COURT PUTS ALASKA GREEN PARTY ON 2004 BALLOT

On November 3, Alaska Superior Court Judge John Reese ordered the state to put the Green Party back on the ballot. Green Party of Alaska v Alaska Division of Elections, 3AN 03-9936.

Alaska defines "party" as a group that either polled 3% for Governor at the last election, or which has registered members equal to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. In the 2002 election, the Green Party got over 3% for U.S. Senate and U.S. House, but it didn’t get as much as 3% for Governor. Nor does it have enough registrations to qualify that way (the party has 4,769 registrations, and needs 6,937). The party sued, claiming that it is irrational to use only the gubernatorial vote. A slight majority of the states let any statewide candidate meet the vote test.

The Alaska definition of "party" has not yet been held unconstitutional, but it probably will be. The judge wouldn’t have issued the injunction if he hadn’t believed the law is likely to be held unconstitutional. There will be a trial on November 25, 2004, an entire year away, so the Green Party is safely on the ballot until then. The state did not ask the State Supreme Court to countermand the injunction.

Assuming the court does rule the law unconstitutional, the precedent will help persuade state legislatures in other states to provide that the vote test is satisfied, if a party meets it for any statewide office. When states limit the vote test to just a single statewide office, parties are forced to run for that particular office, whether they want to or not.

States that limit the vote test to just a single office per election year, besides Alaska, are Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

---

REPUBLICAN ILLINOIS BILL FAILS

On November 21, the Illinois Senate defeated SB 82, which would have relaxed the deadline for a qualified party to certify the names of its presidential and vice-presidential nominees. The current deadline is 67 days before the election. The Republicans won’t nominate until September 2, which is only 61 days before the November 2, 2004 election.

The bill failed because it had other provisions that were unacceptable to Republicans and some Democrats. The chief provision would have canceled an $800,000 fine that had been levied on the Democratic Secretary of State for breaking various campaign finance laws. Also the bill would have provided that dimpled chads on punchcard ballots should be counted. The bill lost 23-27. It needed 36 votes (60%) because this was a special "veto" session.

Probably the Republican problem will be fixed in the legislative session that starts in January. Illinois is the only state where Republicans haven’t yet managed to alter the deadlines to accommodate their late convention.

If the problem doesn’t get solved in the legislature, the Republican Party would probably file a lawsuit, asserting that the 67-day deadline is unconstitutionally early. If the case were to win, it would be an excellent precedent. Currently, minor party or independent candidates for president must submit petitions in May in Texas, and June in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and North Carolina. If late August is unconstitutional for the qualified parties, surely May and June are unconstitutional for others.

The last time a major party presidential nominee failed to appear on the November ballot of any state was 1964, when Alabama kept Lyndon Johnson off its ballot.

---

TWO NEW ALLIES

Recently, two influential political organizations declared themselves in favor of easier ballot access for minor party and independent candidates, at least for president.

1. The Reform Institute is about to publish a 61-page analysis of state ballot access laws for presidential candidates. The Introduction makes it clear that the Reform Institute will be working to ease ballot access laws. U.S. Senator John McCain created the Institute earlier this year. 211 N. Union St., #250, Alexandria Va 22314. www.reforminstitute.org. (703) 535-6897.

2. Marian Viray, Managing Director of The Campaign Legal Center, recently co-authored an article that condemns severe ballot access laws. Therefore, one may conclude that The Campaign Legal Center itself is an ally. The article is "Barriers to Participation," in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, spring 2003.

The Campaign Legal Center, 1101 Connecticut Av. NW #330, Washington DC 20036. (202) 736-2200. www.campaignlegalcenter.org.

---

WEST VIRGINIA

On December 5, a hearing will be held in U.S. District Court in McClure v Manchin, 1:3cv205, northern district, Clarksburg. This very important case challenges a law that requires circulators to tell potential signers that if they sign a minor party petition, they can’t vote in the primary. Ironically, voters can do both! The case also challenges a law that circulators cannot work unless they first get "credentialed". These two laws have been handicapping minor parties for decades. The Libertarian Party hopes that Judge Irene Keeley will issue an injunction against both laws.

---

RARE DIALOGUE AT DEMOCRACY MEETING

The Center for Voting & Democracy held its "Democracy Conference" in Washington, D.C., Nov. 21-23. Conferences like this are always useful, but this one was extraordinary.

Most such conferences consist of attendees who are of like mind. But this conference consisted of two camps of opposing views about the wisdom of engaging in minor party and independent political action, at least in the 2004 presidential election.

Leaders of labor, feminist, ethnic minority, campaign finance reform, and environmental advocacy groups attended. These groups are non-partisan but their leaders generally support Democrats. They include Common Cause, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, Friends of the Earth, Greenlining Institute, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, NAACP National Voter Fund, National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, National Council of La Raza, National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Project Vote, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, Rainbow Coalition/PUSH, Urban League, and US Public Interest Research Group.

The above groups were motivated to attend a conference on voting rights, partly because they are convinced that removing barriers to voting would have helped the Democratic Party win the presidency in 2000. They are correct. Specifically, if Florida had not imposed discriminatory barriers to Black voters in 2000, Gore would have carried Florida.

Also attending the conference were many leaders of the Green Party, and leaders of other groups that support independent electoral activity, generally to the left of the Democratic Party. Of course people of all political persuasions were present; but the conference fundamentally was composed of two camps. Crudely, they can be characterized as people who supported Gore in 2000 and people who supported Nader in 2000.

Conference organizers did not try to disguise this tension, and held a well-attended debate between the team of Ralph Nader and his campaign manager Theresa Amato, versus Professor John White and Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future. The subject: "Is it Time for Multi-Party Democracy?"

The participant at the Conference who was most forthright in setting forth the idea that everyone ought to participate in the Democratic and Republican Parties, however, was not in that debate. That participant was Hendrik Hertzberg. He made his views clear during the question-and-answer session after the debate, and also informally at the dinner hour.

Hertzberg said, "There are only two teams in the (baseball) World Series." Hertzberg is an influential journalist. He is a former editor of The New Republic and currently a senior editor at The New Yorker. The entire case in favor of repressive ballot access laws for minor parties and independent candidates rests on the point of view that all politically active individuals ought to carry on activism within the Democratic or Republican Parties.

The case against this view is simple. The text of the U.S. Constitution, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, and the Helsinki Accords, all guarantee individuals and groups the freedom to decide for themselves which political party to join.

The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble". The 14th Amendment applies this to the states. The right to assemble together into a political party is meaningless, if such party is barred from the ballot, according to the Supreme Court in Williams v Rhodes.

The Helsinki Accords require the U.S. to "respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties and provide them with legal guarantees to enable them to compete on a basis of equal treatment." Also to "respect the right of citizens to seek public office without discrimination".

Articles 25 of the U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says "Every citizen shall have the right…to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall…guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors." Article 26 says, "The law shall prohibit any discrimination on any ground such as…political or other opinion."

State laws, and court decisions, in the U.S. make it clear that some citizens are not free to participate in the Democratic and Republican Parties. The 11^th circuit has held that the major parties may exclude candidates with divergent political views from entering their primaries. State courts and state laws in Hawaii, New York and Connecticut give political parties the right to expel members who have shown disloyalty to those parties. A 3-judge U.S. District Court in D.C. has upheld the right of the Democratic Party to refuse to count votes cast for delegates to the national convention who support Lyndon LaRouche. The idea that anyone, regardless of views, is free to participate in the Democratic and Republican Parties is factually incorrect. The cases referred to in this paragraph are consistent with freedom of association for the Democratic and Republican Parties. They are buttressed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 decision Democratic Party of California v Jones, which said that parties need not tolerate letting their nominees be chosen by outsiders.

Therefore, because the Democratic and Republican Parties enjoy freedom of association, and because they can exclude outsiders, it follows logically that the government must permit the people to form other political parties, and must not discriminate against any political party.

Hertzberg is to be commended for bringing the argument into the open.

The Conference accomplished a great many goals. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., called for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to vote, and that effort, someday in the future, will probably mark its birthplace at the November 2003 conference.

---

NEW JERSEY GREENS LOSE LEGISLATOR

In November, New Jersey Assemblyman Matt Ahearn, one of two Green legislators in the U.S., was defeated. He had been elected as a Democrat in 2001, but had switched to the Greens early this year. Polls had shown him in a 3-way tie with his Democratic and Republican opponents, but he only got 10.81%.

Part of the reason for his defeat lies with the unfair ballot format used in his county (Bergen County) and certain other New Jersey counties. See the ballot in this Adobe Acrobat .pdf format.. Note that the words "Republican" and "Democratic" are prominently displayed in large type, whereas the "Green" label is so tiny, it is virtually invisible.

---

INSTANT-RUNOFF GAINS

On November 25, the Berkeley, California city council voted to put a ballot measure on the March 2004 ballot. It will decide if the city should use Instant-Runoff Voting.

Also, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley met with San Francisco city elections last month, and pledged to do everything in his power to see that San Francisco can use Instant-Runoff in its 2004 city elections.

---

PRES. PRIMARIES

New Hampshire: has the only presidential primary in which the list of candidates has already closed. 14 Republicans and 23 Democrats are running. None of the Republicans except President Bush is well known. See www.state.nh.us/sos for the list.

California: names can be added or deleted until December 24. So far, the candidates are--

Republican: President Bush.

Democratic: the nine "recognized" candidates, plus Lyndon LaRouche.

Green: David Cobb, Kent Mesplay and Lorna Salzman.

Libertarian: Gary Nolan, Michael Badnarik.

Peace & Freedom: Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, and Walt Brown.

Amer. Indp: Michael Peroutka.

District of Columbia: is holding Democratic and Green primaries. The Green ballot has David Cobb. The Democratic ballot now has Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Lyndon LaRouche and Carol Braun. The other leading Democrats withdrew. However, the city council is mulling over a bill to print the names of the withdrawn candidates, notwithstanding their desire not to be listed.

---

NEW YORK NEWS

The Independence Party will ask the legislature to amend the law, to set up a type of presidential primary the party wants for itself. The party feels that neither of the two existing plans for presidential primaries fit the party (one plan is for Democrats; the other for Republicans). If the legislature won’t act, the party will sue.

On November 4, the voters of New York city rejected a charter amendment, to switch the city to non-partisan elections, by 30%-70%.

---

PENNSYLVANIA NEWS

On October 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to hear the Reform Party’s appeal In re Zulick (see Sep. & Oct. BAN for information on this case). www.ballot-access.org.

---

2003 STATE ELECTIONS

The only minor party candidates for statewide office in the 2003 elections were in Mississippi. Unofficial totals for Governor: Republican 53.01%; Democratic 45.41%; Constitution .71%; Green .44%; Reform .44%. The combined minor party vote for Governor, 1.6%, though modest, is the highest for that office since 1919.

MINOR PARTY STATE LEGISLATIVE VOTE, Oct. & Nov. 2003

a	Green	Libertarian	Soc. Worker	Socialist	Conservative	Reform
Georgia House	117	a	a	a	a	a
Louisiana Senate	1,528	1,366	a	a	a	a
Louisiana House	1,152	2,336	a	a	a	a
New Jersey Senate	13,767	2,055	460	a	651	a
New Jersey Assem.	31,130	637	a	770	a	a
Pennsylvania Sen.	a	a	a	a	a	2,813

MINOR PARTY STATE LEGISLATIVE PERCENTAGES

a	Green	Libertarian	Soc. Worker	Socialist	Conservative	Reform
Georgia House	1.30%	a	a	a	a	a
Louisiana Senate	6.05%	5.13%	a	a	a	a
Louisiana House	7.81%	19.39%	a	a	a	a
New Jersey Senate	5.37%	2.30%	4.96%	a	1.50%	a
New Jersey Assem.	4.73%	2.56%	a	1.64%	a	a
Pennsylvania Sen.	a	a	a	a	a	5.79%

---

2004 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED					DEADLINE later method
	FULL PARTY	CAND.	LIB'T	GREEN	NAT LAW	CONSTI.	REFORM
Alabama	41,012	5,000	300	0	0	0	0	Aug 31
Alaska	(reg) 6,937	#2,845	already on	*already on	0	0	0	Aug 4
Arizona	16,348	est #10,000	already on	*3,200	0	0	0	Jun 9
Arkansas	10,000	1,000	*500	0	0	0	0	Aug 2
California	(reg) 77,389	153,035	already on	already on	already on	already on	50,536	Aug 6
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 5
Connecticut	no procedure	#7,500	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 7
Delaware	est. (reg) 270	est. 5,400	already on	already on	already on	*234	233	Aug 21
D.C.	no procedure	est. #3,600	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 17
Florida	be organized	93,024	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	Sep 1
Georgia	37,153	#37,153	already on	*2,500	0	0	0	July 13
Hawaii	677	3,711	already on	already on	already on	0	0	Sep 3
Idaho	10,033	5,017	already on	*1,300	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	Jun 21
Indiana	no procedure	#29,553	already on	0	0	0	0	Jul 1
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	*350	0	0	0	0	Aug 13
Kansas	16,714	5,000	already on	*1,500	0	0	already on	Aug 2
Kentucky	no procedure	#5,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 26
Louisiana	est. (reg) 140,000	pay fee	1,170	667	22	37	2,806	Sep 7
Maine	25,260	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	0	Aug 9
Maryland	10,000	est. 28,000	*14,000	already on	0	*19,000	0	Aug 2
Mass.	est. (reg) 38,000	#10,000	already on	already on	0	0	0	July 27
Michigan	31,776	31,776	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 15
Minnesota	112,557	#2,000	0	already on	0	0	0	Sep 14
Mississippi	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	Sep 3
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	0	0	0	July 26
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	already on	already on	*800	already on	July 28
Nebraska	4,810	2,500	already on	*4,350	0	0	0	Aug 24
Nevada	4,805	4,805	already on	already on	already on	already on	0	July 9
New Hamp.	13,260	#3,000	0	0	0	0	0	Aug 11
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	0	July 26
New Mexico	2,422	14,527	already on	already on	0	0	0	Sep 7
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 17
No. Carolina	58,842	est 100,000	already on	*9,700	0	100	0	Jun 25
North Dakota	7,000	#4,000	0	0	0	0	0	Sep 3
Ohio	32,290	5,000	finished	*0	0	0	0	Aug 19
Oklahoma	51,781	37,027	*3,500	0	0	0	0	Jul 15
Oregon	18,864	15,306	already on	already on	0	already on	0	Aug 24
Penn.	no procedure	*est 26,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 2
Rhode Island	16,592	#1,000	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	Sep 3
So. Carolina	10,000	10,000	already on	*2,500	already on	already on	already on	Jul 15
South Dakota	8,364	#3,346	*1,400	0	0	*7,000	0	Aug 3
Tennessee	41,322	25	0	0	0	2,200	0	Aug 19
Texas	45,540	64,077	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	May 24
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	*2,050	0	Sep 3
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	0	0	0	0	Sep 16
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 20
Washington	no procedure	#200	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug 25
West Va.	no procedure	#12,963	*1,500	0	0	0	0	Aug 2
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	0	already on	can't start	Sep 14
Wyoming	3,644	3,644	already on	0	0	0	0	Aug 17
TOTAL STATES ON			27	*21	12	10	7

# allows partisan label.
* means entry changed since the last issue of B.A.N.
"(reg.)" means a party must have a certain number of registered voters.
All dates in "deadline" column are 2004.
The Independent American Party has 500 in Utah.

---

FOUR MINOR PARTIES WIN ELECTIONS

The Green, Libertarian, Working Families and Reform Parties all won at least one election on November 4, 2003, in city, township, and special district elections:

GREEN elected 41 candidates, as follows: California 6; Connecticut 3; Iowa 2; Maine 3; Michigan 2; Minnesota 1; Pennsylvania 19; Virginia 2; Washington 3. The victories in Connecticut and Pennsylvania were partisan.

In addition, in San Francisco’s mayoral race, Matt Gonzalez polled 19.59% of the total, enough for a 2^nd place finish and entry into the December 9 run-off. The race is non-partisan but voters are well aware of the party membership of each candidate. Gonzalez’ opponent is a Democrat; polls show that the race is close.

LIBERTARIAN elected 20 candidates: Idaho 1; Indiana 6; Iowa 2; Michigan 5; North Carolina 3; Pennsylvania 1; Virginia 1; Washington 1. The victories in Indiana and Pennsylvania were partisan.

Also, the Libertarian write-in candidate for Mayor of Macon, Georgia, polled 25%.

WORKING FAMILIES elected 3 candidates: 2 to the city council of Willimantic, Connecticut; and 1 to the New York city council. All were partisan.

REFORM elected a candidate to the Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania School Board, a partisan race. In addition, the party’s candidate for County Judge in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, Art Zulick, polled 21.76% of the vote as a write-in candidate against Republican and Democratic opponents.

CONSTITUTION didn’t win any elections, but it came close to electing a Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Commissioner. The party’s national chairman, Jim Clymer, polled 17,850 votes, 25.47%, in a three-party race. If he had polled 19,659 votes, he would have been elected. Parties can only run two candidates, and voters can only vote for two, but the top three candidates are elected.

---

NATURAL LAW CONVENTION

The Natural Law Party held a national meeting on November 1 in Columbus, Ohio, but did not nominate anyone. The Ohio branch of the party endorsed Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic nomination, and the national party informally supports him. Kucinich spoke at the meeting.

---

CONSTITUTION PARTY LIKELY TO CHOOSE MICHAEL PEROUTKA

On November 7, Michael A. Peroutka announced that he is seeking the presidential nomination of the Constitution Party. The party’s national committee, meeting that same day in Detroit, Michigan, then chose Peroutka as its stand-in presidential candidate. The final decision will be made in late June at the party’s Valley Forge, Pennsylvania national convention.

Peroutka is an attorney who lives in Millersville, Maryland. He worked for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Reagan, and has established an Institute on the Constitution. If nominated by the Constitution Party next year, he will be that party’s second presidential candidate. The only presidential candidate the party has had previously has been Howard Phillips.

---

SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY

The Socialist Labor Party ran candidates from 1877 through 1985, and then stopped. However, it planned to run a candidate for Houston, Texas city council this year. But the candidate failed to get on the ballot, because he waited until the last day to file, and appeared at the office after it had closed.

---

AMERICAN PARTY

The American Party nominated presidential and vice-presidential candidates last June, but those candidates have since withdrawn. The party will hold a new convention January 12-13, 2004, in New Orleans, Louisiana.