November 1, 2002 – Volume 18, Number 7

1. NEW FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW; BILL DOES NOT INJURE THE PETITIONING PROCESS
2. CALIFORNIA BILL VETOED
3. NEW JERSEY DEMS. WIN SUBSTITUTION CASE
4. PARTIAL WISCONSIN VICTORY
5. PUBLIC FUNDING BILL FOR CONGRESS
6. CONGRESS EASES RESTRICTION
7. NORTH CAROLINA PROVIDES PUBLIC FUNDING FOR JUDGES
8. EX-FELON VOTE BILL
9. HIGH COURT REFUSES NADER OHIO CASE
10. MORE SUPREME COURT NEWS
11. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
12. PEACE & FREEDOM
13. BOOK REVIEW: A Nation Divided, the 1968 Presidential Campaign
14. 2002 STATE HOUSE NOMINEES
15. 2002 STATE SENATE NOMINEES
16. MINOR PARTIES MAY WIN SEATS
17. CONSERVATIVE PRIMARY RESULTS
18. MORE DEBATES
19. CHICAGO TRIBUNE ENDORSEMENTS

NEW FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW; BILL DOES NOT INJURE THE PETITIONING PROCESS

On October 29, President Bush will sign HR 3295 into law. The bill requires state voting equipment to meet certain standards, and provides money to help the states pay for new voting equipment.

The version of this bill passed by the Senate on February 14, 2002, had a provision which would have made it possible for states to vastly increase the difficulty of obtaining signatures on ballot access petitions. Fortunately, that provision was deleted from the final bill.

The February 14 version of the bill (which was then called S.565) said, "Any State may use the Social Security number for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals, and may require such individual to furnish to such State or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the Social Security number issued to such individual."

Currently, the federal privacy act prohibits states from requiring Social Security numbers for purposes relating to voting, unless the state had been requiring it for that purpose since before 1975. Hawaii is the only state that has been requiring petition signers to include their Social Security numbers on petitions before 1975. Other states that tried to require Social Security numbers on petitions since 1975 had been told by courts that this violates federal law.

However, if the February version of the federal bill had passed, that protection would have been removed.

The new law does require first-time voters who register by mail to show ID at the polls, if they vote in person. If they vote by mail, they must mail in a copy of some ID. However, this requirement is waived for voters who furnished a copy of ID with their mail-in voter registration, or who furnished their drivers license number, or the last 4 digits of their Social Security number.

Voters who do not comply with this requirement will still have their ballots counted, under provisional ballot rules. A provisional ballot is one which is not counted until elections authorities verify that the person is properly registered and did not vote more than once. The bill requires all states to permit provisional voting.

The new law also outlaws old-fashioned lever voting machines that do not produce a paper printout of the results. Such old-fashioned machines are no longer manufactured, but they are still in use in many states.

Another provision in the new law requires the states to maintain statewide computerized voter registration lists (the law exempts North Dakota, which doesn't have voter registration). This provision will probably make it easier for elections officials to be more accurate, when they determine if petitions have enough valid signatures or not.

Still another provision requires the states to use voting equipment that tells the voter (before it's too late) that he or she has "over-voted" (that is, voted for two candidates when only one is to be elected). If a state does not use such equipment, then the state must at least establish a voter education program dealing with this problem, and also post clear instructions on how a voter may correct a mistake. States must permit voters to try again, if they make a mistake.

The bill provides funding for the National Student/Parent Mock Election, which is described in the bill as "a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization". It conducts mock elections in schools.

The bill provides for a study of whether "broadcasting false information" can be made illegal, but the provision only seems to relate to false information about whether the polls are still open, or what the location of a polling place is.

The bill also mandates a study of whether to change federal voting day to Veterans Day. This part of the bill contains a factual error. It declares, as a justification for studying the idea, "Only 51% of registered voters in the U.S. turned out to vote during the November 2000 presidential election – well below the worldwide turnout average of 72.9% for presidential elections between 1999 and 2000".

The bill should have said, "Only 51% of the potential electorate voted in the U.S." Approximately 78% of the registered voters voted. The problem is that only two-thirds of all persons who could legally register to vote are actually registered.

One indirect effect of the law will be make it easier someday to pass federal legislation outlawing restrictive ballot access laws. Opponents of such legislation have always insisted that ballot access should be determined by the states, not by the federal government. However, since the federal government already tells the states how to register voters (the 1993 "motor voter" law), and now tells them much more about voting procedures, the argument retains little force.

The new law only relates to federal elections. Article One of the Constitution lets the federal government tell the states how to conduct federal elections. However, no state will try to maintain different rules for federal elections than for state elections, since this would be too burdensome.

CALIF. BILL VETOED

On October 1, California Governor Gray Davis vetoed SB 1975, which would have moved the primary (for office other than president) from March to June. If the bill had become law, the deadline for a new party to get on the ballot would have improved, from October of the year before the election, to January of the election year.

N.J. DEMS. WIN SUBSTITUTION CASE

On September 30, U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli, the Democratic candidate for that office in New Jersey, withdrew his candidacy. On October 1, the Democratic Party of New Jersey filed a lawsuit in state court, to obtain an order removing Torricelli's name from the ballot and letting the party substitute a new candidate. Later that day the State Supreme Court accepted the case.

On October 2 the State Supreme Court held a two-hour hearing. All four of the minor party candidates for U.S. Senate were invited to participate (the Conservative, Green and Libertarian candidates did so; the Socialist did not). A few hours later the Court ruled in favor of permitting the withdrawal and substitution. A few hours after that, the Democratic Party chose former U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg as its new candidate. On October 8 the Court issued a 37-page opinion, explaining the basis for its action. New Jersey Democratic Party v Samson, A-24-02.

In the meantime, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Douglas Forrester, had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the order of the New Jersey Supreme Court, but on October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused. However, still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is Forrester's request that the Court hear his appeal on its merits (even though it would be too late for any relief). Forrester v New Jersey Democratic Party, number not assigned yet.

The California Secretary of State has already filed an amicus brief, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Six other states filed letters of support for Forrester.

The decision engendered more publicity than any ballot access lawsuit since the New York presidential primary case of 2000. On its face, the issue was narrow. State law already permits withdrawal for any reason. Any party can then substitute a new nominee (if an unqualified party seeks a substitute, it must re-petition, but no petition for minor parties in New Jersey requires more than 800 signatures).

The only question in this case was timing. The law says that substitution can be made up to 48 days before the election. However, the Democratic Party was trying to substitute only 33 days before the election. The basis for the decision was that, whereas it is clear that substitution can be made 48 days before the election, the statute is silent as to whether substitution can be made, beyond that deadline. Laws in some other states say explicitly that substitution cannot be made after that deadline. The New Jersey law does not. Although a reasonable person might assume that the law implies that substitution cannot be made after the deadline, the Court ruled that since it was still physically possible to reprint ballots, and mail out new absentee ballots, the substitution should be made. The Court wrote eloquently about the interests of the voters.

Decision Draws Criticism

The decision engendered much criticism. Political scientist William G. Mayer published an op-ed piece in the New York Times of October 2, making two points: (1) late substitution is bad public policy because the public doesn't have enough time to evaluate the new candidate; (2) it is immoral to change the rules of an election, during a campaign season. Republicans made an additional point in their legal briefs and in their public statements, that allowing the New Jersey Supreme Court to alter the rules violates Article I, §4 of the Constitution, which says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations".

Rebuttal to the Criticism

All three of these points, if allowed to prevail, have the potential to cause great harm to minor parties and independent candidates. They also have the potential to harm the nation.

It is in the interest of all the people of the United States, that all political parties be permitted to choose the finest possible candidates for public office.

Senator Torricelli had shown himself to be dishonest and unfit to be re-elected. It is in everyone's interest that any political party which made a mistake, and nominated an unfit person, should be permitted to change its mind and replace that candidate with someone better.

The core function of a political party is to nominate candidates. An ideal election is one at which all political parties have chosen candidates of the greatest character, honesty, capability and ability to communicate. The voters are then free to choose the candidate whose philosophy most closes matches their own. If one of the candidates is unfit for office, voters are then put in dilemma of having to choose between ideology and character. Any election law that helps parties nominate the best possible candidates is an invaluable law.

Courts Must be Permitted to Invalidate Unfair Ballot Access Laws

The notions that courts have no ability to "change the rules in the middle of the game", or that Article I of the Constitution prevents courts from altering election laws, are extraordinarily dangerous to minor parties and independent candidates.

If courts couldn't hear challenges to unfair election laws, and if state legislatures exercised total power over election laws, minor parties would now be extinct in the United States. Every time a minor party or independent candidate challenges an unfair ballot access law, that is an attempt to "change the rules in the middle of the game".

Ballot access laws have been held invalidated by courts in 47 states during the last 40 years (only Montana, New Hampshire and Minnesota have escaped). It would be a radical setback if this type of litigation were suddenly halted. By definition, a lawsuit, if successful, has "changed the rules in the middle of the game". There is no other way to bring lawsuits, except "in the middle of the game". Courts will only hear actual controversies, not mere theoretical complaints against laws. There must be real candidates in an actual election, for a lawsuit to be filed.

Furthermore, if Article I is to be construed to mean that only legislatures can write election laws, then even the initiative process couldn't be used to improve ballot access laws. The greatest improvement to ballot access laws in the last 30 years, anywhere in the U.S., was made by the voters of Florida in November 1998. The voters of Massachusetts also improved their laws in 1990.

But under the argument that only state legislatures can write ballot access laws, the voters of Florida and Massachusetts would not have been able to make those improvements.

Late Entry of Candidates

The argument that it is dangerous to let candidates enter the race at a late date is unsound. Election laws outside the U.S. usually set deadlines of only a few weeks before the election.

South Africa's first free election, in 1994, allowed a party to qualify as late as one week before the election. Great Britain requires candidates to file for the ballot only three weeks before the election. And historically, parties in the United States were able to nominate very late, relative to the date of the general election. The original ballot access laws of each state (mostly passed in the 1890's) most commonly set a 20-day or 30-day deadline for parties to certify their nominees. The median deadline of the 50 states (some of whom passed their first ballot access laws while they were still territories) was 29 days before the general election; the average was almost the same, 28.5 days.

Professor Mayer's op-ed piece in the New York Times mentions major party presidential candidates who did well in the New Hampshire presidential primary, but who later faded as the voters learned more about them. From this, he generalized that it is dangerous in general to permit candidates into a race at a late date.

But New Hampshire primary voters understand that they are not electing a president. They know that the winner of their primary will be subject to considerable scrutiny, before he or she is actually nominated.

If New Hampshire Republican primary voters were actually choosing a president, they surely would not have awarded a victory to Pat Buchanan in 1996, or to Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964 (Lodge won by write-ins and had never declared himself a candidate).

Minor Parties Need the Ability to Substitute Nominees

Minor parties have a particular interest in the ability to substitute new nominees, if the original nominee withdraws. The Libertarian Party went to great trouble, between 1993 and 1996, to win the right to substitute a new presidential nominee, in place of stand-in presidential candidates, in many states. The party lobbied or sued all thirteen states where a change was needed. The result of this campaign was that minor parties are now free to choose their actual presidential nominee as late as July of an election year.

Previously, certain states had required minor parties to choose their presidential nominees before those states began their petition drives, but now it is possible to use a "stand-in" presidential candidate on the petition, and let that person withdraw later in favor of the actual candidates.

Thus it is especially ironic that the New Jersey U.S. Senate candidate, Elizabeth Macron, opposed the Democratic Party's position in court, and that the national Libertarian Party featured her statement prominently on the party's website.

Major Parties Also Need Substitution

Major parties need the ability to substitute as well. The Democratic Party 1972 vice-presidential nominee, U.S. Senator Thomas Eagleton, resigned from the ticket, and the laws of all states permitted the party to replace him with Sargent Shriver in August. The Republican Party of Minnesota replaced its gubernatorial nominee in 1990 only five days before the election, and the Democratic Party did not try to stop the replacement (the original Republican nominee had withdrawn due to an ethical lapse). The replacement candidate won the election even though he had been a candidate for only five days.

Absentee Voters

As to absentee voters who had already been mailed a ballot with Torricelli's name on it, those ballots (should anyone use them) will be valid, if the voter voted for anyone other than Torricelli. For instance, votes on those ballots for the Republican nominee will be valid. Therefore, it is somewhat hypocritical for the Republican Party to express concern for the absentee voters who used one of the original ballots, since only Democrats will be disenfranchised. The effect on Republican absentee voters in Minnesota in 1990 was far more severe, when the Republicans made a late substitution.

There are weaknesses in the New Jersey Supreme Court's opinion. That opinion needlessly paid homage to the "two-party system" (which the Opinion does not define). It also required the Democratic Party to pay $800,000 toward the cost of reprinting ballots that had already been printed. One would think that if the Court were confident that it is correct, and that parties have a right to make a substitution as late as 33 days before the election, such a party should not be penalized for exercising its right, and should not be required to subsidize the costs of election administration.

PARTIAL WISCONSIN VICTORY

On September 26, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, a Carter appointee, issued an injunction against a Wisconsin law that requires petitioners (for district or county office) to be residents of the district or county in which they are petitioning. Frami v Ponto, 02-c-515-C.

However, she limited her injunction, so that it provides no help to petitioners who live outside the state. Consequently, the candidate-plaintiffs (who are nominees of the Constitution Party) still didn't gain a place on the ballot, since their petitions were circulated largely by out-of-staters. The issue of whether that law is unconstitutional will be decided in the next few months. The two plaintiff-candidates were running for U.S. House and State Senate.

PUBLIC FUNDING BILL FOR CONGRESS

On October 16, U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Az), Russell Feingold (D-Wi) and Richard Durbin (D-Il.) introduced S. 3124, the "Political Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvement Act". It would provide public funding for candidates for Congress, and that part of the bill does not discriminate for or against any candidate, on the basis of the candidate's party. The bill cannot advance this year, but it will be re-introduced next year.

The bill also proposes limited public funding for political parties, and that part of the bill is highly discriminatory. Finally, the bill requires licensed broadcast stations to broadcast at least two hours per week of candidate-centered or issue-centered programming during each of the six weeks before a Federal election. The programming could not be between midnight and 6 a.m.

Public funding for congressional candidates would consist of vouchers for advertising on broadcast media, not cash. House Candidates would be eligible if they raised at $25,000 from individuals. For this purpose, no single individual could contribute more than $250. The bill requires the candidate to be "legally-qualified", which means that even a write-in candidate could qualify, if he or she is entitled to receive write-in votes. No candidate who spends more than $125,000 of his own funds, or his immediate family's funds, could qualify.

Qualifying candidates would receive broadcast vouchers, equal in value to $3, for each $1 the candidate raises.

U.S. Senate candidates must raise an amount of money equal to $25,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. House seats in that state. Thus a U.S. Senate candidate in California must raise $1,325,000. All dollar amounts are indexed to inflation.

The bill also provides broadcast vouchers to presidential candidates who have qualified for primary season matching funds, or general election funding. Thus, in 2000, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and John Hagelin would all have qualified.

Vouchers would be issued to presidential candidates equal to $1 that every candidate received in primary season matching funds, and/or 50¢ for each dollar of general election public funding.

Political parties could only qualify for broadcast vouchers if they had polled at least 5% for president in the last general election. In addition, a qualifying party must have at least 22 U.S. House candidates who themselves qualified for broadcast vouchers, or 5 U.S. Senate candidates who qualified. Parties would not receive as much as the Democratic and Republican Parties unless they had candidates who qualified for vouchers in at least half the seats. Parties with the minimum number of qualifying candidates, but fewer than half the seats, would receive vouchers in proportion to how many qualifying candidates they have.

CONGRESS EASES RESTRICTION

On October 17, Congress passed HR 5596, which eases the paperwork burden on some political parties, especially state units of minor parties. The bill exempts political organizations that do not influence federal elections and that report all their activities to state officials.

The U.S. District Court decision of August 27, 2002, in Nat. Federation of Republican Assemblies v USA, holding the old law unconstitutional, obviously spurred the success of HR 5596 (see Oct. 1 issue of B.A.N).

N.C. PROVIDES PUBLIC FUNDING FOR JUDGES

On October 10, North Carolina's Senate Bill 1054 was signed into law. It provides public funding for candidates for State Supreme Court and State Court of Appeals. It also makes elections for these offices non-partisan.

EX-FELON VOTE BILL

On October 1, Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) introduced HB 5510, to permit ex-felons to vote in federal elections. The bill cannot advance this year, but it will be introduced again next year.

HIGH COURT REFUSES NADER OHIO CASE

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Nader v Blackwell, 02-81. The issue was whether Ohio may continue to print party labels on the general election ballot for some candidates, but not others. Ralph Nader generously paid the costs of the appeal.

This is the first time in history that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a ballot access appeal by a minor party or independent presidential candidate who polled more than 2% of the vote. The Court heard appeals on behalf of Henry Wallace in 1948, George Wallace in 1968, and John B. Anderson in 1983. Ross Perot, of course, also polled more than 2% of the vote, but he never asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear any of his ballot-related lawsuits.

The Court has not agreed to hear a ballot access case (if the case lost in the court below) since 1991. It is especially egregious that the Court refused to hear Nader's case, since in 2001 that Court had unanimously ruled that ballot labels that discriminate against a class of candidates are unconstitutional.

MORE SUPREME COURT NEWS

The Libertarian Party (represented by the Brennan Center) recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Browne v Bayless. The issue is whether states can require independent presidential candidates to submit petitions as early as June 14. The Arizona Supreme Court had upheld that deadline, although the State Court of Appeals had struck it down.

The Court refused to hear several appeals by the Republican Party on October 7. The Court turned down that party's appeal of a Pennsylvania redistricting decision. The Court also refused to intervene in the New Jersey case (see page two story). Finally, the Court denied a request by the Republican National Committee to stop a trial in West Virginia, over whether the Democratic Party's 1996 candidate for Governor was slandered by TV advertisements of the Republican National Committee.

MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

1. Alabama: on October 3, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson refused to order Alabama Public TV to include John Sophocleus in its gubernatorial debates. Sophocleus, a Libertarian, is one of only three candidates on the ballot. The station said candidates must show they are polling at 5%, to be included. Sophocleus pointed out that no poll includes him. He was told that he should pay for his own poll. Alabama Libertarian Party v Alabama Public TV, 02-T-1077-N, middle district. He may appeal.

2. Arizona: on October 11, the State Supreme Court upheld one way the state pays for public funding of campaigns (a surcharge on traffic tickets). May v Bayless, cv-02-0215.

3. California: prints the occupation of candidates on ballots. On October 17, the 9th circuit upheld a regulation which says that "activist" is not an occupation. The plaintiff had wanted to be listed as "peace activist". Rubin v Santa Monica, 01-56091.

California (2): on July 8, Superior Court Judge David Yaffe (Los Angeles) let a judicial candidate withdraw, even though state law forbids anyone from withdrawing from the ballot. The candidate, an incumbent judge, had been convicted of a crime and thus could not have continued to serve even if he had been re-elected. Kline v Lever, 02-cc-04313.

4. Georgia: on October 4, a Fulton County Superior Court Judge refused to put Wayne Parker on the ballot. Parker, a Libertarian, needed 9,552 signatures. The state said he only had 9,202 valid. Parker argued that the requirement (which is based on the number of registered voters at the last election) is actually a smaller number than 9,552 (it isn't clear how many registered voters there were in this district in 2000, since all the boundaries changed since then). But the state pointed out that, in an earlier court decision which lowered the number of signatures for this year only, Parker had stipulated to the number 9,552, so it was too late for him to dispute it. Parker v Cox, 02-cv-58536.

Parker then went to federal court, but the judge said the issue had already been decided in state court. Parker v Barnes, 1:02-cv-1883-BBM.

Georgia (2): on October 18, the 11th circuit refused to grant a rehearing in Cartwright v Barnes, the challenge to the state's petition requirement for minor party and independent U.S. House candidates.

5. Maryland: on September 30, the state's highest court put a Green Party nominee for County Commissioner on the ballot. Stysley v Carroll Co. Bd. of Elections, no. 66, Sep. term 2002. The county had said the candidate was ten signatures short, but he showed that the county's determination was faulty.

6. New Mexico: on October 11, a federal court invalidated expenditure limits for Albuquerque city council candidates. Rue v City of Albuquerque, civ-01-1036-JP.

7. New York: on October 21, a State Court allowed the Working Families Party to substitute a different candidate for State Comptroller. The substitution had been made on September 19; the issue was whether this is too late or not. Faso v Hevesi, no. 92584, Albany, app. div.

8. Ohio: on October 11, the ACLU sued to force the state to replace its outdated lever and punchcard voting systems. Stewart v Blackwell, 5:02-2028, federal court, Akron.

9. Vermont: on October 3, the 2nd circuit granted a rehearing in Landall v Sorrell, the case on expenditure limits. The original panel had upheld Vermont's expenditure limits (despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had invalidated federal expenditure limits in 1976). Now a larger panel of judges will reconsider the issue.

10. National: the trial in Initiative & Referendum Institute v US Postal Service, 1:00-cv-1246, has been canceled. Instead, federal Judge Richard Roberts will decide the case on written testimony. This is the lawsuit over whether the post office may ban all petitioning on its sidewalks, even though it permits leafleting. A decision is likely soon.

National (2): oral argument in McConnell v FEC will be December 4, in U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C. This is the lawsuit against this year's campaign finance bill that outlaws large donations to political parties.

PEACE & FREEDOM

California's Peace & Freedom Party has been trying to increase its registration, so as to regain its place on the ballot. Official state figures for October 7 show that the party now has 71,637 members, up from 70,469 in September. If the number of voters who vote in California on November 5 is below 7,163,700, and if the party merely retains all its members, it will be put back on the ballot automatically in February 2003. In November 1998 there were 8,621,121 votes cast.

BOOK REVIEW

A Nation Divided, the 1968 Presidential Campaign, by Darcy Richardson. Paperback, 520 pages. Published 2002 by Writers Club Press, Lincoln, Neb.

A Nation Divided is a balanced history of the 1968 presidential election. Unlike the older and better-known The Making of the President 1968 by Theodore White, A Nation Divided includes the significant minor party presidential candidates in the narrative. By contrast, The Making of the President 1968 gave minimal attention to George C. Wallace and no attention to other minor party nominees, except for a single sentence, "All other minor-party candidates and freaks drew a total of 239,908 votes".

Although A Nation Divided properly devotes most of its attention to Lyndon Johnson, Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan, it has substantial interesting detail about the George C. Wallace campaign, and also a clear account of the New Party's attempt to find its own presidential candidate. Attention is also paid to the permanent minor parties of the time, including the Socialist Labor, Socialist Workers and Prohibition Party campaigns.

2002 STATE HOUSE NOMINEES

The numbers in parentheses on this chart are the number of seats up for election in each state.

The five states not mentioned do not have partisan legislative elections this year (La., Miss., Nebr., N.J. and Va.). Parties in the "other" column: Alaska, 5 Alaskan Independence and 3 Republican Moderate; Colorado, Natural Law; Connecticut, 18 Working Families and 3 Independent Party; Delaware, Independent Party; Idaho, Natural Law; Iowa, America First; Missouri, Progressive; New York, 25 Right to Life, 25 Conservative, 8 Working Families, 6 Liberal; Ohio, Natural Law; Oregon, Socialist; Tennessee, America First; Vermont, 10 Progressive, 1 Grassroots; West Virginia, Mountain. In fusion states, a candidate with multiple nominations is counted only for the party in which he or she is registered. See page 7 for more notes.

2002 STATE SENATE NOMINEES

The numbers in parentheses on this chart are the number of seats up for election in each state.

The eight states not mentioned do not have partisan State Senate elections this year (Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina and Virginia). Parties in the "other" column: Alaska, 1 Alaskan Independence and 1 Republican Moderate; Delaware, Independent Party; Idaho, Natural Law; New York, 13 Right to Life, 6 Conservative, 4 Liberal; Vermont, 4 Progressive, 1 Liberty Union; West Virginia, Mountain. In fusion states, a candidate with multiple nominations is counted only for the party in which he or she is registered.

Abbreviations: "Wk Famy" = Working Families; "Consti" = Constitution; "indp." = independent candidate.

MINOR PARTIES MAY WIN SEATS

Three nationally-organized minor parties hope to win at least one state legislative election:

Constitution Party: hopes to elect Rick Jore, its House nominee in Montana's 73rd district (Polson). He is in a 3-way race. In 2000, in a 2-way race, he polled 49.3%.

Green Party: hopes to win these four races: (1) Arizona's 15th House district (Phoenix), where its nominee, Kyrsten Sinema, faces two Democrats and two Republicans (each district elects two); (2) Connecticut's 67th House district (New Milford), where John Battista faces a Republican; (3) Maine's 31st House district (Portland), where John Eder faces a Democrat; (4) Maryland's 20th House district (Takoma Park-Silver Spring), where Linda Schade faces three Democrats and two Republicans (3 are to be elected).

Libertarian Party: has hopes for three races: (1) Missouri's 7th House district (Chillicothe), where Jeff Foli faces a Republican and an independent; (2) Nevada's 28th Assembly district (Las Vegas), where James Dan faces a Democrat (in 2000, against the same opponent, he got 45.3%); (3) Vermont's Grand Isle-Chittenden House district, where Hardy Macia faces a Republican and two Democrats (two are to be elected). Macia won the Republican primary as well as the convention nomination of the Libertarian Party, and is listed on the November ballot as "Libertarian/Republican".

Some parties organized in only a single state also may win some legislative elections. The Vermont Progressive Party, which already has 4 state representatives, expects to win at least that many races. The Independence Party of Minnesota has several nominees who are former or current legislators, and hopes to elect them. The Mountain Party may elect one of its House nominees, Vincent George. The Working Families Party is somewhat likely to re-elect its New York Assemblymember, Patricia Eddington (she also has the Democratic nomination), and also hopes to elect one of its Connecticut candidates, Deborah Noble.

Gubernatorial races: the two most likely minor party wins are for the Independence Party in Minnesota and New York.

CONSERVATIVE PRIMARY RESULTS

On September 10, New York state held its primary. Results of the Conservative Party gubernatorial race were not available for the October 1 B.A.N. They are: Pataki (the only name on the ballot) 18,185; Golisano 2,751 write-ins. No tally was made for another active write-in candidate in that primary, Louis Wein. The state's refusal to tally Wein's valid write-ins is certainly unconstitutional, but Wein has not sued the state, although he may do so. The state didn't even tabulate the total number of write-ins.

MORE DEBATES

The October 1 B.A.N. mentioned 23 states in which minor party or independent nominees for statewide office were being permitted to debate both of their major party opponents. Since then, further gains have been made:

1. California: all 7 nominees for Secretary of State have debated each other.

2. Massachusetts: has held gubernatorial debates with all five nominees (Dem, Rep, Green, Libertarian & indp.)

3. New Jersey: all 6 U.S. Senate nominees will debate each other.

4. New York: has held two gubernatorial debates with all seven nominees (although at the second debate, the Right to Life candidate did not attend).

5. Ohio: all 3 gubernatorial nominees (Dem, Rep, Natural Law) have debated each other.

6. Wisconsin: the gubernatorial nominees of the four qualified parties (Dem, Rep, Green & Lib't) have debated.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE ENDORSEMENTS

The Chicago Tribune has endorsed two minor party legislative nominees, Green Julie Samuels (8th House) and Libertarian Jerome Kohn (28th House).

ERRATA: the Oct. 1 B.A.N. omitted two candidates from its U.S. House chart. There are 5 Greens in Pennsylvania, not 4; and there is a Libertarian in South Dakota.