July 1, 2003 – Volume 19, Number 3

1. TEXAS GOVERNOR VETOES BALLOT ACCESS REFORM
2. EX-FELON BILL VETOED
3. N.Y. REGISTRATION CASE WINS KEY RULING
4. HIGH COURT CAMPAIGN FINANCE HEARING SET
5. ARIZONA VICTORY
6. CALIFORNIA LOSS
7. REPUBLICAN PARTY DEADLINE NEWS
8. OKLAHOMA, TEXAS DEADLINES EARLIER
9. MASS. PUBLIC FUNDING REPEALED
10. VOTING FRAUD STUDY
11. MORE LEGIS. NEWS
12. AMER. CAND. TV SHOW
13. LAWSUIT NEWS
14. SENATOR HATCH TO SPONSOR DRASTIC ELECTION CHANGE
15. CONGRESS
16. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
17. IRV NEWS
18. 2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
19. SPECIAL ELECTION
20. NEW JERSEY 2003 ELECTION
21. AMERICA FIRST PARTY
22. NATIONAL CONVENTIONS
23. MISSISSIPPI 2003 ELECTION
24. GREEN ELECTED IN IDAHO
25. 3 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RESPOND TO C.U.I.P.

TEXAS GOVERNOR VETOES BALLOT ACCESS REFORM

On May 20, Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoed HB 1274. The bill would have repealed a law that says, "A person circulating a petition must read to the person each statement pertaining to the signer that appears on the petition." The bill had passed the legislature unanimously, but the veto can’t be overridden because the legislature has adjourned.

The petition to create a new party says, "I know that the purpose of this petition is to entitle the (whatever) Party to have its nominees placed on the ballot in the general election for state and county officers. I have not voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during this voting year, and I understand that I become ineligible to do so by signing this petition. I understand that signing more than one petition to entitle a party to have its nominees placed on the general election ballot in the same election is prohibited."

Texas requires 45,540 valid signatures to place a new or previously unqualified party on the ballot. Currently, only the Democratic and Republican Parties are on the ballot. The veto is a blow to any other party that hopes to be on the 2004 ballot. Experienced circulators know that speed is essential, and the law requiring that all circulators read 93 words to everyone they approach is a huge impediment to successful petitioning.

Governor Perry is a Republican. He is only the second Governor, since before World War II, to veto any bills to make ballot access easier. The first was Governor John Ashcroft of Missouri, who vetoed ballot reform bills in both 1991 and 1992.

The Secretary of State cannot shorten the paragraph because it is contained in the law. No other state sets forth in law the exact words that a circulator must say to everyone approached.

The statement is not only lengthy, it is confusing. It implies that the signer is giving up the right to vote in a future primary. Actually, the petition must be circulated after that year’s primary. A decision to sign cannot prevent the signer from voting in any primary, with the possible exception of a run-off primary, should one be held. However, Texas never holds run-off primaries for president, and there is no U.S. Senate election up in 2004 in that state.

Governor Perry’s veto message says, "HB 1274 would repeal the requirement that persons gathering signatures on petitions to place candidates on the ballot inform the signer of provisions which affect the signer. However, there are some very specific consequences to signing a candidate’s petition, and it therefore is in the public interest to make sure that the public understands what they are signing. For example, a voter who signs a petition for one party’s candidate for public office becomes ineligible to vote in any other party’s primary. This is a serious ramification which restricts the voter’s right to choose the primary in which he or she wishes to participate, and it is important that the voter have that information when deciding whether to sign the petition."

The veto message implies that the bill only relates to petitions circulated before a primary, such as petitions in lieu of a filing fee to place a candidate on a major party primary. Governor Perry either didn’t know the law also relates to minor party petitions, or he chose to remain silent about this consequence of the bill.

EX-FELON BILL VETOED

On June 24, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, vetoed HB 104, which would have let most ex-felons register to vote. The bill would have helped at least 150,000 people.

N.Y. REGISTRATION CASE WINS KEY RULING

On May 30, the Green Party of New York won a permanent injunction in federal court, letting voters register as members of the party, even though the party is not qualified for the ballot. Green Party of New York v Board of Elections, 02-cv-6465. The party had won a similar temporary order back on January 16.

Another hearing will be held on July 18. At that point, the State Board of Elections is expected to say whether it will demand a trial on the issue of whether the state law (which won’t let voters register into an unqualified party) is unconstitutional or not. If no trial is needed, it seems clear that the judge will shortly afterwards rule the law unconstitutional. In the meantime, the Green Party will continue to be listed on the voter registration form.

Similar laws had already been held unconstitutional in Colorado, New Jersey and Oklahoma.

The Liberal, Right to Life, Libertarian, and Marijuana Reform Parties have all filed documents, attempting to intervene in the case and win the same status that the Green Party has. None of these parties are qualified in New York, but all appeared on the November 2002 ballot. The only qualified parties in New York are Democratic, Republican, Independence, Conservative and Working Families.

HIGH COURT CAMPAIGN FINANCE HEARING SET

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the campaign finance lawsuit, McConnell v Federal Election Commission, 02-1674, on September 8. The only minor party in the case, the Libertarian Party, has been told that its share of the brief is limited to ten pages.

ARIZONA VICTORY

On June 23, an Arizona State Court of Appeals interpreted state law favorably to minor parties. It ruled that all counties must conduct primary elections for the office of party precinct committeemen, for all parties that are qualified statewide. Arizona Libertarian Party v Board of Supervisors of Cochise and Coconino Counties, 2ca-cv 2002-174.

Arizona law requires all parties to govern themselves according to the scheme set out in the election law. The law requires that parties elect precinct committeemen at their own primary. It is questionable that states have the authority to tell parties to govern themselves this way, but for now, that is the law in effect. This lawsuit was not contesting that. Precinct committeemen comprise the county committee. The county committee, in turn, selects members for the state committee.

A few counties in the state were refusing to place the office of precinct committee on the ballot for the Libertarian Party, but the Court ruled that the counties must, in the future, print this office on the party’s primary ballot and let people run for it.

Cochise and Coconino Counties had claimed they don’t need to print the office of Precinct Committeemen on the Libertarian primary ballot, because the party is not qualified to nominate candidates for county office in those counties. Arizona has a strange law that says even though a party may be qualified statewide and for all state office within the state, it still can’t run for county office unless it qualifies in that county separately (by increasing its voter registration to two-thirds of 1%). But the Court said that party office is not the same as public office, and that it would be unjust to deprive the party’s members in certain counties of a chance to help determine the party’s statewide officers.

The counties have not yet decided whether to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The counties had initially won the case in the lowest state court, a year ago.

CALIFORNIA LOSS

On June 6, the 9^th circuit upheld a California law that makes it impossible for a party to nominate anyone who was a member of another party during the 23 months before any particular general election (except that write-in candidates at a primary are exempt from the rule). Van Susteren v Jones, 01-57210.

The plaintiff-candidate had tried to run for Congress as a Libertarian in the primary of March 2002, but because he had been a registered Republican prior to June 2001, he was barred from the primary ballot.

The 9^th circuit opinion is only 5 pages long. It ignores all of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that say that a political party’s right to nominate the candidate of its choice is protected. Instead, it depends entirely on a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that upheld a law barring independents from the November ballot if they were members of a qualified party in the previous 17 months. That 1974 opinion, Storer v Brown, does not deal with the associational rights of political parties.

The 9^th circuit decision says California’s law is needed for "stability", and fails to acknowledge the evidence that no other state has a law like California’s. The other states don’t suffer from "instability". In fact, pundits regularly deplore an over-abundance of "stability" in U.S. House elections. In November 2002, only 1% of incumbents were defeated (excluding cases in which two incumbents were running against each other due to redistricting).

The 9^th circuit also refused to acknowledge the evidence that it is not uncommon for members of Congress to switch parties, and the if any California member of the House switched parties at any time in his or her term, the member couldn’t run for re-election. Such a law obviously adds a qualification to run for Congress, something that states may not do.

Adam Van Susteren, the candidate-plaintiff, filed a motion for rehearing en banc on June 20.

REPUBLICAN PARTY DEADLINE NEWS

1. Alabama: HB 127, to relax the deadline for a qualified party to certify its national ticket (to accommodate the Republican Party's September 2 national convention) was signed on June 19.

2. Delaware: SB 75, moving the deadline for a qualified party to certify its national ticket to September 15, was signed on June 12.

3. D.C.: on June 20, the City Council passed bill 15-98, which permits the Board of Elections to waive the September 1 deadline for party certification of its national ticket.

4. Illinois: the last B.A.N. said that the Board of Elections planned to obtain an Attorney General’s Opinion, on whether it could supplement the candidate list (which must be prepared by August 27) with the names of the Republican Party’s September 2 choices. Now the Board has decided not to ask for an Opinion, and has advised the Republican Party to seek a change in the law.

OKLAHOMA, TEXAS DEADLINES EARLIER

Oklahoma: On June 7, SB 358 was signed. It moves the deadline for petitions to qualify a party from May 31 to May 1. The reason is that another bill, SB 260, signed earlier, moves the primary (for office other than president) from August to July. Since all Oklahoma parties must nominate by primary, and the primary is now earlier, the filing deadline for new parties must also be earlier. Of course, Oklahoma could exempt new parties from nomination by primary, but that idea was not considered.

Texas: HB 2496 was signed into law on June 18. It moves the primary from the 2^nd Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March, which has the indirect result of moving the deadline for new party petitions from May 24 to May 17. Oddly, the deadline for independent presidential candidates does not change as a result of the bill; it continues to be May 10, the earliest such deadline in the nation.

MASS. PUBLIC FUNDING REPEALED

On June 20, the Massachusetts legislature repealed the state’s "Clean Elections" law, which provides for public funding of campaigns for state office. The Governor has not acted yet on the bill, but since it is the state’s annual budget bill, he is not likely to veto it. The legislative vote was arranged so that no legislator’s vote was recorded on the amendment. The budget itself passed 32-6 in the Senate and 118-37 in the House.

VOTING FRAUD STUDY

Demos, an organization that researches democracy issues, has issued Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud. It concludes that voter fraud is negligible in the U.S. To get a copy of the report, contact Tate Hausman at thausman@demos-usa.org, or (212) 633-1405.

MORE LEGIS. NEWS

Alabama: the legislature has now adjourned, and none of the ballot access improvement bills passed. However, HB 77, which would have made it even more difficult for a party to remain on the ballot, also failed to pass.

California: SB 1024 would let any qualified party choose to dispense with electing members of County Central Committees on that party’s primary ballot. It has a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee soon.

California (2): AB 1531 and SB 430, which would provide for two primaries in presidential election years, have each passed their houses of origin. If one of the bills becomes law, the presidential primary will be in March and the primary for other office would follow at a later month. The two bills disagree on details.

Connecticut: Bill 6087, which would have let a minor party nominate by convention for all office if it had registration of 1% failed to pass, and the legislature has now adjourned. Bill 6372 passed on June 3. It sets up procedures for a candidate to get on a primary ballot, even if that candidate has no support at a party caucus.

Delaware: on June 25, the legislature passed SB 54, moving the presidential primary to February 3.

Florida: on June 18, the legislature passed a bill moving the non-presidential primary from September to August.

Hawaii: the legislature has gone home for the year without having passed any bill to delete the law that requires petition signers to include their Social Security number. However, the bills could pass in 2004, since the state has a 2-year session.

Louisiana: on June 5, SB 539, which would have established closed primaries for congressional elections, failed to pass the Senate by one vote.

Maine: LD 1349, which would have let a party remain on the ballot regardless of its vote, if it had 15,000 registered members, was killed on June 13. The Green Party had initiated this bill, but had lost interest in it after it was amended. The original bill only required registration of one-half of 1%, approximately 4,700 members.

Michigan: SB 397, which cancels the presidential primary, was signed into law on May 29.

Nevada: on June 1, AB 337 passed the legislature. It makes it easier for most ex-felons to register to vote. The old law required them to petition a court; the new law makes restoration automatic for most ex-felons.

New York: on June 20, the legislature passed S5698, which drastically improves ballot access for the 2004 Republican presidential primary. In the past, separate petitions were needed in each congressional district. Now, a presidential candidate is automatically on the ballot if he or she qualifies for federal matching funds, or is discussed in the mass media, or submits 5,000 signatures. Any other qualified party in the state can use these procedures if it wishes.

Oklahoma: the legislature adjourned and didn’t pass any of the bills that would have abolished the "straight-party device". However, they did pass a bill removing the device from the presidential part of the ballot.

Oklahoma (2): the legislature also didn’t pass a bill that would have ended the state’s unique filing fee deposit system. In all other states with filing fees, the candidate never gets a refund. But in this state, if the candidate polls 15%, he or she gets the fee back (primary candidates need only poll 15% in the primary; independents, who don’t run in the primary, must poll 15% in the general election).

Oregon: SB 139 would increase fees for candidates to place a statement in the Voters Pamphlet from $1,000 (for statewide office) to $10,000 for presidential candidates and $7,000 for other statewide candidates. The pamphlet is mailed to all voters in the state. So far three hearings have been held on the bill, but it hasn’t been sent to the floor yet. The fee increase only affects the general election pamphlet, not the primary pamphlet. In this state, only the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate by primary.

Rhode Island: SB 123 passed the Senate on May 15. It says that if a petitioning candidate had previously appeared on the ballot (primary or general) at a previous election in the last four years, the candidate can re-qualify with no new petition. If this bill passes, it is plausible that if an unqualified party nominates candidates for presidential elector in 2004 who are the same people who ran in 2000 (and who qualified for the ballot in 2000), then that group need not petition in 2004. Rhode Island is very strong on the idea that the presidential electors, not the presidential candidate, are the true candidates.

Tennessee: HB 2092, to move the presidential primary from March to February, had been expected to pass. But the legislature adjourned without passing it.

AMER. CAND. TV SHOW

R. J. Cutler, producer of the proposed TV show "American Candidate", still has not found a network to carry the show, which would have showcased non-major party presidential candidates. The original sponsor, FX, had ducked out on May 2.

LAWSUIT NEWS

Arizona: on June 9, the 9^th circuit heard Arizona Libertarian Party v Pima County, 02-16535. The issue is whether a party may exclude independent voters from its primary. Judge Dorothy Nelson seemed to favor the party’s position; Judge William Fletcher seemed unfavorable. It was difficult to gauge how Judge Mary Schroeder was leaning.

Indiana: on April 3, a U.S. District Court upheld a state law that prohibits anyone from running in a partisan primary, if in the most recent primary that the potential candidate voted in, that candidate had voted in another party’s primary. The law permits the candidate’s new party to waive the restriction. The plaintiff-candidate, Michael Waite, wanted to run in the Democratic primary for Mayor of South Bend. But the last time he voted in a primary, it was a Republican primary; and the local Democratic Party refused to grant him a waiver. Waite v St. Joseph Co. Election Board, 3:03cv216.

Maryland: on June 19, the 4^th circuit upheld the state’s congressional district boundaries against a charge that they are so irregular, they amount to an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Duckworth v Maryland Bd. of Elections, 02-1936.

New York: on June 5, the Independence Party filed a lawsuit in federal court, to enforce its bylaw that lets independent voters vote in its primary. State Committee, Independence Party v Berman, 03-cv-4123.

New York (2): on June 16, the 2^nd circuit heard Kaloshi v Bd. of Elections, 02-9075. The lower court had struck down a state law that petition circulators (for access to a primary ballot) must be registered members of that candidate’s political party. The hearing went well.

Pennsylvania: normally, signatures are invalid if the signer uses ditto marks for the address. But on April 8, the Commonwealth Court ruled that if the signers are infirm, ditto marks are OK. In re Fitzgerald, 822 A 2d 859. The Court cited the Americans with Disabilities Act.

National: on June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in FEC v Beaumont, 02-403. By a vote of 7-2, the Court ruled that non-profit corporations that were formed only to influence policy can be barred from contributing funds to a candidate for federal office. Some commentators feel that Beaumont is a hint that the Court will also uphold most parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act.

SENATOR HATCH TO SPONSOR DRASTIC ELECTION CHANGE

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) plans to introduce a Constitutional Amendment, to provide that members of the U.S. House may be appointed if a large number of members of the House are killed or disabled all at once. Under the existing Constitution, no one may serve in the U.S. House unless that person has been elected.

Since Senator Hatch is Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is virtually certain that hearings will be held on this proposed amendment. The hearings may be an opportunity for activists to remind Congress and the public that if the Constitution is going to be changed, relative to federal elections, other matters should be addressed as well.

Examples of problems: (1) gerrymandering of congressional districts; (2) disenfranchisement of ex-felons; (3) disenfranchisement of voters who wish to vote for minor party and independent candidates; (4) the inability of citizens residing in the U.S. territories to vote for President or voting members of Congress; (5) the inability of citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for voting members of Congress; (6) the failure of the Constitution to guarantee that the voters choose the presidential electors, much less the president.

The Hatch proposal was given a boost on June 3, when the Continuity of Government Commission released a report in favor of the idea. See www.continuityofgovernment.org, or telephone (202) 828-6038.

CONGRESS

Congressman Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, has introduced HR 2239, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. It requires voter-verifiable paper audit trails for voting systems, and also speeds up the timetable for providing machines that permit blind voters to vote in privacy. It already has 16 co-sponsors.

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

On June 17, four minor party presidential candidates from 2000 filed a new complaint against the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored all presidential general election debates since 1989. The candidates are Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips and John Hagelin.

Although this issue has been before the FEC before, the candidates produced new evidence of discriminatory practices by the Debates Commission. Specifically, guards at the entrance to the halls in which the debates were being conducted were given pictures of the four candidates and told to keep them out of the audience, even if they had tickets. Harry Browne, the only other presidential candidate on the ballot in enough states to win, was not included in the set of pictures. Although this may sound trivial, it disproves the Debates Commission’s claim that it had no intent to discriminate against any presidential candidate.

IRV NEWS

1. The California League of Women Voters is now on record as supporting Instant-Runoff Voting. Previously, the only state League with that position had been the Washington State League.

2. A joint study by Metropolitan College of New York, the Century Foundation, the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban Research, and the Center for Urban Research was released on May 15. It recommends IRV for urban city elections, to help handle increasing diversity in U.S. cities.

2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

* means entry changed since the last chart.
#Candidate procedure allows partisan label.
Other nationally-organized parties on statewide are Socialist, Soc. Workers, America First, & Workers World, in Fla.
"(reg.)" means a party must have a certain number of registered voters, as opposed to a petition.

SPECIAL ELECTION

On May 20, Michigan held a special election to fill the 65^th state House seat, centered around the city of Jackson. The vote was: Republican 51.24%; Democratic 47.49%; Green 1.27%. In November 2002 the vote had been Republican 55.97%; Democratic 44.03%.

NEW JERSEY 2003 ELECTION

New Jersey elects its entire legislature this year: 40 State Senators and 80 Assemblymen. Five minor parties are running candidates. There are 39 Greens, 3 Libertarians, one Socialist, one Socialist Worker, and one Conservative. Greens are buoyed by the fact that one of their candidates is an incumbent, running for re-election as a Green.

AMERICA FIRST PARTY

The America First Party’s national convention, scheduled for July 25-26 in Nashville, has been cancelled. Many of the party’s officers resigned recently, in a dispute over whether to invite Bo Gritz (presidential candidate of the Populist Party in 1992) to speak. Gritz is now identified with the Christian Identity movement. The remaining officers cancelled the convention because they assumed that attendance would be too poor to justify the costs.

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Green: the presidential convention will be in Milwaukee in late June or early July 2004.

Reform: holds a national convention every year. The 2003 convention will be October 10-12, near Gulfport, Mississippi. That convention will choose the city and date for the presidential convention in 2004.

Prohibition: held its presidential convention in Denver on June 12. The nominees are Earl Dodge of Denver for president, and Howard Lydick of Richardson, Texas for vice-president.

MISSISSIPPI 2003 ELECTION

Mississippi is one of three states that elects its statewide state constitutional offices this year. The Reform Party is running a slate of 7 statewide candidates, and 5 candidates for other state offices that aren’t elected on a statewide basis. This is the largest number of candidates for state office that any minor party has run in Mississippi since 1919, when the Socialist Party was active.

In addition, the Constitution Party has a candidate for Governor and one for the legislature, and the Green Party has a candidate for Governor, Sherman Lee Dillon. Dillon is the first Green Party candidate on the ballot for Governor in a southern state other than Texas.

In the other states holding a gubernatorial election this year (Kentucky and Louisiana), filing for minor party and independent candidates has not closed yet.

GREEN ELECTED IN IDAHO

On May 27, the Green Party won its first election in Idaho. In a non-partisan race for Lake Pend Oreille School Trustee, Green Party member Larry Baggett was elected with 75%. Baggett owns a bicycle shop; his opponent is president of the local Chamber of Commerce.

3 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RESPOND TO C.U.I.P.

The Committee for a Unified Independent Party (C.U.I.P) has been asking each Democratic presidential candidate to respond to questions about fair treatment for minor party and independent voters and candidates. So far, U.S. Senator John Edwards and Rev. Al Sharpton have responded, and Governor Howard Dean says he is about to respond. For details of their responses, see www.cuip.org, or telephone (212) 962-1824. C.U.I.P. is headquartered in New York city. Many of its activists were active in the New Alliance Party between 1979 and 1994.