OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR BALLOT CASE
LIBERTARIAN BALLOT ACCESS CASE HAD BEEN FILED IN 2004

On May 14, the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian Political Organization v Clingman, no. 103,592. Thus ended the Libertarian Party’s most costly-ever ballot access lawsuit. The party had spent approximately $30,000 in 2004 on collecting 27,000 signatures, plus $5,000 on attorneys’ fees and court fees. The signatures had been collected in an attempt to persuade the court that the party does enjoy a modicum of voter support. No other party or candidate even tried to petition in Oklahoma in 2004.

The case was based on a provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that says "elections shall be free and equal." The evidence seemed overwhelming that the state’s ballot access laws relating to presidential candidates at the general election violates this part of the state Constitution. Oklahoma voters in 2004 were the only voters who could not vote for president, unless they wanted to vote for President Bush or Senator John Kerry. No write-ins are allowed, and Oklahoma was the only state in which only Bush and Kerry were on the ballot.

Oklahoma is one of only five states that doesn’t permit write-ins at the general election. Oklahoma is the only state in which all procedures to get a minor party or independent presidential candidate on the ballot are greater than 2% of the last vote cast. Oklahoma is one of only four states in which the easiest presidential procedure is more than 1.33% of the last presidential vote cast (the others are North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming). See the chart on page two. The median requirement of the 50 states is four-tenths of 1% of the last presidential vote cast.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court is free to decline to hear cases. In this case, none of the 9 justices wanted to hear the case.

If one lists all the non-major party presidential candidates who have been on the ballot in at least 43 states, since 1912, one finds that there are 37 instances at which one of these "important" minor party or independent presidential candidates failed to get on a ballot. Out of these 37 instances, 6 of them occurred in Oklahoma. No other state had more than 3 such instances (see page 4).

The trial court’s opinion in this case, issued on July 5, 2006, is only one sentence: "The Court finds the matter at bar is controlled by Rainbow Coalition v Oklahoma State Election Board and that the fact that the legislature moved the petition filing deadline 30 days is not a significant factor in distinguishing the case at bar from Rainbow Coalition." The reference to Rainbow Coalition is to a federal case filed in 1986, upholding the state’s ballot access laws. They require a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast for a party to get on the ballot, and a vote of 10% for the office at the top of the ticket (president or Governor) for it to remain on. The presidential candidate of an unqualified party, or an independent presidential candidate, may get on the ballot with a petition signed by 3% of the last presidential vote.

The Libertarian Party had argued that the federal court decision should not control this case, since the case is based on the State Constitution, but the trial court said nothing about the State Constitutional provision that elections be "free and equal."

Therefore, the only real decision in this case was the one issued by the State Court of Appeals on February 27, 2007. That decision refused to acknowledge the truth that Oklahoma was the only state in 2004 in which only Bush and Kerry were on the ballot. The trial had taken place before that was known.

In their Appellate brief, Plaintiffs had alleged that it was true, but it was too late to submit additional evidence. If the three Appeals judges hadn’t believed the allegation, they were free to check for themselves. In 2005, the Federal Election Commission and the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives had both published official government election returns, documenting this fact.

The Appeals Court said, "Even if we accept all these allegations as true, they do not support Plaintiff’s argument that Oklahoma’s ballot access laws are unreasonably restrictive, severe, or discriminatory. First, the fact that Oklahoma was the only state without minority parties on the ballot in 2004 does not prove that the questioned law is unduly restrictive, since this fact could also be explained by the party’s failure to present candidates and a platform that captured the interest of prospective voters."

"Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that laws prohibiting write-in candidates on ballots are not presumptively unconstitutional."

"Third, although many other states only have a 2.5% signature requirement for such petitions, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved a 5% requirement that was even more restrictive."

"Fourth, the historical data does not prove that the party has had an insufficient opportunity to be placed upon the ballot by the petition procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally been unimpressed with such arguments when other candidates or the same party have previously been successful using the same procedure. Here, the party has been able to place the name of its presidential candidate on the ballot, using essentially the same procedure as is now set forth in the law, on two previous occasions."

"Fifth, the evidentiary material affirmatively suggests that the party did not make reasonable efforts to collect the required signatures."

That part of the decision shows a shocking failure to look at the evidence and the relevant precedents. The evidence showed that the median requirement of the 50 states to place a minor party presidential candidate on the ballot is four-tenths of 1% of the last presidential vote cast. No state requires a 2.5% petition procedure except for South Dakota and Tennessee, but those two requirements are for full party status; both states have a much easier independent candidate requirement

It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court said that write-in space is not required on ballots, but the U.S. Supreme Court had said that in the context of Hawaiian ballot access. The Hawaii write-in case involved a voter who wanted to cast a write-in vote at a Democratic primary for state legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the voter’s complaint by pointing out that any adult citizen could have got on the Democratic primary ballot by filing 15 valid signatures by July of the election year. The clear implication of the U.S. Supreme Court decision was that write-ins are not important when ballot access is easy.

The Appeals Court had tried to explain the state interest in requiring almost 50,000 signatures for a new party to get on the ballot. It said, "Such restrictions not only preserve parties as viable and identifiable interest groups, but also discourage ‘frivolous’ candidates, party raiding, and ‘sore loser’ candidates by spurned contenders." Of course, this case had nothing to do with sore losers or party raiding, and there is no explanation of why the signature requirement helps to "preserve" any party. The truth is the opposite; the law helps destroy political parties.

The Appeals Court did not mention the Oklahoma Constitutional provision that says elections must be "free and equal." The Court said nothing about the right of voters, even though the case had voter-plaintiffs.

The Appeals Court said nothing about the fact that independent candidates (for all office except president) are able to get on the Oklahoma November ballot with no petition at all, just a fairly modest filing fee.

The deficiencies in the Appeals Court were plainly pointed out to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, but to no avail.

Oklahoma ballot access bills have been introduced in the legislature in most sessions, during the last 20 years, but none of them has ever cleared even one committee.

It appears that the only hope for changing Oklahoma ballot access is by the initiative process, unless the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a favorable ballot access decision later this year, or early next year, in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres. The Oklahoma initiative process for changing statutory laws is 8% of the last vote cast, or 92,648 valid signatures. The petition for a new party is 46,324 signatures. If both Unity08 and the Libertarian Party circulate a petition to get themselves on the ballot as parties, and if both groups ask voters to sign for a proposed ballot access initiative as well as for the party petition, it is conceivable that the initiative could qualify. Initiative petitions must be completed in any 90-day period that the initiative sponsors choose.

On May 21, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued a ruling that parties that want to appear on the 2008 ballot must submit 20,114 signatures by November 26, 2007. If the party only wants to run for president, the deadline is August 21, 2008. The existing law was held unconstitutional last year. The Secretary of State’s regulation will expire if the legislature changes the law.

The number of signatures, 20,114, is one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. The statutory law, which is void, requires 1% of that same base. The Secretary’s regulation also eases the petition deadline slightly by moving it from 120 days before the primary, to 100 days before.

Colorado	.00%
Florida	.00%
Louisiana	.00%
Vermont	.00+%
Tennessee	.00+%
New Jersey	.02%
Washington	.03%
Minnesota	.07%
Wisconsin	.07%
Delaware	.08%
Arkansas	.09%
Mississippi	.09%
Ohio	.09%
Iowa	.10%
Utah	.11%
Hawaii	.15%
New York	.20%
Rhode Island	.23%
Alabama	.27%
Kentucky	.28%
Virginia	.31%
Nebraska	.32%
Massachusetts	.34%
Missouri	.37%
New Mexico	.37%
Kansas	.42%
Maryland	.42%
New Hampshire	.44%
Illinois	.47%
Pennsylvania	.47%
Connecticut	.48%
Maine	.54%
Texas	.59%
South Carolina	.62%
Nevada	.69%
California	.72%
Michigan	.79%
South Dakota	.86%
Alaska	1.00%
Idaho	1.00%
Oregon	1.00%
Arizona	1.02%
Montana	1.11%
North Dakota	1.28%
Georgia	1.29%
Indiana	1.33%
Wyoming	1.59%
North Carolina	1.99%
West Virginia	2.00%
OKLAHOMA	3.00%

This chart is the number of signatures needed in 2008 for president (easiest method), divided by the number of votes cast for president in 2004.

Arizona: on May 1, the Governor signed SB 1430 into law. It makes the independent candidate petition deadline, and the new party petition deadline, a week earlier.

Colorado: On May 21, Colorado SB 83 went to the Governor. It improves ballot access in two ways. It lets petitioners circulate a petition for a candidate for district office, whether they live in that district or not. And it lets qualified minor parties nominate someone even if he or she hasn’t been a member of that party for the preceding year (qualified major parties already had that right).

Illinois: on May 2, the House passed HB 632, which makes only small improvements in independent candidate and minor party ballot access. This was disappointing, since earlier the Senate had passed SB 733, which makes very large improvements. Since then, neither bill has moved. To help lobby for a compromise, contact John Hartman at jhartman56@hotmail.com.

Missouri: HB 894 is pending in the Senate. It requires independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy in March. Ironically, a bill to improve ballot access, SB 138, will probably be incorporated into HB 894 on the Senate floor. SB 138 deletes the requirement that new parties list their presidential elector candidates on their petition.

Montana: on May 8, SB 270 was signed into law. It moves the non-presidential independent candidate petition deadline from June to March.

New Hampshire: the House Election Law Committee is actively studying HB 48, which eases the definition of "political party" from a group that polled 4%, to 2%.

South Dakota: in addition to the other bad changes noted in the May 1 B.A.N., the legislature also passed HB 1156. It says only a "resident" of South Dakota may circulate a petition for an initiative or a candidate. For initiative petitions only, the bill also makes it illegal to pay circulators on a per-signature basis.

Texas: the legislature adjourned without passing HB 2017, which would have moved the primary from March to February 5. It would also have required new party petitions to be submitted in April instead of May. And it would have required new parties to give notice that they intend to qualify by October of the odd year before an election.

On May 23, the Oregon Senate defeated SB 630 by 17-13. It would have changed Oregon elections to a system in which everyone runs in May (for all partisan office except president) and then only the top two vote-getters would have been on the November ballot.

California: on May 9, the Assembly Appropriations Committee passed AB 1294, which lets all cities and counties use Instant-Runoff Voting for their own elections.

Illinois: on May 8, the Senate passed SB 439, which lets overseas absentee voters use ranked choice ballots for elections which normally may have an old-fashioned runoff.

Vermont: on May 10, the House Government Operations Committee passed SB 108, to use Instant-Runoff elections in 2008 for congressional elections. Since this bill had already passed the Senate, it is likely to pass the remaining hurdles early in 2008 (the bill couldn’t advance any further this year because the legislature went home on May 12).

Bills to pass the "National Popular Vote Plan" for presidential elections passed the California Senate on May 14, passed the North Carolina Senate on May 14, and passed the Illinois House on May 3. The Hawaii bill, which had been vetoed by the Governor, is likely to become law anyway. The Hawaii Senate has already overridden her veto, and the House is likely to do so in July.

On May 21, Florida’s Governor signed HB 537, to move the presidential primary from March, to January 29.

During the last 30 days, bills to move presidential primaries from March to February 5 were signed into law in Maryland and Tennessee. A similar bill passed the legislature in Illinois and will be signed soon. Similar bills passed one house of the Connecticut and Rhode Island legislatures. Bills to move the dates of caucuses to February passed one house of the Colorado and Minnesota legislatures.

Connecticut: on June 6, a U.S. District Court will hear oral arguments in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 3:06cv-1030. This is the case over the discriminatory aspects of Connecticut’s public funding law.

Indiana: the Democratic Party will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal, over the state’s law requiring voters at the polls to show Photo-ID. The 7^th circuit had upheld it 2-1. Crawford v Marion Co. Election Board.

Mississippi: on May 14, a Circuit Court ruled that George Dale should appear on the Democratic primary ballot for Insurance Commissioner. He is the incumbent. However, the party had kept him off because he had endorsed President Bush for re-election in 2004. The Circuit Court said it had no power to let Dale qualify as an independent. Dale is satisfied with this relief and will not appeal further. Dale v Democratic Party, civ 251-07-268, Hinds Co.

Oklahoma: on April 30, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against the law that makes it illegal for out-of-staters to circulate an initiative petition. Johnson v Henry, civ-07-500.

Pennsylvania: on April 5, the 3^rd circuit denied a rehearing request in Rogers v Corbett, the minor party ballot access case. The parties will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

	1912	1916	1924	1932	1948	1988	1996	BRWN	NADER	BUCH	BADN
Ala.	`	`	`	` `	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Alas	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Az.	`	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	OFF	`	`	`
Ark.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Cal.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Colo	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Ct	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Del.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Fla.	`	`	`	OFF	`	`	OFF	`	` `	`	`
Ga.	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	OFF	`	`
Hi.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Id.	`	`	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	`
Ill.	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	`	`
Ind.	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	OFF	`	OFF	`	`
Ia.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Ks.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Ky.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
La.	`	OFF	OFF	OFF	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Me.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Md.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Mass	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Mich	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	`
Mn.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Miss	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Mo.	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	`
Mt.	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Neb.	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	` `	`	`	`	`
Nev.	`	`	`	OFF	`	`	`	` `	`	`	`
N.H.	` `	` `	` `	` `	` `	` `	OFF	` `	` `	` `	OFF
N.J.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
N.M.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
N.C.	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	`	OFF	`	`
N.D.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Ohio	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Okla	OFF	`	`	OFF	OFF	`	OFF	`	OFF	`	OFF
Ore.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Pa.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
R.I.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
S.C.	`	OFF	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
S.D.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	`
Tn.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Tex.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Utah	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Vt.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Va.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Wa.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
W. V.	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	OFF	`	`	`	`
Wi.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`
Wy.	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	`	OFF	`	`

This chart lists all the minor party and independent presidential candidates who were on the ballot in at least 43 states, but not all the states, starting in 1912. 1912 = Theodore Roosevelt (Prog.); 1916 = Frank Hanly (Prohibition); 1924 = Bob La Follette (Prog.); 1932 = Norman Thomas (Socialist); 1948 = Henry Wallace (Prog.); 1988 = Ron Paul (Libertarian); 1996 = John Hagelin (Natural Law); BRWN = Harry Browne 2000 (Libertarian); NADER = 2000 (Green); BUCH = Pat Buchanan 2000 (Reform); BADN = Michael Badnarik 2004 (Libertarian). "OFF" means that candidate was not on the ballot in that state. Oklahoma has twice as many "OFF" incidents as any other state.

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	*3,495	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	est. #21,500	already on	*2,600	0	0	*Mar. 6	*June 4
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	*1,900	0	July 29	July 29
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	*100	already on	0	Mar. 13	July 30
Nebraska	5,921	2,500	*7,100	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.	12,524	#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	*59,000	0	100	0	May 16	June 12
No. Dakota	7,000	#4,000	already on	0	already on	0	Apr. 11	Sep. 5
Ohio	*20,114	5,000	0	0	0	0	*Nov 26 07	Aug. 21
Oklahoma	46,324	43,913	*100	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	*150	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	*500	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.

On May 15, Massachusetts held a special election to fill a vacancy in the State House, Norfolk Eleventh District. There were three candidates on the ballot: independent Paul McMurtry, Republican Doug Obey, and Democrat Stephen Bilafer. The independent won with 2,948 votes (37.6%). The Republican polled 2,466 (31.5%) and the Democrat polled 2,424 (30.9%).

McMurtry described himself as socially liberal (he supports same-sex marriage) and fiscally conservative. The day after the election, he became a Democrat, in order to be more effective in the legislature.

On May 8, Greenville County, South Carolina held a special election to fill a vacancy in the County Council, 20^th district. The race is partisan. Butch Taylor, the Constitution Party nominee, polled 38.4% against his only opponent, Republican nominee Sid Cates.

On May 9, the 11^th circuit denied a rehearing in Federal Election Commission v Reform Party, which means that the national committee of the party can’t spend any money on anything except paying off its debt to the Federal Election Commission (unless the U.S. Supreme Court hears the party’s appeal).

New Jersey holds legislative elections this year. Various minor parties will probably have this number of candidates for legislature on the November 2007 ballot: Libertarian 22, Green 10, Conservative 2, Socialist Workers 2, Socialist 1. In 2005, the number of legislative candidates of these parties had been: Libertarian 7, Green 6, Socialist 3, Socialist Workers 1.

Rasmussen Reports issued a poll on May 8 that says 58% of U.S. voters say it would be good for the U.S. to have a truly competitive third political party. Only 23% say it would be bad; 19% are undecided. Support was strongest among voters under age 40; support was weakest among voters over age 65.

Dr. Jerome Corsi says he is seriously considering seeking the Constitution Party presidential nomination. He lives in New Jersey and is 60 years old. Wikipedia has an article about him. He has a Doctorate in Political Science from Harvard and has written or co-authored fifteen books. He says he voted for President Bush in 2004 but that he regrets it now. He is best known for co-authoring Unfit for Command, a criticism of U.S. Senator John Kerry. His wife is from Colombia. He has an upcoming book titled The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. He joined the Constitution Party recently and has started appearing at its state conventions.

On the radio on May 21, he said if he is the nominee, he would campaign on these issues: (1) secure the borders; (2) a strong national defense used only to protect the U.S.; (3) punish employers who hire illegal aliens; (4) abolish social welfare for illegal aliens; (5) work for energy independence; (6) work for a tax system which does not include personal income tax.

As of mid-May, Unity08 had over 60,000 people who have signed up to vote in its on-line presidential primary in June 2008. Unity08 continues to garner publicity. News stories about Unity08 are often interwoven with references to the possibility that either Mayor Michael Bloomberg or U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel might be interested in its presidential nomination.

---

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.