing the names of candidates of all parties) will be knocked askew.
If that happens, a new lawsuit against the June 1 deadline will surely win, since the courts already ruled that such an early deadline violates the Alaska Constitution.
LD 1091, in its amended form, was defeated in the Senate on June 12, and defeated in the House on June 22, both times by voice votes.
The original bill would have doubled the number of signatures needed for candidates running in a primary, and also doubled the number needed by independent candidates. In that version, the bill received an unfavorable vote in Committee in May.
However, the author, Senator Alton Cianchette, then amended the bill to provide that only voters who are registered "Independent" may sign the petition of an independent candidate, or the petition of the candidate of an unqualified party. That version also failed.
1. Maine: LD 608 was signed into law on May 30. It provides that, starting in the year 2000, the Maine presidential primary will be on the same day as the New Hampshire primary.
2. Nebraska: this state, and Maine, are the only states which elect presidential electors on a congressional district basis, rather than at-large. LB 65 would have restored the at-large system, but on April 25 it was vetoed by Governor Ben Nelson.
3. New Hampshire: the last B.A.N. said that HB 455, which abolishes the straight-ticket ballot format, was signed into law May 16. Although the bill was signed, in its final version it does not abolish the straight-ticket device; it merely changes the way such votes are counted.
4. New York: AB 4510, which clarifies that third party petitions need not have a substitution committee if they don't wish to, passed the Assembly on May 8. It also gives greater name protection for unqualified parties.
5. North Carolina: SB 546, which would have legalized CityVote (the proposal to have many of the nation's cities hold a "beauty contest" presidential primary in November 1995), lost in the House Election Law Committee on June 13.
Congressman John Conyers (D-Mi) is likely to introduce the federal ballot access bill soon. He has already assigned one of his assistants, Carl Levan, to work on the bill. The bill would outlaw restrictive ballot access for third party and independent candidates in federal elections.
1996 will be the first time that any party besides the Democratic and Republican Party ever had its own primary in Delaware. The new presidential primary law provides that qualified minor parties, as well as major parties, may have their own presidential primary (for other office, qualified minor parties in Delaware nominate by convention).
New Mexico legislator Cisco McSorley has requested an Attorney General's Opinion on whether the vote test for a major party to remain qualified in 1996 is 5% of the vote for a party's presidential candidate, or 5% for any statewide candidate.
The Green Party hopes the answer will be "any statewide candidate". If so, the party will have an easier task staying on the ballot in 1996. At this point, there probably won't be a Green Party presidential candidate in 1996; at the national "Third Parties" Conference held June 1-4, 1995, in Washington, D.C., most Green Party leaders said they do not favor running a Green Party presidential candidate.
New Mexico statewide offices up in 1996, besides president, are U.S. Senator and Corporation Commissioner.
Others will surely be announced.
A petition is being circulated in Wyoming to put a Labor Party on the ballot. It is believed that the petition has 1,000 signatures; 8,000 are needed by May 1, 1996.
Recently, three new books have been published which give extensive details of the 1994 election returns, especially for Congress:
1. America at the Polls 1994, sold for $19.95 by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, is a combination of election returns and public opinion polling data. Order the book from the Roper Center, Bx 440, Storrs, Ct 06268, (203) 486-4440.
The book has 159 pages and is divided into these chapters: (1) "The Story in the Numbers", containing graphs, maps and a list of gubernatorial & Congressional winners and the share of the vote each polled; (2) Commentary on Party Realignment, by Everett Ladd; (3) "1994 Vote: Where Was Public Thinking at Vote Time?", data and charts on public opinion concerning election issues; (4) "1994 Vote: How Social Groups Voted", using exit polling data to break down results by gender, age, race, education and religion; (5) "Key Races", a transcript of a panel discussion among 4 pollsters, plus detailed polling data showing why six particular key states turned out as they did; (6) An analysis of statewide initiatives on 1994 ballots; (7) "The Money Story", an analysis of campaign spending; (8) "How I Won", interviews with two U.S. House winners, John Hostettler (R-In) and Tim Holden (D-Pa).
The book is valuable for gathering together so many different types of data in one reference.
However, it rigidly ignores all candidates except Republicans and Democrats. For instance, it alters exit polling data so that the percentage of voters voting Democratic and Republican always adds up to 100%. This despite the fact that 6% of the November 1994 voters voted "other" for U.S. House, when there was an "other" candidate on the ballot.
The original data, broken down by social groups and published earlier in The New York Times, did not tamper with the percentages, and it was possible to see what share of Catholics, college graduates, etc., voted "other" (although one had to add up the Democratic share and the Republican share and subtract that from 100%, to learn the "other" share).
Chapter One, giving vote data, is so eager to give a complete account of the Democratic and Republican vote for the U.S. House, that it includes hypothetical votes that would have been cast for those parties, if they had run candidates in all districts (Chapter 1, page 3, notes "Lastly, the vote for candidates in uncontested races was estimated as the average vote cast for candidates of the same party in contested House races in the state in question"). By that method, one could conclude that the true "other" vote for the U.S. House was "really" 4,250,000 (6% of the entire vote cast in the nation).
The list of winners for the U.S. House, organized as it is by party, omits Bernie Sanders, who was reelected as an Independent from Vermont. Sanders is the only member of Congress who won in 1994 who is not named in the book.
A table labeled "1994 Black Major Party Nominees for Federal Office" states that Democratic candidate Walter Tucker (for U.S. House, California) was "unopposed", when actually he had a Libertarian opponent who received 22%.
The book even says that 100% of the independent voters voted Democratic and Republican! A chart on page 75 says that in 1994, 42% of the independent voters voted Democratic, and 58% voted Republican.
2. Federal Elections 94 is free from the Federal Election Commission (Public Records Division), 999 E St., NW, Washington DC 20463, (800) 424-9530. At 143 pages, this is the biggest FEC election returns book ever. For the first time, it includes all congressional primaries, for all parties which conducted primaries.
There is a chart which shows the nationwide vote for U.S. Senate for the Democratic and Republican Parties, and the "other" vote; oddly enough, there is no analogous chart for the U.S. House.
3. Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 8, 1994 is free from the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515, (202) 225-7000. This is the latest volume in a series which has appeared every year since 1920. It is 50 pages and has the general election vote for all candidates for Congress, both Houses. It also contains charts at the back, totaling up the national vote cast for each party, for each house of Congress.
CityVote now is assured of operating in these cities on November 7, 1995: Boston, Ma; Minneapolis & St. Paul, Mn; Baltimore, Md; Tucson, Az; Spokane & Olympia, Wa; Pasadena, Ca; Moscow, Id; and many smaller cities. CityVote expects to add San Francisco and San Diego, Ca; Houston, Tx; Rochester, NY; and Burlington, Vt.
CityVote is a new type of presidential primary. Held simultaneously with city elections, it will include all eligible presidential candidates on a single ballot, without regard to party. See the Feb. 9, 1995 B.A.N. for details as to how candidates qualify for the ballot. So far, the only third party presidential candidates who have raised enough money to qualify are Harry Browne, who is seeking the Libertarian nomination, and John Hagelin, who is seeking the Natural Law nomination.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIB'T | PATRIOT | NAT. LAW | TAXP'R | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | finished | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 2 | Sep 2 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | *200 | already on | *600 | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Arizona | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | *10,300 | 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) *2,000 | *40,000 | already on | Oct 24 95 | Aug 9 |
| Colorado | no procedure | 0 | 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) *150 | (reg) *10 | (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 | *800 | 0 | Apr 24 | Sep 6 |
| Idaho | 9,644 | 4,822 | already on | can't start | can't start | can't start | Aug 31 | Aug 26 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | already on | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | 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 | can't start | can't start | De 14 95 | Jun 4 |
| Maryland | 10,000 | (es) 75,000 | *already on | 0 | 0 | *1,500 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Massachusettes | (reg) 34,000 | 10,000 | already on | (reg) 13 | 0 | 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 | *3,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 27 |
| Nevada | 3,761 | 3,761 | already on | 0 | already on | 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 | 0 | 0 | Jul 9 | Sep 10 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | can't start | 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 | *1,200 | 0 | *1,000 | *4,000 | Nv 20 95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | *4,500 | 0 | 0 | *1,000 | May 31 | Jul 15 |
| Oregon | 18,316 | 14,601 | already on | already on | 0 | 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 | already on | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 1 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | already on | 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 |
Green is on in Ak, Ca, Me, NM, and has *2,500 in Hi. Other nationally-organized parties already on: Grassrts in Vt.; New Pty in Wis.; Wrkrs World in Mi. "FULL PARTY REQ." 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 on" 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.
On June 9, 1995, the California Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and ruled that two pieces of real property (one in San Francisco and one in San Jose) do not belong to the Communist Party. Communist Party v 522 Valencia, Inc., et al., no. A063319.
Decades ago, the Communist Party placed its bookstores and other property in the names of various dummy corporations, and gave control of those corporations to long-time, loyal members of the party. This was because the party feared that if it owned property in its own name, at some point, the federal government might confiscate it.
In 1992 the party suffered major defections, including, by happenstance, the people who controlled the corporations which owned the property. Back in August 1993 the Superior Court had ruled that the assets of the corporation really belong to the Communist Party, but the Appeals Court said there was no basis in law for that decision, and ruled against the Party.
1. On May 9, Libertarian Finlay Rothhaus was elected Town Selectman of Merrimack, New Hampshire, placing first for two seats, with 1,892 votes.
2. On June 6, Karen Mayo, a founding member of the Green Party of Maine, was elected Selectperson of Bowdoinham. She defeated her only opponent 270-180.
3. On June 13, Ernest Walker, a Libertarian member of the Sparks, Nevada city council, was defeated for re-election in a run-off election by 4,941 - 5,227.
1. ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, has been for fair ballot access since 1940, when it resolved that petition requirements be no greater than of one-tenth of 1%. 132 W. 43rd St., New York NY 10036, (212) 944-9800.
2. CENTER FOR A NEW DEMOCRACY sponsors lawsuits to permit different parties to nominate the same candidate ("fusion"). 410 7th St. SE, Washington DC 20003, (202) 543-0773.
3. CENTER FOR VOTING & DEMOCRACY, for proportional representation. 6905 5th St., NW #200, Washington DC 20012, (202) 882-7378.
4. COFOE, Coalition for Free & Open Elections. A coalition of political parties and other organizations fighting for civil rights for people who support third parties and independent candidates. Bx 20263, London Terrace Sta., New York NY 10011. (212) 691-0776.
5. COALITION TO END THE PERMANENT CONGRESS, favors more competitive elections for Congress, including easier ballot access. PO Bx 12793, Columbus OH 43212. (800) 737-0014.
6. COMMITTEE FOR PARTY RENEWAL, Political scientists and others who believe that strong pa ties are needed for popular control of government. Dr. Bill Mayer, Pol. Sci., Northeastern Univ., Boston MA 02115, (617) 373-4410.
7. THE DEMOCRACY PROJECT, gathers evidence that the U.S. violates an agreement it signed in 1990, pledging not to discriminate for or against political parties. Bob Waldrop, 1417 NW 21st St., Oklahoma City OK 73106, tel. (405) 521-8831.
8. FOUNDATION FOR FREE CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS, Funds lawsuits which attack bad ballot access laws. Donations are tax-deductible. Write Richard Winger, 3201 Baker St., San Francisco Ca 94123.
9. ROSS-GREEN ASSOCIATES, initiated the Conyers ballot access bill (it has no bill number yet) and has a lobbying office at 1010 Vermont, #811, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 638-4858.