Ballot Access News -- December 12, 1996

Volume 12, Number 10

This issue was originally printed on white paper.

Table of Contents
  5. 1998 REQUIREMENTS UP (table)
  6. ABOVE 1998 CHART
  10. GUAM
  13. 1996 REGISTRATION TOTALS (table)
  14. U.S. SENATE VOTE (table)
  24. Subscription Information



On December 4, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McKenna v Twin Cities Area New Party, 95-1608, over whether the First Amendment protects the right of two political parties to jointly nominate a single candidate, and have both party labels on the ballot next to that candidate's name. This Minnesota case involved a 1994 state legislative race; the candidate, Andy Dawkins, wanted to be listed on the November ballot as the nominee of the Democratic and New Parties.

The decision will be out in the spring of 1997. Most reporters who tried to predict the outcome, suggested that the Court will rule against "fusion".

Eight justices asked questions or made comments (Justice Clarence Thomas didn't speak). The justices monopolized the hour set aside for the case; neither Richard Slowes, for Minnesota, nor Laurence Tribe, for the New Party, had any time to speak, other than to respond to comments from the justices.

As the court below had struck down the fusion ban, Slowes spoke first, since he had filed the appeal. Immediately he was pressed to explain why he felt that fusion causes voter confusion, as his brief had asserted. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Ginsburg doubted that fusion really causes voter confusion. Slowes said that Connecticut voters are confused by fusion, but he didn't elaborate.

Finally, Slowes said that voter confusion isn't the chief reason why fusion should be banned, and that the real reason why it should be banned is to prevent the creation of "bogus" political parties, created simply to bolster the campaigns of certain major party nominees. He suggested the "No New Taxes Party" or the "Tough on Crime Party" might be created, just to assist the campaigns of Democratic or Republican nominees.

Stevens said that in 1952, there had been some discussion that both the Democratic and Republican Parties might wish to nominate Dwight Eisenhower for president, and asked if the First Amendment should protect the right of major parties to jointly nominate the same person for president.

Before Slowes could answer, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that California had banned cross-filing, and wondered if California's ban might have been a violation of the First Amendment ("cross-filing" is simply another term for fusion, and refers to a candidate filing in the primary of his or her own party, and filing in the primary of another party as well). Naturally, Slowes said that the First Amendment does not require a state to permit cross-filing.

Souter stated that Slowes' answers seem reasonable, and that he might be inclined to agree, except that history shows that fusion was banned in most states during the decade after 1896, to squelch the Peoples Party, not because of any worries about voter confusion or bogus parties. Slowes responded that it isn't fair to look back so many years, and that these assertions (which were supported by a group of historians, who testified for the New Party) are not proven.

Scalia Reveals Bias

Justice Antonin Scalia, in an incredulous tone, then demanded to know if Slowes was actually conceding that "favoring a two-party system" is not a legitimate state interest. Scalia clearly was stating that, in his opinion, the fusion ban could properly be defended as a tool to squelch new and minor parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of very hostile rulings in the last twenty-five years, which have upheld official discrimination against minor parties.

However, none of these hostile decisions has ever claimed that there is a legitimate state interest in a "two-party system". That term has not been used in any Supreme Court decision, upholding a state ballot access law. The idea that there is a state interest in upholding a two-party system was rebutted in Williams v Rhodes, the 1968 decision which overturned the Ohio ballot access laws. Even Scalia has never mentioned the term "two-party system" in any ballot access opinion or dissent, although he has mentioned that term in patronage cases.

Breyer Shares the Bias?

Justice Stephen Breyer (who had a bad record on ballot access when he was on the Second Circuit) then asked, "Suppose I think that the case is all about the advantages of a two-party system." Breyer also said, "There are a lot of state rules which disadvantage third parties". In the give-and-take that followed, Breyer admitted that New York state (which is famous for using fusion) "is not Fourth Republic France or Italy".

Laurence Tribe's Turn

Tribe, a famous Harvard Law Professor, was prepared to rebut Minnesota's brief. However, the Justices weren't interested in that, since they didn't care about the points in Minnesota's brief. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Breyer pressed Tribe to explain why a state can't simply structure its election laws to squelch new and minor parties. Tribe didn't seem to be prepared for that, and his answers were not satisfying.

Scalia insisted that the ban on fusion has "successfully preserved the two-party system" and then said that New York, which permits fusion, "is a three-party system". He didn't name the three major parties of New York; presumably he thinks the Conservative Party is a major party.

It is true that the Conservative Party nominee for U.S. Senator in 1970 defeated his Republican and Democratic opponents, but the party hasn't duplicated that feat since then for any federal or state office, and only 1.6% of New York state voters are registered members of the party.

Justice Breyer (who is from Connecticut, another state which permits fusion) made a long statement that fusion bans injure minor parties, but that it may be legitimate for a state to write its election laws to injure minor parties.

Justice Sandra O'Connor chimed in to say "The key First Amendment value is the freedom to vote for anyone" (this is ironic, since she voted in favor of a ban on write-in space on ballots in Burdick v Takushi in 1992).

Scalia demanded to know, "What about the right not to participate in fusion?", ignoring the fact that plaintiffs only argue that fusion must be permitted when the candidate and both political parties involved, wish it to occur. Scalia also insisted that it is impossible for election law to be neutral toward minor parties, that it either fosters them, or suppresses them. Clearly, he isn't aware of U.S. election laws prior to the 1890's, which were strictly neutral.

Near the end, Justice Anthony Kennedy again raised the idea that fusion causes voter confusion. He said that California voters had 200 items to vote on in last month's election, and that voters are already overburdened (Kennedy is from California, and he ought to know that no California voter had more than four partisan races to vote on, at the November 5, 1996 election. There were also fifteen state questions, and local non-partisan elections and local ballot questions, but no voter in California had more than 30 or 40 decisions to make).

The hearing ended abruptly, with Tribe given virtually no opportunity to put this case in the context in which it belongs, protection for the First Amendment rights of political parties in general. At no time in the hearing were the other party rights cases mentioned.

This is a party rights case. The other party rights cases in the Supreme Court have all been brought by major parties, and they have all won, against state election laws. When the Court hears a party rights case involving the major parties, it properly looks at the language of the First Amendment itself, and then it writes a good decision.

But when a minor party raises a party rights case, suddenly some Justices forget about the Constitution. Instead, they think that they are applying political science, and that it is sophisticated to defend discrimination against minor parties because such discrimination is necessary for the good of society.

Real Political Science

The irony is that no leading political scientist who studies political party systems, believes that it is necessary to squelch minor parties, in order to "defend" the two-party system. The true definition of "two-party system" is a system in which two particular parties are much bigger than all the others; it doesn't mean a system in which minor parties have atrophied into non-existence. The last leading political scientist who believed that it is socially useful to squelch minor parties was Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, but he changed his mind over five years ago, and now advocates that election laws treat minor parties equitably.

Breyer's allusion to the French Fourth Republic and to Italy is flawed. The governments of France in the Fourth Republic, and Italy, were famous for instability. Both used a parliamentary system, with no popularly-elected chief executive.

Thus, whenever a majority in the national legislative body lost confidence in its own leader, that leader fell from power. The problem was solved in France by changing to a system with an elected president. There continued to be just as many parties in France as there had been before, but, instantly, the instability problem was cured. The problems in France and Italy were problems of a parliamentary system versus a presidential system, not a problem of the number of political parties.

Fusion for Major Parties

Another irony of this case is that major parties sometimes desire to jointly nominate candidates. There were "Republican-Democrat" or "Democrat-Republican" nominees on the ballot in 1994 or 1996 in Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, California and New Hampshire. Thus, fusion, as a constitutional issue, sometimes has nothing to do with minor parties. It would have been desirable if the first fusion case in the U.S. Supreme Court was over whether the Democratic and Republican Parties are free to jointly nominate a candidate. If the Court had such a case, it might have been able to look at the issue without being distracted by its own hostility and bias against minor parties.


On November 18, the Maine Green Party filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a ruling that the party is still a qualified party, even though its presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, did not receive 5% of the presidential vote last month. Maine Green Party v Secretary of State, 96-cv-261-B-C.

The Maine law is ambiguous, and states that if a party polled 5% for either Governor or President, it is qualified. Maine last elected a Governor in 1994 and at that election, the party polled over 5%. Since the next gubernatorial election is in 1998, the party argues that it is still qualified.

On November 20, the state promised not to de-certify the party until the lawsuit is settled. If the party wins this case, it will be the first time a federal court has ever awarded a victory to any third party, on the issue of how a party remains on the ballot.


(See also this update.)

On November 21, the California Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against the new California blanket primary law, created by an initiative in the March 1996 primary. California Democratic Party v Jones, civ-5-96-2038. The Republican Party is expected to file a similar lawsuit next month.


On Saturday, November 2, only two days before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a dramatic victory to the terms limits movement. The Court ordered Arkansas to count the votes for a term limits initiative.

The initiative says that ballot labels should be placed on ballots, indicating whether candidates for Congress and state legislature support a constitutional amendment to limit Congressional terms. Arkansas Term Limits v Donovan, no. A-310.

On October 21, the Arkansas Supreme Court had ruled that the initiative would violate the U.S. Constitution, and therefore a vote on the initiative should not be permitted. Since it was too late to remove the initiative from the ballot, the Arkansas Court ruled that the votes on that initiative should not be counted. Donovan v Priest, 96-1120. After the U.S. Supreme Court countermanded this order, the amendment passed with 61%.

Similar initiatives passed in Alaska (54%), Colorado (54%), Idaho (56%), Maine (58%), Missouri (58%), Nebraska (58%), Nevada (53%), and South Dakota (68%). They lost in Montana (45%), North Dakota (47%), Oregon (45%), Washington (45%), and Wyoming (54%). (Wyoming requires an initiative to get a majority of votes from all voters who appear at the polls).

The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court felt that Arkansas voters should get a chance to vote on the initiative, does not necessarily mean that the Court thinks the initiative is constitutional. In order to be upheld, the backers of these initiatives will need to establish that they are consistent with Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which says that only state legislatures can amend the U.S. Constitution). Also, the backers must establish that the initiatives are consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments; they will be attacked for discriminating against candidates for Congress and state legislature who oppose congressional term limits, since the mandatory language on the ballot next to their names is somewhat pejorative.

1998 REQUIREMENTS UP (table)

See this note about tables.

STATE 1994 1998
Alabama 12,157 36,060
Alaska 2,586 2,453
Arizona 19,827 18,726
Arkansas 28,520 10,000
California (reg) 78,992 (reg) 89,007
Colorado 1,000 1,000
Connecticut 11,412 7,500
Delaware (reg) 159 *(reg) 195
D. C. 3,000 3,000
Florida 196,255 242,337
Georgia 31,771 38,113
Hawaii 4,645 5,450
Idaho 9,643 9,835
Illinois 25,000 25,000
Indiana 29,909 29,822
Iowa 1,500 1,500
Kansas 15,661 16,418
Kentucky 5,000 5,000
Louisiana (reg) 112,443 *(reg)125,000
Maine 4,000 4,000
Maryland 79,183 *80,000
Massachusetts 10,000 10,000
Michigan 25,646 30,891
Minnesota 2,000 2,000
Mississippi 0 0
Missouri 10,000 10,000
Montana 9,473 10,599
Nebraska 5,865 5,773
Nevada 4,920 4,498
New Hampshire 3,000 3,000
New Jersey 800 800
New Mexico 5,700 8,342
New York 15,000 15,000
North Carolina 51,904 51,324
North Dakota 7,000 7,000
Ohio 49,399 *44,333
Oklahoma 69,518 60,336
Oregon 16,681 18,316
Pennsylvania 23,294 *28,000
Rhode Island 1,000 1,000
South Carolina 10,000 10,000
South Dakota 6,419 7,792
Tennessee 19,759 37,179
Texas 38,900 43,963
Utah 300 300
Vermont 0 0
Virginia 14,871 *15,000
Washington 9,297 *9,500
West Virginia 4,044 5,225
Wisconsin 2,000 2,000
Wyoming 8,000 8,000
SIGNATURES 905,859 986,385
MEMBERS 191,594 214,202
PRIMARY VOTES 9,297 9,500
TOTAL 1,106,750 1,210,087

* -- Estimate. See below for more explanation of these figures.


The above chart is headed "1998 Requirements Up". It shows the number of signatures (or, in a few states, the number of registered members) to place the statewide candidate of a new (or previously unqualified) party on the general election ballot, with the party label.

Some states have more than one method to do this; in this case, the easier method is shown. In Montana and West Virginia, the number of signatures depends on which office is being sought. The chart assumes the new party is running candidates for U.S. House (neither state has any statewide state offices, nor a U.S. Senate seat, up in 1998).

An asterisk (*) means that the requirement is only an estimate.

In Washington state, the chief hurdle for getting on the general election ballot, is to poll a certain number of votes in the primary. The chart shows this number.

Requirements Up Sharply

The chart compares 1998 requirements with 1994 requirements. 1996 is not featured, because the requirements for new party presidential candidates, are significantly easier than they are for new party candidates for other statewide office, so featuring a presidential election year would distort the trend.

The worst increase is in Florida, where the requirement is 3% of the number of registered voters. The number increased by 46,082 signatures. The number of registered voters in Florida is much higher now than it was four years ago, due to the "motor-voter" bill of 1993. On the other hand, in some states the requirements dropped, because some requirements are based on turnout, and voter turnout in 1996 was low.

1997 sessions of state legislatures may change the 1998 requirements. Anyone who hopes to persuade his or her state legislature to improve the ballot access laws next year, ought to be seeking a legislative sponsor this month. December is when legislators begin to decide which bills they will introduce in the following year.


On December 5, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law which provides that over half of filing fees paid by Democratic and Republican candidates is rebated back to the candidate's political party, whereas the government keeps all of the fee paid by candidates of other parties. Libertarian Party v Smith, 87,342. The party will ask for a rehearing, and, if that doesn't work, will for U.S. Supreme Court review.

Florida filing fees are 7.5% of the annual salary of the office being sought, which, for Congress, is over $10,000. Since political parties frequently pay filing fees for their candidates, the practical effect of this law is that third parties must pay over $10,000 to run a candidate for Congress, whereas major parties pay less than $5,000. In Florida, a "major party" is a party with registration membership of at least 5% of the state total. No third party in any state has managed to hold registration membership of 5%, since the 1910's decade. Therefore, for all practical purposes, only the Democrats and Republicans can ever receive lower fees.

The opinion does not discuss any U.S. Supreme Court precedents, nor does it cite any books, studies, or testimony of anyone knowledgeable about political parties. Instead, it merely asserts that the discriminatory treatment "is reasonably related to the state's important interest in strengthening and encouraging major parties, and thereby discouraging minor parties, as a means of preventing factionalism and the multiplicity of splinter groups... We are faced with the fact that the legislature has set up an affirmative scheme to support and encourage major parties by returning to these parties a substantial portion of their filing fees...This requirement, of course, fosters only the participation in the political arena of stable, established parties. We cannot disagree that the State has an interest in doing this and this scheme furthers its goal."

The decision was issued "per curiam", which means that the public cannot know which justice wrote it.


Already, some parties are petitioning for ballot status in 1998. The Libertarian Party has 8,000 signatures in North Carolina; the Green Party is almost finished in Utah; and the Reform Party recently qualified in Delaware, too late for 1996 but all set for 1998.


The last B.A.N. carried [incomplete] state-by-state presidential votes, but had no write-ins. Some states have now tallied write-ins:

1. Arizona: Nader 2,062; Phillips 347; Hagelin 153; Collins 36.

2. Florida: Nader 4,096; Hagelin 418; Hollis 21; Harris 12.

3. Georgia: Phillips 145; Collins 15.

4. Idaho: Collins 7.

5. Illinois: Nader 1,447; Dodge 1.

6. Indiana: Nader 895; Phillips 291; Hagelin 118; Hollis 59; Collins 11.

7. Kansas: Nader 914; Collins 112.

8. Kentucky: Nader 701.

9. Maryland: Nader 2,606.

10. Massachusetts: Nader 4,558; Hollis 61; Dodge 4.

11. Michigan: Nader 2,322; Phillips 539.

12. Missouri: Nader 534.

13. Montana: Phillips 152, Collins 20, Hollis 1.

14. North Carolina: Nader 2,108; Phillips 258; Harris 84.

15. Wyoming: Nader 466.


Guam votes for president in November. The vote is only advisory. Guam voted: Clinton 19,265 (59.67%); Dole 12,524 (38.79%); Browne 498 (1.54%).


The Peace & Freedom Party wants the historical record to show that if its electors had won, 24 would have voted for Monica Moorehead, 20 for Mary Cal Hollis, and 10 for Ralph Nader.


1. Alaska: The U.S. Supreme Court still hasn't said whether it will hear the Republican Party's challenge to the open primary, even though all briefs have been in since August.

2. Arizona: On September 12, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that registered voters who have moved (within the same county) since last registering to vote, may sign petitions. Pacuilla v Cochise County Board, 923 P 2d 833.

3. Arkansas: (See also this update.) On November 19, Arkansas Educational TV again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse Forbes v Arkansas Educational TV, the 8th circuit decision which said that if public TV sponsors candidate debates, it must invite all candidates who are on the ballot to that debate.

4. Louisiana: On November 15, 1996, the 5th circuit denied a rehearing in Love v Foster, the decision which had told Louisiana that it must follow federal law, and hold general elections for Congress in November. The state had already filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, on October 28, no. 96-670.

5. Michigan: On August 15, a federal court struck down a city ordinance which made it illegal for anyone to post a campaign sign in a yard, more than 45 days before an election. Dimas v City of Warren, 939 F Supp 554.

6. Ohio: on December 2, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed Miller v State of Ohio, no. 96-471, which said that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

Ohio (2): On October 28, a U.S. District Court upheld a law which requires an independent candidate to submit about 40 times as many signatures, as are needed by candidates seeking a spot on a primary ballot. Miller v Lorain County Bd. of Elections, 1:94cv2012, Cleveland.

7. Oklahoma: on November 18, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against a law which makes it impossible for anyone to register into an unqualified party. Atherton v Ward, no. cv-96-1926A.


(See also this correction.)

See this note about tables.

Dem. Rep. Indp. & Misc. US Tax Reform Libt Green Nat Law other
Alaska 70,008 101,509 224,080 ? ? ? 3,034 ? 16,186
Arizona 911,024 1,012,282 295,499 ? 542 18,418 ? ? - -
California 7,387,504 5,704,536 1,836,846 290,172 108,381 77,675 95,090 84,665 77,216
Colorado 719,082 824,222 739,130 ? ? 2,420 501 ? 148
Connecticut 656,737 455,555 652,448 127 ? 70 2,017 ? 1,488
Delaware 177,728 148,806 91,295 216 299 566 10 431 157
D. C. 282,454 25,463 48,371 ? ? ? ? ? 5,131
Florida 3,728,513 3,309,105 928,492 79 1,557 5,509 731 119 103,772
Iowa 575,560 603,068 563,330 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kansas 423,595 650,566 351,492 - - 936 9,829 - - - - - -
Kentcky 1,475,802 746,174 174,110 ? ? ? ? ? - -
Louisiana 1,654,388 536,147 348,705 ? ? ? ? ? - -
Maine 298,204 271,565 338,631 ? 23,474 ? 2,580 ? - -
Maryland 1,518,248 775,896 289,271 254 425 3,785 ? 98 - -
Massachusetts 1,319,753 476,581 1,651,050 ? ? 8,157 189 49 1,588
Nebraska 384,667 502,030 127,894 - - 174 234 - - 57 - -
Nevada 325,450 329,661 105,854 12,923 35 3,833 9 369 - -
New Hampshire 206,273 276,129 227,627 ? ? 3,207 ? ? - -
New Jersey 1,099,722 866,873 2,354,271 - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Mexico 457,678 281,895 92,380 ? ? 1,407 5,841 ? - -
New York 4,738,254 2,996,511 2,052,021 45,772 70,114 - - - - - - 257,484
North Carolina 2,346,552 1,456,599 511,426 - - 311 2,585 - - 70 - -
Oklahoma 1,169,526 690,611 118,610 - - 129 141 - - - - - -
Oregon 788,001 701,901 390,342 8 440 10,102 1,529 4 1,074
Pennsylvania 3,334,777 2,909,143 537,195 2,994 2,093 14,435 ? ? - -
South Dakota 184,262 223,932 51,121 ? ? 656 ? ? - -
West Virginia 616,207 288,199 66,339 ? ? ? ? ? - -
Wyoming 74,673 140,438 25,379 ? ? 181 ? 40 - -
TOTAL 36,924,642 27,305,397 15,195,035 352,545 208,910 163,210 111,342 85,853 464,244
PERCENT 45.69 33.79 18.80 .44 .26 .20 .14 .11 .57

The parties in the "Other" column are: Alaska Independence in Alaska; Peace and Freedom in California; Populist in Colorado 39, Concerned Citizens in Colorado 109; A Connecticut Party in Connecticut 1,414, Independence in Connecticut 74; A Delaware Party in Delaware; Statehood in D.C. 4,381, Umoja in D.C. 750; these parties in Florida: Independent 101,138, Conservative 1,159, Independence 1,148, American 183, Socialist Workers 107, Reform-Silly 37; these parties in Massachusetts: Interdependent 1,319, Socialist 149, Conservative 81, Prohibition 14, others 25; these parties in New York: Conservative 159,499, Liberal 90,505, Freedom 7,480; Socialist in Oregon.

All data is for October or November 1996, except Maine data, which is for June 1996. November 1996 data for Maine will be reported in the next issue.

States not mentioned above do not provide for voters to register into parties, when they register to vote. Rhode Island registration forms ask the voter to choose a party, but the state does not keep track of how many people join any party.

A dash means that the voters are not permitted to register into a particular party, since the particular party is not, or was not, qualified in that state, and the state won't let people register into unqualified parties. A question mark means that the state has not tabulated the number of registrants in a particular party.

Totals two years ago were: Dem. 34,586,676 (47.13%), Rep. 24,618,092 (33.55%), Indp. & misc. 13,363,803 (18.21%), U.S. Taxpayers 246,951 (.34%), Libertarian 109,001 (.15%), Green 89,566 (.12%), Patriot 41,187 (.06%), other parties 328,833 (.45%).

Totals four years ago were: Dem. 35,616,630 (47.76%), Rep. 24,590,383 (32.97%), Indp. & misc. 13,617,167 (18.26%), U.S.Taxpayers 247,995 (.33%), Green 102,557 (.14%), Libertarian 100,394 (.13%), other parties 306,673 (.41%).

U.S. SENATE VOTE (table)

See this note about tables.

Rep. Dem. Libt. Reform Nat Law Green indp. USTax SWP Other
Alabama 786,436 681,651 21,550 9,123 ?
Alaska 177,893 23,977 29,037
Arkansas 445,942 400,241
Colorado 750,325 677,600 41,620
Delaware 104,982 165,241 3,333 1,693
Georgia 1,073,969 1,103,993 81,262 ? ?
Idaho 283,532 198,422 5,142 10,137
Illinois 1,728,824 2,384,028 41,218 61,023 13,838 4,228 17,563 0
Iowa 571,807 634,166 4,248 11,709 1,844
Kansas 652,677 362,380 13,098 24,145
Kentucky 724,794 560,012 8,595 8,344 5,284
Louisiana 847,157 852,945
Maine 298,422 266,226 23,441 18,618
Massachusetts 1,143,120 1,334,135 ? 7,169 ? 70,007
Michigan 1,500,106 2,195,738 36,911 11,306 ? 18,210
Minnesota 901,282 1,098,493 5,428 152,333 4,321 4,382 1,554 14,139
Mississippi 624,154 240,647 13,861
Montana 182,111 201,935 19,276 4,168
Nebraska 379,933 281,904 9,483 4,806
New Hampshire 242,257 227,355 22,261
New Jersey 1,227,351 1,519,154 ? 23,949 15,183 32,539 14,319 50,971
New Mexico 357,171 164,356 6,064 24,230
North Carolina 1,345,833 1,173,875 25,396 11,209 143
Oklahoma 670,610 474,162 14,595 8,691 15,092
Oregon 677,336 624,370 12,697 20,381 4,425 14,193 5,426
Rhode Island 127,368 230,676 5,327
South Carolina 619,739 510,810 12,988 9,740 7,691
South Dakota 157,954 166,533
Tennessee 1,091,554 664,937 4,104 5,865 22,143
Texas 3,027,477 2,428,673 51,522 19,467 ?
Virginia 1,235,744 1,115,982 ?
West Virginia 139,088 456,526 ?
Wyoming 114,116 89,103 5,289 2,569
TOTAL 24,211,064 23,510,246 375,794 286,898 204,971 106,084 100,230 41,465 17,860 172,614

"?" means the party had a write-in candidate whose votes have not been tallied. See below for more about this chart.


See this note about tables.

Rep. Dem. Libt. Nat Law Amer. L Union Grassrts indp. SWP other
Delaware 82,653 188,323
Indiana 986,982 1,087,128 35,805
Missouri 866,268 1,224,801 51,432
Montana 320,768 76,471 7,936
New Hampshire 196,278 284,131 5,944 10,316
North Carolina 1,097,053 1,436,638 17,559 14,792 143
North Dakota 174,937 89,349 12
Utah 503,693 156,616 2,969 4,741 3,845
Vermont 57,161 179,544 2,916 3,342 4,156 3,667 3,201
Washington 940,538 1,296,492 ?
West Virginia 324,518 287,870 16,171
TOTAL 5,550,849 6,307,363 129,827 21,115 4,741 4,156 3,667 3,201 143 22,097

"?" means the party had a write-in candidate whose votes have not been tallied. See below for more about this chart.


See this note about tables.

Rep. Dem. Libt. Reform Nat Law Green indp. USTax SWP Other
Alabama 52.47 45.48 1.44 .61 w
Alaska 77.04 10.38 12.58
Arkansas 52.70 47.30
Colorado 51.06 46.11 2.83
Delaware 38.14 60.03 1.21 .62
Georgia 47.54 48.87 3.60 w w
Idaho 57.02 39.91 1.03 2.04
Illinois 40.67 56.09 .97 1.44 .33 w .41 w
Iowa 46.72 51.82 .35 .96 .15
Kansas 62.02 34.44 1.24 2.29
Kentucky 55.45 42.85 .66 .64 .40
Louisiana 49.83 50.17
Maine 49.19 43.88 3.86 3.07
Massachusetts 44.75 52.23 w .28 w 2.74
Michigan 39.87 58.36 .98 .30 w .48
Minnesota 41.31 50.34 .25 6.98 .20 .20 .07 .65
Mississippi 71.03 27.39 1.58
Montana 44.69 49.56 4.73 1.02
Nebraska 56.19 41.69 1.40 .71
New Hampshire 49.25 46.22 4.53
New Jersey 42.57 52.68 w .83 .53 1.13 .50 1.77
New Mexico 64.73 29.78 1.10 4.39
North Carolina 52.64 45.92 .99 .44 w
Oklahoma 56.68 40.08 1.23 .73 1.28
Oregon 49.85 45.95 .93 1.50 .33 1.04 .40
Rhode Island 35.05 63.48 1.47
South Carolina 53.37 43.99 1.12 .84 .66
South Dakota 48.68 51.32
Tennessee 61.03 37.18 .23 .33 1.24
Texas 54.77 43.94 .93 .35 w
Virginia 52.55 47.45 w
West Virginia 23.35 76.65 ?
Wyoming 54.06 42.21 2.51 1.22
MEDIAN 51.06 46.11 1.11 1.89 .62 3.86 - - .41 .15 - -

"w" means write-in candidate. Percentages were not worked out for write-ins. See below for more about this chart.


See this note about tables.

Rep. Dem. Libt. Nat Law Amer. L Union Grassrts indp. SWP other
Delaware 30.50 69.50
Indiana 46.78 51.52 1.70
Missouri 40.43 57.17 2.40
Montana 79.17 18.87 1.96
New Hampshire 39.52 57.21 1.20 2.08
North Carolina 42.75 55.98 .68 .58 w
North Dakota 66.19 33.81 w
Utah 74.97 23.31 .44 .71 .57
Vermont 22.51 70.69 1.15 1.32 1.64 1.44 1.26
Washington 42.04 57.96 w
West Virginia 51.63 45.80 2.57
MEDIAN 42.75 55.98 1.45 .58 .71 1.64 1.44 - - - - - -

"w" means write-in candidate. Percentages were not worked out for write-ins. See below for more about this chart.


The first pair of charts above show the vote for all parties, for U.S. Senate and for Gubernatorial races in November 1996. The second pair of charts show percentages, again for the same U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial races. All votes are official except for Delaware. The Kansas entry is for the full U.S. Senate term, not the short term.

The "other" Senate vote is: Massachusetts, Conservative; Michigan, Workers World (12,235) & Socialist Equality (5,975); Minnesta, Grassroots; Mississippi, Independence; New Jersey, Conservative; Oregon, Socialist.

The "other" gubernatorial vote is: Montana, absentee votes cast for the original Democratic nominee, who died in mid-October (the Democrats chose a substitute, whose name appeared on ballots which were hastily reprinted); New Hampshire, Independent Reform; Utah, Independent Party.

"Nat Law" is Natural Law; "SWP" is Socialist Workers Party; "L Union" is Liberty Union.

The next B.A.N. will have charts for U.S. House of Representatives. An oddity of the U.S. House vote is that Democratic candidates cumulatively outpolled Republican candidates, though the Republicans won more seats.


Some partisan elections won by minor parties last month, not mentioned in the last B.A.N., are:

1. Cool Moose, a qualified party only in Rhode Island, elected two town councilmen in Hopkinton. Five were to be elected; Republicans ran a full slate, Democrats ran three candidates, and Cool Moose ran three. The Republicans elected one; the Democrats elected two.

2. The Alabama Libertarian Party elected two constables in Mobile County. They were unopposed.

Previously unmentioned Libertarian Party victories in non-partisan races are: A county supervisor in Calaveras County, Calif.; and a city council seat in Molalla, Oregon.


State chairs of the Reform Party will meet on January 25-26 to organize the party's national committee. The city hasn't been chosen yet.


William D. Plies of Maryland and John Moore of Iowa, both attended the Vienna meeting in late November of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), to present evidence that the U.S. violates the Copenhagen Meeting Document. Plies is an attorney, and Moore was ballot access director for the Natural Law Party in both 1992 and 1996. They found foreign observers to be interested, but seemingly too intimidated to criticize the U.S. A fuller report will be in the next B.A.N.


The Socialist Workers Party has been exempt from reporting the names of its campaign contributors, and its expenditures, ever since it won a U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit on this point in 1982. The basis for the exemption has been that when supporters of the party are publicly identified, they are subject to harassment. Long ago, the FEC ruled that the exemption would expire at the end of 1996. The SWP recently asked the FEC for a continuation.


On November 14, the Federal Election Commission refused to recognize the Green Party National Committee as a bona fide national committee. National committees which the FEC does recognize are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, U.S. Taxpayers, and Natural Law.

The reasons given by the FEC for its refusal to recognize the Green Committee, are that Ralph Nader wasn't a true "candidate" for president, because he didn't spend $5,000; and also that the Green Party didn't run enough congressional candidates. Probably the real reason the FEC denied the request, is that the FEC is aware that there are two rival groups, each seeking recognition as the Green Party National Committee, and the FEC didn't know how to choose between them.

The two rival groups are The Greens/Green Party USA, PO Box 100, Blodgett Mills, NY 13738, (607)-758-5417; and the Association of State Green Parties, c/o Bert Garskof, (203)-393-3213; e-mail:

Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger Note: subscriptions are available!
Go back to the index.
Compilation copyright (c) 1996 Bob Bickford