VERMONT SENATE PASSES INSTANT-RUNOFF BILL FOR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, EFFECTIVE 2008

On April 26, the Vermont Senate passed SB 108, to use Instant-Runoff Voting in U.S. Senate and U.S. House races. The vote was 16-12.

No state in the U.S. has ever used Instant-Runoff Voting (or any alternate vote system) for a statewide general election. A few states in the South used IRV for primaries, about 100 years ago. If the bill passes the House this year and is signed into law, it will take effect in 2008. It happens that there is no U.S. Senate race in Vermont in 2008.

In case the House doesn’t pass the bill this year, the bill could still pass in 2008, since Vermont legislative sessions are two-year sessions. In other words, if the legislature goes home without finishing, the bill doesn’t need to start all over again next year. The Vermont legislature prefers to adjourn in mid-May, but sometimes it stays until June.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of IRV and other alternate vote systems, for minor parties and independent candidates. When the U.S. Supreme Court has been hostile to minor party and independent candidate ballot access, the root of the hostility seems to be a fear that having minor party and independent candidates on the general election ballot changes the outcome, relative to what the outcome would have been with only the Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot.

For instance, in Jenness v Fortson, the U.S. Supreme Court listed only three reasons why lenient ballot access might be bad. The Court said that keeping minor party and independent candidates off the ballot helps to avoid "confusion, deception, and frustration of the democratic process at the general election." The Court did not elaborate; that single sentence is all the Court said about the harm done by easy access.

"Confusion" is a reference to overcrowded ballots. However, since 1971, when the decision came out, social science research has shown that ballot crowding is never a problem if a state requires as few as 5,000 signatures. States that require 5,000 or more signatures never have more than eight candidates on the ballot for any particular race.

The reference to "deception" is a Court error. During the oral argument in Jenness, Chief Justice Earl Burger had said that an independent candidate named George Norris had run for U.S. Senate in Nebraska for the nefarious purpose of injuring U.S. Senator George Norris, who was running for re-election. Burger said this was done to trick voters who would otherwise vote for Senator Norris, into voting for the wrong Norris. But the truth is that Burger was confused. The dirty trick happened in a Republican primary in Nebraska, not in a general election. It wouldn’t have worked in a general election, since Nebraska and all states put partisan labels on the ballot. The fake Norris would have had "independent" next to his name; the real Norris would have had "Republican."

That just leaves "frustration." The Court meant that if a third party or independent candidate gets on the ballot, that might cause the outcome to be different. Documents in the Library of Congress from the notes of U.S. Supreme Court conferences show that the Justices agonized about this, when they were trying to decide whether to put independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy on the ballot in Texas in 1976, and whether to keep John B. Anderson on the ballot in Ohio in 1980. The Court ruled favorably to both candidates, by several justices fretted that these decisions might be responsible for tipping the outcome of these presidential elections.

Although the 1980 election was not close, it was perceived to be close. President Jimmy Carter and his supporters were convinced that Anderson was injuring Carter’s chances for re-election, and Carter and the Democratic National Committee intervened in various lower courts to keep both McCarthy and Anderson off ballots.

Instant-Runoff Voting removes this objection to having minor party and independent candidates on the ballot. With IRV, or any of the other alternate voting systems, there is no longer any motive for honorable people to favor restrictive ballot access laws.

Vermont activists have been working for IRV for nine years. On January 4, 1999, an elite Commission in Vermont, including leaders of the major parties, the League of Women Voters, and academics, had recommended that Vermont use IRV. Bills have been introduced ever since, but this is the first time one has passed either House.

It is fitting that Vermont should be the first state to come close to adopting IRV, since Vermont has the nation’s strongest minor party. The Progressive Party, which exists only in Vermont, has six state legislators and also holds the Mayorship of the state’s largest city, Burlington.

The lead story in the April 1 BAN was that on March 30, the Illinois Senate had passed SB 733. That bill substantially eases ballot access. On April 9, it was sent to the House Rules Committee. It has not advanced since then, but the Illinois legislature meets almost all year. Also, the legislature must pass something, since the existing law is void.

The April 1 B.A.N. said that the Minnesota Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bills, SF1298 and HF1110, made it more difficult for a new party to get on the ballot. The bills created a "start date" for the petition to create a new party. By contrast, the existing law lets a group start as early as it wants and take as long as it needs, even several years, if necessary. Also the bills moved the deadline from July to May.

Fortunately, SF1298 was amended to delete those ideas, and the amended bill passed the Senate on April 27.

On April 24, Colorado SB 83 passed the House State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee. It had already passed the Senate. It lets a qualified minor party nominate someone, even if that person has not been a member of the party for the preceding year. Qualified major parties already have this right. The existing restrictive law was used last year to prevent the Colorado Libertarian Party from nominating Ken Waters for Sheriff of Arapahoe County. As a result, only one candidate was on the ballot.

Also, the bill lets people circulate a petition for a candidate for district or county office, even if they don’t live in that candidate’s district or county.

Part of the bill would have let ex-felons on parole register to vote. However, the Committee deleted that part of the bill, since the Colorado Constitution says people convicted of a felony cannot vote until the entire term of their sentence is complete.

On April 10, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, signed SB 634, the "National Popular Vote Plan". It doesn’t go into effect until states comprising a majority of the electoral college pass similar laws. On April 23, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, vetoed SB 1956, the same plan.

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed SB 6 into law on March 5. It makes it more difficult for candidates to get on the primary ballot of a small qualified party, if the party had gone off the ballot for failing to poll enough votes for Governor in the last election. The old law required a number of signatures equal to 1% of that party’s last general election gubernatorial vote. That would have meant 40 signatures of registered party members for members of the Constitution Party in 2008 (for statewide office), and 33 signatures for Libertarians in 2008.

The new law requires 250 signatures of party members, if the party had gone off the ballot for failing to poll enough votes in the previous election. The more lenient 1% formula is retained for parties that polled enough votes in the preceding election.

Also, on March 2, Governor Rounds signed SB 81. It removes the ability of a candidate who uses the independent procedure, to choose a partisan label that is printed on the ballot. For instance, Howard Phillips, Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2000, used the independent procedure in South Dakota but was able to have "Constitution Party" next to his name. Under the new law, he could only have "independent."

HB 1007 was also signed into law. It moves the deadline for a new party from the first Tuesday in April to the last Tuesday in March.

HB 1240, which would have moved the non-presidential independent candidate deadline from June to April, failed in a Senate Committee.

On April 25, the Alabama House Constitution & Elections Committee passed HB 407. It says that the state’s presidential electors shall be elected proportionately to the state’s popular vote. Thus, if it had been in effect in 2004, President Bush would have got 6 electoral votes and Senator Kerry would have got 3.

On April 25, SB 270 was sent to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. It moves the non-presidential independent candidate petition deadline from June to March.

Montana’s non-presidential independent candidate deadline had been in March between 1973 and 1990, but in 1990, a lower state court had ruled it unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court then vacated that decision on the grounds that the candidate who had filed the lawsuit didn’t have standing. But the Montana Supreme Court didn’t say the lower court had been wrong in its holding that a March deadline is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, many courts outside Montana have ruled that February, March and April petition deadlines for non-presidential independent candidates are unconstitutional. These courts include the First, Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits. The U.S. Supreme Court in Mandel v Bradley said non-presidential independent candidate petition deadlines are unconstitutional if few independents ever qualify. Montana hasn’t had a non-presidential independent candidate qualify for statewide office since 1994. Montana requires 5,000 signatures. Putting the deadline in March forces independent candidates to petition in harsh winter weather.

On April 27, Representative Rick Jore briefly met with Governor Schweitzer and asked him to veto the bill. The Governor has until May 5 to make up his mind.

The Montana legislature also passed SB 96 on April 26. It makes it illegal for non-residents of Montana to circulate an initiative petition, and it also makes it illegal for any initiative petitioner to be paid on a per-signature basis.

The legislature has now adjourned. It did not pass any bill to relieve the court costs of recounts on candidates who lose the recount. Thus, Constitution Party legislator Rick Jore still owes $18,000 for 2004.

Arizona: on April 24, the legislature passed SB 1430. It moves the primary from mid-September to early September. That automatically moves the independent candidate deadline from the 2^nd week in June, to the 1^st week in June. It also moves the deadline for a new party from mid-March to early March.

Arkansas: on April 4, the Governor signed HB 2367, which sets up the state’s first-ever statutory procedure for independent presidential candidates, a petition of 1,000 names. He also signed HB 2353, which lowers the petition for new parties from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to a flat 10,000 signatures.

Maine: on March 28, House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree introduced HD 1799. It eases the petition to create a new party from 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 2.5%. It lowers the vote test from 5% to 2.5%. It legalizes fusion, and provides that smaller qualified parties would nominate by convention, not primary.

New York: S29 and A575 would lower the number of signatures in half. The statewide petition would fall from 15,000 signatures to 7,500 signatures.

Missouri: on April 26, the Senate Financial, Government Organization & Elections Committee passed HB 894, by a vote of 3-2. It requires independent candidates to submit a declaration of candidacy in March. The petition deadline would remain in late July. Since the bill includes presidential independents, it is unconstitutional as applied to presidential candidates, under Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 US 780 (1983). That decision said, "If the State’s filing deadline were later, a newly-emergent independent candidate could serve as the focal point for a group of Ohio voters who decide, after mid-March, that they are dissatisfied with the choices within the two major parties." The decision then struck down Ohio’s March 20 deadline, not because it was too difficult to collect 5,000 signatures by that date, but because it limits flexibility.

Missouri (2): SB138 passed the Senate on March 26. It corrects a drafting error made in 1993, which seemingly forces a new party to list candidates for presidential elector on its petition to create a new party, even though the law does not force that new party to list candidates for any other office on its petition. The intent behind the 1993 bill was to let new parties circulate before they have chosen their nominees. Then, after the petition is completed, they choose nominees in convention.

Oregon: The Senate Legislative Operations Committee has held two hearings on SB 630, on April 4 and April 25. SB 630 would limit the general election ballot (for all partisan office except president) to just two candidates.

Rhode Island: HB5466 changes the definition of "party" from a group that polled 5% for Governor at the last election, to one that polled 5% for any statewide office. If it passes this year, and is applied retrospectively, the Cool Moose Party would regain its status as a qualified party.

Tennessee: on April 4, the Senate State & Local Government Committee defeated SB288 by one vote. It would have lowered the number of signatures on the petition for a new party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to a flat 2,500 signatures. It would also have provided that small qualified parties nominate by convention, not primary. Democrats on the Committee voted "No"; Republicans voted "Yes." The Tennessee Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties will now sue to overturn the existing law. No new party has qualified in Tennessee since 1968.

On April 18, the Oregon House Elections Committee passed HB 3040, by 4-2. It legalizes fusion, the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. Such a candidate would be listed twice, and voters could choose whether to vote for the candidate under party label "A" or party label "B". This type of fusion is also used in New York, Connecticut, and South Carolina.

On April 17, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed both Ranked Voting bills. AB 1294 lets any city or county use Instant-Runoff Voting for its own elections (except School Board races). Current law only lets charter cities and counties use IRV.

AB 1662 lets overseas military voters use ranked voting in elections which have a possibility of requiring a run-off. This avoids the problem that mail to overseas military is sometimes so slow, there isn’t time for the mail to go both ways when two elections dates are close together. Under this bill, the overseas military can vote simultaneously on both.

On April 19, the U.S. House passed HR 1905 by a vote of 241-177. It permanently expands the size of the U.S. House of Representatives, from 435 members to 437. It gives a voting member to the District of Columbia. It also gives Utah a seat, but that is a temporary gift. After the 2010 census, the normal process of reapportionment would take effect.

California: on April 19, the Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 970, which requires the Secretary of State to sponsor three general election gubernatorial debates. All ballot-listed candidates would be invited. The vote was 4-2, with Republicans opposed.

Idaho: on March 30, S1244 was defeated. It would have instituted registration by party.

Iowa: on April 3, the Governor signed HF399, to let voters register at the polls on election day.

Maryland: the Governor signed SB 488, to let ex-felons register to vote.

New Hampshire: on April 16, the Governor signed SB 36, to abolish the "straight-ticket" device. A "straight-ticket device" is a choice at on a ballot which lets a voter vote for one particular party’s nominee for every office, in a single motion.

Others: Third Parties During the Populist Period, Volume II, by Darcy G. Richardson, 2007, published by iUniverse, N.Y. 492 pages. Soft cover is $30.95.

This book is filled with stories of conflict so exciting that they make one’s blood race. The book covers U.S. political and social history 1888-1908, and is the second in a series. It is far more than an account of election campaigns and candidates. It tells the story of some of the greatest struggles between capital and labor of that period, in detail that makes it difficult to put the book down. However, it is entirely even-handed, and pays just as careful attention to the Prohibition Party, or the little-remembered Union Labor Party, as it does to the Peoples, Socialist and Socialist Labor Parties.

Some might think that Prohibition Party figures of the day were boring, but this is not the case. Silas C. Swallow, the party’s 1904 nominee, was the victim of an attempted lynching the night that President McKinley died, because he had just written an editorial linking the violence the U.S. was using against the Philippine independence movement with the violence that had caused three U.S. presidents to be assassinated in only 36 years. Eugene Chafin, Prohibition Party presidential candidate in 1908, rescued a young African-American man from a lynching while campaigning in Springfield, Illinois. Chafin was injured in the fracas and could easily have been killed.

The book reveals that Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party was the first presidential candidate to campaign from one end of the country to the other from the back of a train, in 1908. The technique was so successful, Democratic and Republican Party candidates copied it, and used it as late as 1960.

There are chapters on two little-remembered minor parties that had strong support from very influential figures.

The National (Gold) Democratic Party of 1896 had the stealthy support of outgoing Democratic President Grover Cleveland. The Independence Party of 1906-1908 had sizeable financial backing from its founder, William Randolph Hearst.

In the future, Richardson will be authoring at least three more volumes covering years after 1908. When the series is done, it will be the definitive work for the history of minor parties and independent candidates. Others, Volume I, was reviewed in B.A.N. in the July 1, 2004 issue. It covered the period 1832-1886. Others, Volume II, is more engrossing than Volume One. This is probably because the political issues in 1888-1908 are so similar to the political issues of today, whereas the political issues before 1888 (banking, slavery, reconstruction of the South) are not.

Note: B.A.N. editor Richard Winger authored the book’s Appendix, a brief description of the ballot access laws of each state, 1889-1908.

Independent Politics: the Green Party Strategy Debate, edited by Howie Hawkins. 2006: Haymarket Books, Chicago. $16.00, 280 pp.

This book is essential for anyone who is interested in Green Party history or strategy. It consists of documents and articles written by Green Party activists during the period 2003-2005, on the subject of what approach the Green Party should have used in the 2004 election.

Authors of these documents include Peter Camejo, John Rensenbrink, Tom Sevigny, Ted Glick, David Cobb, Norman Solomon, Ralph Nader, editors of The Nation, Carol Miller, Forrest Hill, Dean Myerson, Matt Gonzalez, Medea Benjamin, Steve Welzer, and others. Many of the authors sharply disagreed with certain other authors, and the book tries to be as even-handed as it could. A few relevant documents are not included because certain authors refused permission for reprinting.

Eight candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination debated each other on April 26 in South Carolina. Nine candidates seeking the Republican nomination will debate each other on May 3. The Democratic debate received high marks for being well-organized and interesting. If the Republican debate also appears well-managed and useful, there should no longer be any rational reason for the general election presidential debates to be confined to just two nominees.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which runs the general election debates, insists that no one be invited who is below 15% in polls. In contrast, some of the candidates invited to the primary season debates this year were at or below 1% in polls. Yet, they were still invited, and their presence (at least in the Democratic debate) enhanced the debate.

Rock the Debates is a new organization which hopes to persuade large numbers of people in Iowa and New Hampshire to repeatedly ask the major Republican and Democratic contenders if they are willing to participate in an inclusive general election debate. Specifically, the question will be whether they would participate in a debate at which anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to win, would be invited. In all U.S. history, there have never been more than seven such candidates, including the major party nominees. The Rock the Debates web page is not yet functional, but it will be soon. In the meantime, contact Bob Sullentrup at rwsully@charter.net.

Law Professor Mark R. Brown has written "Policing Ballot Access: Lessons from Nader’s 2004 Run for President." It is in Capital University Law Review, fall 2006, vol. 35, #1. It argues that the challenge system (used in a minority of states) is poor public policy. That system assumes petitions are valid, but lets private groups dispute that assumption.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	WK FAM.	Party Due	Indp. Due
Alabama	37,513	5,000	0	0	0	0	June 3	Sep. 8
Alaska	(reg) 7,124	#3,128	already on	*3,502	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	est. #21,500	already on	*2,200	0	0	Mar. 13	June 11
Arkansas	10,000	#1,000	0	0	0	0	June 30	Aug. 4
Calif.	(reg) 88,991	158,372	already on	already on	already on	0	Dec. 31, 07	Aug. 8
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	Pay $500	already on	already on	already on	0	May 1	June 17
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 6
Delaware	est. (reg) 290	est. 5,800	already on	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 12	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	est. #3,900	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 19
Florida	be organized	104,334	already on	already on	already on	0	Sep. 2	July 15
Georgia	44,089	#42,489	already on	*0	*0	*0	July 8	July 8
Hawaii	663	4,291	already on	*0	60	0	Apr. 3	Sep. 5
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	can’t start	already on	can’t start	Aug. 29	Aug. 25
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	June 26
Indiana	no procedure	#32,742	already on	0	0	0	- - -	June 23
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	- - -	Aug. 15
Kansas	16,994	5,000	already on	0	0	0	June 2	Aug. 4
Kentucky	no procedure	#5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Sep. 2
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	47	0	May 22	Sep. 2
Maine	27,544	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	Dec 14, 07	Ag 15
Maryland	10,000	est. 32,500	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Mass.	est. (reg) 40,500	#10,000	19,253	already on	65	already on	Feb. 1	July 29
Michigan	38,024	38,024	already on	already on	already on	0	July 17	July 17
Minnesota	110,150	#2,000	0	0	0	0	July 15	Sep. 9
Mississippi	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Jan. 10	Sep. 5
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	*1,500	0	July 29	July 29
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	*10	already on	0	Mar. 13	July 30
Nebraska	5,921	2,500	6,800	already on	already on	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 26
Nevada	5,746	5,746	already on	already on	already on	0	July 3	July 3
N. Hamp.	12,106	#3,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	- - -	July 28
New Mex.	2,794	16,764	already on	already on	unclear	0	Apr. 1	June 4
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	already on	- - -	Aug. 19
No. Car.	69,734	69,734	*55,500	0	100	0	May 16	June 12
No. Dakota	7,000	#4,000	already on	0	already on	0	Apr. 11	Sep. 5
Ohio	law is void	5,000	0	0	0	0	unsettled	Aug. 21
Oklahoma	46,324	43,913	in court	0	0	0	May 1	July 15
Oregon	20,640	18,356	already on	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	est. #27,000	*can’t start	*can’t start	*can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	18,557	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	May 30	Sep. 5
So. Caro.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	May 4	July 15
So. Dakota	8,389	3,356	*25	0	200	0	*Mar. 25	Aug. 5
Tennessee	45,254	25	0	0	0	0	unsettled	Aug. 21
Texas	43,991	74,108	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	May 27	May 12
Utah	2,000	#1,000	*900	300	already on	0	Feb. 15	Sep. 2
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	0	0	Jan. 1	Sep. 12
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 22
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	July 26
West Va.	no procedure	#15,118	0	0	*250	0	- - -	Aug. 1
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	June 2	Sep. 2
Wyoming	3,868	3,868	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	June 2	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			26	19*	14	5	-	-

#partisan label is permitted (other than "independent").
* means entry changed since April 1, 2007 B.A.N.
"Wk Fam" means Working Families Party.
"Consti" means Constitution Party.

Three wealthy individuals have recently joined the Libertarian Party and are actively seeking its presidential nomination. All are registered Libertarians and dues-paying members of the party. None of them has run for partisan public office in the past.

Daniel Imperato, of Florida, has been running for president for over a year, but he had previously been running as an independent. FEC records show that he has already raised $250,000. This year he has been visiting every state Libertarian Party convention, and plans to continue. He has a campaign website.

Michael Jingozian, of Oregon, has been seeking the Libertarian nomination since February. He has attended some state conventions, has filed with the FEC, and has a campaign website.

Wayne Root, of Nevada, has also been seeking the Libertarian nomination since February. He has not yet filed with the FEC and he does not yet have a campaign website, but he will soon. He also is producing a pilot film for his own proposed "reality TV" cable series. His cameramen were filming at the California Libertarian Party state convention in San Ramon, California, on April 21-22.

On April 23, a U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, Florida, decided that a jury trial will be held starting June 18 to determine who are the legitimate national party officers of the Reform Party. The case is Reform Party USA v O’Hara, 4:05cv426. The lawsuit was filed in 2005 by Charles Foster, Ruben Hernandez and Beverly Kennedy in the name of the Reform Party, against three other groups which hold themselves out to be the national officers of the Reform Party.

The lawsuit is probably the first lawsuit in U.S. history in which a court will determine who the national officers of any political party are.

Georgia is holding a special congressional election in June, to fill the vacant 10^th district seat. Dr. Jim Sendelbach, a Libertarian, will be on the ballot, along with six Republicans and three Democrats. This will be the first time since 1942 that any party has placed a candidate on the ballot in a U.S. House race in Georgia, with the party label.

Georgia special congressional elections do not require any candidate to submit a petition. Regular U.S. House elections, however, require a petition signed by 5% of the registered voters in the district. This requirement is so stringent, no minor party has ever been able to comply with it. The requirement has existed since 1943. The last time an independent complied with it was 1964. Back in 1964, the petition deadline was in October and the signatures were not checked. Also, in 1964, no county was split by congressional district boundary lines. This made it easier to circulate the petition.

Georgia has held special congressional elections since 1942, but the law governing special elections did not permit any party labels on the ballot, until recently.

On April 23, a new party submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the Puerto Rican ballot. It is the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party. Puerto Rico requires a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters, for a new party to qualify. This is the first time a new party has qualified in Puerto Rico since 1984. The petition took two years to complete.

The national committee of the Constitution Party met in Boise, Idaho, April 20-22. The committee tentatively chose Phoenix as the site for its 2008 presidential convention, with Kansas City as a back-up. The convention will be in late April or early May, 2008.

---

SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com. If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.