Ballot Access News -- December 1, 1999

Volume 15, Number 9

This issue was originally printed on light blue paper.

Table of Contents
  1. D.C. GOVERNMENT IMPROVES PARTY RETENTION LAW
  2. PARTY RIGHTS VICTORY
  3. KENTUCKY REFORM VOTE RAISES LEGAL QUESTIONS
  4. NO FEC ACTION YET
  5. BAD ARKANSAS RULING
  6. VIRGINIA PARTY LABELS
  7. MAINE PASSES WRITE-IN FILING LAW
  8. INSTANT RUNOFF GAINS
  9. OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
  10. REFORM EASES RULE
  11. ELECTRONIC PETITIONS?
  12. MISSISSIPPI ELECTION
  13. POST OFFICE SIDEWALKS
  14. GOOD BILLS NEXT YEAR
  15. BOOK NOTE
  16. 2000 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT (table)
  17. PARTISAN ELECTION VICTORIES
  18. CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
  19. NON-PARTISAN ELECTION VICTORIES
  20. SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION
  21. WORKERS WORLD PARTY NOMINATES
  22. MINNESOTA REFORM PARTY
  23. Subscription Information

D.C. GOVERNMENT IMPROVES PARTY RETENTION LAW

NEW RULE PUTS GREEN PARTY ON BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT

On November 18, Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams signed Bill 13-142. It deletes an old law which says that, for purposes of the presidential election, the only parties automatically on the ballot are those which have elected a President since 1950. The new law says that any party which polled 7,500 votes for a partisan district-wide office in the last election is automatically on the ballot for president.

The District of Columbia election law already had a rule that a party which polled 7,500 votes was a qualified party, but this law didn't pertain to presidential elections. Under the new law, the 7,500-vote standard applies to all office.

The new law will not take effect until the Authority Board approves it, but no one expects the Authority Board to object to the new law. The Authority Board usually clears new laws within two weeks. The Board, whose members are appointed by Congress, exists to oversee the District's finances.

After the Authority Board clears a new law, Congress has 30 legislative days to veto it. Since Congress has adjourned for calendar year 1999, and will not sit again until January 24, 2000, the new law won't take effect until (probably) March 2000.

The old District of Columbia law was written by Congress in 1961. It was the last party retention law in the U.S. which, in effect, guaranteed ballot position to the Democratic and Republican Parties into perpetuity, not withstanding that either of those parties might cease to exist some day. Since no one can change the past, it will always be true that the Democratic and Republican Parties have, indeed, elected a President since the year 1950, and therefore they would forever into the future be qualified for the presidential ballot in the District, no matter what might happen to them in the future.

Similar laws once existed in Florida, North Carolina, and North Dakota, but all have been repealed. Florida in 1949 provided that any party which had elected a president since 1900 should be on the ballot automatically for president. The American Party filed a lawsuit against this law in 1972. Although a 3-judge U.S. District Court refused by a vote of 2-1 to issue an injunction against it, the legislature repealed it in 1977.

North Carolina in 1901 provided that any party which had polled 50,000 votes for Governor in 1900 should automatically be on the ballot. This law was repealed in 1929.

North Dakota in 1905 named the Democratic and Republican Parties in its election code and said that they are automatically on the ballot. This was repealed in 1997.

The Statehood Green Party and the Umoja Party are the only minor parties qualified under the new D.C. law. The Umoja Party is only concerned with local issues, and probably will not nominate for president. However, the Statehood Green Party is expected to nominate whomever the national Green Party chooses for president next year. The Statehood Green Party is the name of the party which resulted from a recent merger of the Statehood Party and the Green Party.


PARTY RIGHTS VICTORY

On November 1, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia ruled that the First Amendment protects a political party's right to decide for itself who can seek its presidential nomination. Specifically, the court ruled that if the Voting Rights Act were interpreted to require a political party to get permission from the U.S. Justice Department before passing a rule excluding a particular candidate from receiving delegates, then the Act would be unconstitutional.

The case is LaRouche v Fowler, c-96-1816. The decision is unsigned, but was issued by Judges Thomas P. Jackson and David Sentelle (Reagan appointees) and Henry Kennedy (a Clinton appointee). The Democratic National Committee passed a rule in 1996 saying that primary votes for Lyndon LaRouche should not count toward selecting Delegates. LaRouche would have won a delegate from Louisiana and Virginia if this rule had not existed, so he filed a lawsuit against the party for not having "cleared" the rule with the U.S. Justice Department first.

Under the Voting Rights Act, Virginia and Louisiana may not change their election laws unless the U.S. Justice Department approves. Back in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political party rules in "covered" states are also covered by the Voting Rights Act. The 1996 case, Morse v Republican Party, said the Virginia Republican Party couldn't change the amount of fees for delegates to its state convention, unless it first got permission from the Justice Department.

However, in the recent LaRouche case, the judges held that presidential elections are different from other elections . They wrote, "Here, we have the state parties administering internal national party rules governing who, as a Democrat, can be a candidate for president. This would appear to fall within the core associational rights of a political party....While the Voting Rights Act is unarguably a statute of importance, it should not be read to extend coverage that would interfere with core associational rights; specifically here, internal national party rules as followed by state parties in a covered jurisdiction...We are guided by the principle that we should construe statutes so as to avoid constitutional questions. It is our plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity."


KENTUCKY REFORM VOTE RAISES LEGAL QUESTIONS

On November 2, 1999, Kentucky elected a Governor. The unofficial results are:

Democratic 354,052 61.1%
Republican 129,450 22.3%
Reform 89,234 15.4%
Natural Law 6,994 1.2%

Kentucky law provides for two tiers of qualified parties: (1) major parties, which nominate by primary, are those which polled 20% for President at the last election; (2) minor parties, which nominate by convention, are those which polled 2% for President. Ever since 1996, the Reform Party has been a qualified minor party.

Although voters have been free to register as members of the Reform Party, Kentucky classifies such voters as "independents", and the computerized records don't indicate how many voters are registered "Reform", or who they are. The Kentucky Reform Party is the only qualified party in the nation (in a state in which voters register into parties) which is unable to learn who its registered members are.

For some time, the Reform Party of Kentucky has been unhappy that it doesn't know how many registered voters it has, or who they are. Now it believes it has a legal device to force the state to provide this data. The Kentucky presidential primary law says that any party which polled 10% for Governor may have a presidential primary. Therefore, the Reform Party argues, the state must provide it with a presidential primary on May 23, when the Democratic and Republican Parties hold their primary. If the state provides a presidential primary to the Reform Party, then the state will need to identify who the Reform Party registrants are.

The Kentucky Attorney General will soon decide whether the Reform Party is entitled to its own presidential primary. The decision turns on the definition of "party". The election code defines "party" as a major party, which suggests that a qualified minor party isn't a "party", but a "political organization".


NO FEC ACTION YET

The Federal Election Commission still hasn't placed on its agenda, the rule-making petition that the FEC itself set criteria on who should be invited into presidential debates sponsored by tax-exempt organizations. The matter was open to public comment in July, and the FEC received an unprecedentedly high number of public comments. At some point the FEC must decide whether it will act on the idea or not.


BAD ARKANSAS RULING

On October 28, the Arkansas Attorney General ruled that the number of signatures needed for a new party is 21,181, not 10,000. Arkansas law says the number of signatures needed for a new party is 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, which is 21,181. However, in 1996, a U.S. District Court declared that number of signatures to be unconstitutional. Judge George Howard ruled that since the state only requires 10,000 signatures for a statewide independent candidate (for office other than president), therefore there is no reason to require more than that for new parties.

The Attorney General Opinion acknowledges that the judge struck down the number of signatures in a specific finding of law. However, in another part of the judge's decision is this sentence: "The combined effect of the early deadline in conjunction with the 3% requirement places an unreasonable burden on federally protected constitutional rights." Based on this sentence, the Attorney General argues that since the state did improve the petition deadline, it need not reduce the number of signatures.

Any party is free to bring a new lawsuit, arguing that the earlier court decision clearly struck down the number of signatures. However, in order to have standing, such a party will need to submit 10,000 signatures. The legal period for collecting these signatures starts December 3, 1999 and ends May 1, 2000.

Before 1971, Arkansas didn't require any signatures to qualify a new party. Since 1971, the Reform Party has been the only party to successfully complete the new party petition.


VIRGINIA PARTY LABELS

Virginia has used government-printed general election ballots ever since 1894, but those ballots have never carried party labels (except that since 1948, party labels are provided for presidential candidates). Virginia is the only state with such a policy.

On November 2, 1999, the Republicans captured both houses of the Virginia legislature, for the first time in this century. Therefore, when the legislature convenes next year, it is expected to pass a bill providing for party labels. Republicans have long sought this reform, believing that party labels will help them; but they have never before been able to pass the idea because Democrats have blocked it.


MAINE PASSES WRITE-IN FILING LAW

On June 7, 1999, Maine Governor Angus King signed LD 717 into law. It provides that write-in candidates who desire to have their write-ins tallied, must file a declaration of write-in candidacy. Maine becomes the 32nd state with such a law. These laws are advantageous to small political parties, since if they are unable to place their candidates on the ballot, at least they can learn how many write-ins their candidates receive.


INSTANT RUNOFF GAINS

On November 2, 1999, the voters of Vancouver, Washington, passed a measure to institute Instant Run-off in city elections, 53%-47%. The measure won't be implemented until the city's vote-counting machines can handle that type of voting.

On November 7, the Republican Party of Utah passed a resolution, calling on the state legislature to pass a bill providing for Instant Run-off in state and federal elections. A Republican legislator has already agreed to introduce such a bill next year. Republicans control the Utah legislature, which will convene January 15, 2000.

A measure is pending in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to provide for Instant Run-Off in city elections.


OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS

1. Alaska: on November 26, the Republican, Alaska Independence, and Libertarian Parties asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Ross v State of Alaska. This is the case against the blanket primary, which was imposed on the parties without their consent.

2. Arkansas: on July 30, a U.S. District Court upheld state law that only registered voters may sign initiative petitions. Hoyle v Priest, 59 F Supp 2d 827.

3. California (1): on December 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear California Democratic Party v Jones, 99-401. This is the case brought by four political parties against the blanket primary. If the Court comes to a decision on that day as to whether to accept the case, that decision will be made public on December 6. However, the Court may want to wait until it looks at the Alaska brief as well, so there may be a delay.

California (2): on November 4, the 9th circuit heard Schaefer v Townsend, 98-55718, over whether states can require candidates for Congress to be registered voters of the state in which they desire to run, on the day when candidates must file (the U.S. Constitution merely says that Congressmen must be residents of the state by election day). The judges assigned to the case are Diarmuid O'Scannlain and John Noonan, Reagan appointees, and Harry Pregerson, a Carter appointee. The hearing seemed to go well for the candidate-plaintiff.

4. Colorado: the 10th circuit will hear oral arguments in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign v Federal Election Commission, no. 99-1211, on January 18, 2000. The lower court had ruled that a federal law, limiting how much money parties can spend on their congressional campaigns, is unconstitutional.

5. Delaware: on October 4, a constitutional challenge to a state law, forbidding anonymous campaign literature, was filed in state court. Anonymous v Delaware, 17453NC.

6. Guam: on December 6, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gutierrez v Ada, 99-51, over who won the last election for Governor of Guam. The Democrat received the most votes, but the law requires that candidates for Governor must receive a majority. The Democrat did receive a majority of votes cast by people who voted for Governor. However, the 9th circuit ruled that people who placed a ballot in the box, but who didn't vote for Governor, must be included as well, and when these blank votes are included, no one received a majority.

7. Iowa: on August 13, the 8th circuit granted an injunction against a state law which regulates independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate. The law requires candidates who are the beneficiaries of independent expenditures to "disavow" the independent message within 72 hours after it is made. If the candidate does not do so, the expenditure is assumed to have been made by the candidate. Iowa Right to Life Committee v Williams, 187 F 3d 963.

8. Maine: on November 5, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby, a Bush appointee, upheld Maine's public financing law for candidates who agree to spending caps. Dagget v Webster, 98-223-BH. Maine's law, passed by an initiative and labeled the "Clean Elections Act", is similar to Vermont and Arizona laws which are also under court attack. The judge didn't rule on one part of the case (lower limits on campaign contributions for candidates who opt out of public funding), since in a few months there will be a U.S. Supreme Court decision on limits on campaign contributions in general.

9. Nebraska: on November 19, the State Supreme Court struck down a state law that names and addresses placed on initiative petitions must be exact matches with the information on voter registration records. State ex rel Stenberg v Moore, S-98-983. The decision was based on a provision in the State Constitution which says that the legislature can't pass additional hurdles for initiatives. The decision has no effect on other types of petitions.

10. New York: on October 29, a U.S. District Court upheld a New York city ordinance, requiring candidates for the city council who wish to qualify for matching campaign funds, to apply by July 1. Ostrom v O'Hare, 99-6987ed. The plaintiff-candidate, Sonya Ostrom, and the Green Party, had argued that since the Green Party is newly-qualified and wasn't able to nominate candidates until September, the deadline should be extended for its candidates. The party is appealing.

11. Northern Mariana Islands: on July 2, a group of voters asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its lawsuit over legislative reapportionment. Torres v Sablan, 99-475. The issue is whether the "one man, one vote" principles announced by the Court in the 1960s (mandating equal representation when legislative district boundaries are drawn) apply to U.S.-associated commonwealths. The 9th circuit had ruled that commonwealths need not use equal population principles for their own legislatures. The U.S. Supreme Court still hasn't said whether it will hear the case.

12. Ohio: on November 24, a federal Magistrate asked for supplemental briefs in Schrader v Blackwell, the case over whether states must let candidates who use the independent candidate ballot access procedure, choose a partisan label to be printed next to their names on the November ballot.

13. Pennsylvania: on November 15, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear In re Barkman, 99-495, over whether independents may vote in partisan primaries even when the political parties don't wish them to. The lower state court had refused to let the plaintiff, a registered independent, vote in the Democratic or Republican primary.

14. Puerto Rico: On July 7, a U.S. District Court upheld a law that only notaries may circulate a petition to place a new party on the ballot. The restriction has existed since 1978, and ever since then, no new party has managed to qualify. Civil Action Party v State Electoral Commission. The party has filed an appeal with the First Circuit.


REFORM EASES RULE

On November 7, the Reform Party issued detailed rules on how a candidate for the party's presidential nomination may qualify. The rules are far easier than had been expected. The party bylaws, which have been in place for several years, say presidential candidates must engage in petitioning in order to be eligible for the nomination. But the detailed new rules interpret the bylaws in a very lenient manner. A candidate may get "credit" for a state, if he or she merely begins to petition in such a state (but only in cases in which the petition deadline is in August or September).

The new, detailed rules even specify how many signatures a potential candidate must collect in each state. A potential candidate must show some activity in states with at least 141 electoral votes. An analysis of the rules show that a candidate may qualify to be considered for the nomination, if he or she collects only 6,000 signatures in the entire nation, if they are collected in these states, and in these numbers:

Alabama, 100 signatures; Arkansas 192, Hawaii 100, Iowa 150, Maryland 479, Massachusetts 2,417, Nebraska 100, New Jersey 800, Ohio 250, Oregon 300, Tennessee 100, Utah 125, Vermont 100, Virginia 417, Washington 170, Wisconsin 100, Wyoming 100, total 6,000. These states have exactly 141 electoral votes.

In some instances, the petitions above must be party petitions, but the candidate only gets "credit" for his or her share of a party petition, if the party petition has been successful.

The general leniency is good news for any potential presidential candidate who seeks the Reform nomination. In addition to the well-publicized pair Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump, potential candidates also include John B. Anderson, who hinted on November 19 that he might seek the nomination, in order to block Buchanan. Candidates have until July 1 to complete their share of petitioning, in order to qualify for the Reform Party's mail ballot. For more details about the rules, see http://www.reformparty.org/


ELECTRONIC PETITIONS?

On November 9, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to allow the use of electronic signatures in commerce. HB 1714, by Thomas Bliley (R-VA), does not mention elections. However, according to Election Administration Reports, some observers believe that acceptance of electronic signatures for business transactions strongly suggests their potential acceptability, subject to new state laws, for election-related matters such as petitions. A companion bill in the Senate, S.761, is expected to pass the Senate next year.


MISSISSIPPI ELECTION

Mississippi elected all its state officials for four year terms, on November 2, 1999. For Governor, the vote was: Democratic, 379,034, 49.62%; Republican, 370,691, 48.52%; Reform, 8,208, 1.07%; independent, 6,005, .79%.

This was the first time since 1919 that a minor party candidate for Governor, with the party label, had appeared on the Mississippi ballot (the minor party in 1919 was the Socialist Party).

The Mississippi Constitution, since 1890, has required candidates for Governor to poll a majority. This is the first time since that provision has existed, that no one received a majority. The Constitution requires the state House of Representatives to choose the Governor, when it convenes next month.


POST OFFICE SIDEWALKS

Last year, the Postal Service issued a regulation prohibiting all petitioning on post office sidewalks. In response, the Initiative and Referendum Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan group set up to defend the initiative process, is exploring all options for persuading the Postal Service to rescind the ban. The Institute wants to hear from individuals who have petitioned on post office sidewalks. Contact M. Dane Waters at mdanewaters@iandrinstitute.org or (202)-429-5539. The Postal Service still permits voter registration on post office sidewalks.


GOOD BILLS NEXT YEAR

1. Alabama: Rep. Bob McKee will again introduce a bill to lower the number of votes needed for party retention, from 20% to 10%.

2. Georgia: The ballot access improvement bill which was introduced this year, HB 672, is still alive, and its proponents are working very hard for it. See http://www.voterchoice.org/, which has a map of the state, showing the legislative districts in which only one candidate appeared on the ballot in November 1998.

3. Nebraska: Senator DiAnna Schimek will introduce a bill to permit write-ins for president at general elections. The state permits write-ins for all other partisan office, but not president.

4. Oklahoma: HB 1742, which lowers the number of signatures to place a new party on the ballot to 10,000 signatures, failed to move this year, but it could pass next year. Recently, the Reform Party wrote every legislator and asked for support for the bill. Rep. Greg Piatt (R-Ardmore) said he will support the bill. Rep. Darrell Gilbert (D-Tulsa) said, "I cannot support any legislation authored by Rep. Bill Graves, who represents the far extreme right groups. Any legislation authored by him carries extreme views and should be scrutinized extensively before any support should be considered."

5. Utah: The Elections Division will ask the legislature to ease the independent candidate petition in small jurisdictions. This year's legislature increased the independent petition to 300 signatures for district and county office, without realizing that some counties are so small, 300 is 40% of all voters.


BOOK NOTE

The Nov. 8, 1998 B.A.N. reviewed The Natural Law Party, A Reason to Vote, by Robert Roth. The publisher, St. Martin's Press, has just issued an updated paperback version, for $14.95. The book has an in-depth, interesting account of ballot access problems for minor parties. The new title is A Reason to Vote.


2000 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT (table)

STATE REQUIREMENTS SIGNATURES COLLECTED DEADLINE
FULL PARTY CAND. LIB'T REFORM NAT LAW CONSTIT'N GREEN
Alabama 39,536 5,000 *52,000 5,000 0 *1,500 0 Aug 31
Alaska (reg) 6,606 #2,410 already on already on finished *1,000 already on Aug 8
Arizona 13,565 es. #9,500 already on *1,500 already on *800 0 June 29
Arkansas *21,181 #1,000 1,100 0 already on *250 0 Aug 1
California (reg) 86,177 149,692 already on already on already on already on already on Aug 10
Colorado (reg) 1,000 #pay fee already on already on already on already on already on July 10
Connecticut no procedure #7,500 can't start already on can't start can't start already on Aug 11
Delaware es. (reg.) 235 es. 4,700 already on already on already on already on *102 Aug 19
D.C. no procedure es. #3,500 can't start can't start can't start can't start *already on Aug 15
Florida be organized 82,203 already on already on already on already on already on Sep 1
Georgia 39,094 #39,094 already on *1,000 0 0 0 Jul 11
Hawaii 602 #3,703 already on 0 *500 *finished already on Sep 7
Idaho 9,835 4,918 already on already on already on already on 0 Aug 31
Illinois no procedure #25,000 can't start can't start can't start can't start can't start June 26
Indiana no procedure #30,717 already on 0 0 0 0 Jul 17
Iowa no procedure #1,500 0 0 0 *200 0 Aug 17
Kansas 14,854 5,000 already on already on *11,000 already on 0 July 31
Kentucky no procedure #5,000 already on already on 0 0 0 Aug 30
Louisiana est. (reg) 135,000 #pay fee 691 already on 14 40 89 Sep 5
Maine 21,051 #4,000 0 already on 0 0 already on Aug 8
Maryland 10,000 es. 26,000 already on 9,000 finished 1,500 2,300 Aug 7
Massachusetts est. (reg) 37,500 #10,000 already on 2,289 59 0 311 July 31
Michigan 30,272 30,272 already on already on already on finished 0 July 19
Minnesota 104,550 #2,000 0 already on 0 already on 0 Sep 12
Mississippi be organized #1,000 already on already on already on already on 0 Sep 7
Missouri 10,000 10,000 already on already on *already on already on 0 July 31
Montana 5,000 #5,000 already on already on already on *50 0 Aug 1
Nebraska 5,453 2,500 already on 200 *already on 0 0 Aug 28
Nevada 4,099 4,099 already on 0 already on already on 0 July 2
New Hampshire 9,827 #3,000 *8,500 2,500 0 *500 0 Aug 9
New Jersey no procedure #800 0 0 0 *200 0 July 31
New Mexico 2,494 14,964 already on already on 0 50 already on Sep 11
New York no procedure #15,000 can't start already on can't start can't start already on Aug 21
North Carolina 51,324 es. 95,000 already on 3,000 *25 0 0 June 30
North Dakota 7,000 4,000 can't start already on can't start can't start can't start Sep 7
Ohio 33,543 #5,000 *finished 7,500 finished 0 0 Aug 23
Oklahoma 43,680 36,202 *12,800 0 *5,000 0 0 July 15
Oregon 16,663 13,755 already on 800 *12,000 5,000 already on Aug 28
Pennsylvania no procedure es. #22,000 can't start can't start can't start can't start can't start Aug 1
Rhode Island 15,323 #1,000 can't start already on can't start can't start can't start Sep 7
South Carolina 10,000 10,000 already on already on already on already on 0 Aug 1
South Dakota 6,505 #2,602 2,600 0 0 1,500 0 June 20
Tennessee 24,406 25 0 6,000 0 *2,000 0 Aug 17
Texas 37,381 56,117 already on can't start can't start can't start can't start May 28
Utah 2,000 #1,000 already on 0 already on 0 0 Aug 31
Vermont be organized #1,000 already on 0 0 0 0 Sep 20
Virginia no procedure #10,000 can't start can't start can't start can't start can't start Aug 24
Washington no procedure #200 can't start can't start can't start can't start can't start Jul 1
West Virginia no procedure #12,730 already on 0 already on 0 0 Aug 1
Wisconsin 10,000 #2,000 already on can't start can't start already on already on Sep 5
Wyoming 3,485 3,485 already on 0 *3,500 0 0 Aug 28
TOTAL STATES ON 30 21 *16 12 *12

"Deadline" refers to procedure with the LATEST deadline. * -- means entry has changed since last issue. # means that candidate procedure allows a partisan label. Other multi-state parties on the ballot: in Florida, the American Reform, Southern, Socialist Workers and Socialist Parties. The Socialist Party has 150 signatures in New Jersey. The Mountain Party has *5,000 in West Virginia.


PARTISAN ELECTION VICTORIES

(See this update.)

On November 2, minor parties won these partisan offices:

1. Libertarian Party: (1) Phil Miller, Greenfield, Indiana city council; (2) Darren Nolan, Universal City, Indiana city council; (3) Gale Owen, Silver Lake, Indiana town council; (4) Michael Baldwin, Jackson Township Auditor, York Co., Pennsylvania.

2. Reform Party: Roxann Hubler, Hellam Township Auditor, York Co., Pennsylvania.

3. Green Party: (1) Elizabeth Horton-Sheff, Hartford, Connecticut city council; (2) Josh Glasstetter, Ithaca, New York common council, ward 4.

Although the Green victories were both in states which permit fusion, neither of these involved fusion. Both Green winners were on the ballot only as nominees of the Green Party, and no other party. The Connecticut candidate was helped by the fact that Hartford uses "limited voting". Nine seats were up, but no party was permitted to run more than six candidates.


CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

Both California and Michigan election laws provide that the Secretary of State must announce a tentative list of presidential candidates who will appear on primary ballots, in November of the year before the election. For the minor parties entitled to presidential primaries in those states, here is the list:

California

Reform: Donald Trump, Charles Collins, Robert Bowman, and George Weber (Pat Buchanan asked not to be listed); American Independent: Howard Phillips; Green: Ralph Nader; Natural Law: John Hagelin; Libertarian: Harry Browne, L. Neil Smith, Kip Lee, Larry Hines, Dave Hollist.

Michigan

Reform: Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump, Pat Buchanan.

In both states, the list won't be final until late December. Candidates who have been listed may ask to be removed, and candidates who were not listed may petition themselves on to the ballot.


NON-PARTISAN ELECTION VICTORIES

(See this update.)

Minor parties also elected their candidates to non-partisan offices in eight states on November 2:

New Party: (1) Jim McGrath, Lois Herbig and John Torma, Missoula, Mt. city council; (2) Audrey Johnson and Albert Gallmon, Minneapolis, Mn. School Board.

Reform Party: (1) Latham Williams, Sun Valley, Idaho city council; (2) Mike Landy, St. Cloud, Minnesota city council.

Green Party: (1) Russ Stewart, Duluth, Minnesota city council; (2) Lew Tremaine, Fairfax, California city council; (3) Steven Kanner, Iowa City, Iowa city council; (4) Dennis Waespi, Castro Valley, California sanitary district.

Libertarian Party: (1) Al Swain, Whitmore, California School Board; (2) Roger Fritz, Roland, Iowa city council; (3) Ken Lankford, Madison, North Carolina alderman; (4) Nate Cardarelli, Mapelton, Ohio School Board; (5) Mark Taff and Eva Hart, Colville, Washington city council; (6) Mike Hihn, King County, Washington water cmsr; (7) Heidi Duty and Morgan Duty, Spokane, Washington cemetary board.


SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION

The vote for U.S. House, California 42nd district, on November 16, was: Democratic 51.7%; Republican 43.6%; Reform 2.6%; Libertarian 2.1%.


WORKERS WORLD PARTY NOMINATES

On Nov. 7 in New York city, the Workers World Party nominated Monica Moorehead of New York for president, and Gloria LaRiva of San Francisco for vice-president. The same ticket in 1996 polled 29,083 votes.


MINNESOTA REFORM PARTY

The Minnesota Reform Party held its state convention on November 14. A proposal to change the name from the Reform Party to the Independent Reform Party didn't receive a floor vote, even though earlier the party's executive committee had recommended the change.


Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger ban@igc.apc.org. Note: subscriptions are available!
Go back to the index.
Compilation copyright (c) 1999,2000 Bob Bickford