LIBERTARIAN PARTY TACKLES OKLAHOMA

PARTY’S NATIONAL ORGANIZATION GEARS UP TO FIX BALLOT ACCESS

The Libertarian Party has probably spent $500,000, in its 35 years of existence, coping with Oklahoma ballot access. The national party is now resolved to fix the Oklahoma problem once and for all. The party is making every effort to get an initiative on the ballot, asking the voters if they want to ease the ballot access law. The national office is far from the only organization that is working on this project, but so far it is the major force.

Shane Cory, the party’s National Director, will be touring Oklahoma September 3-7. He will be raising money, both in private meetings and at public events. He has roots in Oklahoma and is one-eighth Pottawatomie, and he has familiarity with the well-organized Native American tribes in Oklahoma. He has arranged meetings with some Oklahoma Indian tribal leaders, and also with the editors of some tribal newspapers.

Cory will also be meeting with reporters for general circulation newspapers. The largest newspaper in the state, the Daily Oklahoman, has repeatedly carried editorials urging that the state’s ballot access laws be reformed. Cory’s message will emphasize that Oklahoma voters were the only voters in 2004 who were not permitted to vote for anyone for president except President Bush and Senator Kerry. No one else appeared on the ballot, and Oklahoma bans write-in votes.

Bob Barr, the former Georgia Republican Congressman who is now on the Libertarian National Committee, will also visit Oklahoma for fund-raising during October. Daniel Imperato, who is seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination, will also attend the fund-raiser set for September 6.

The national Libertarian Party has granted one-time permission to the Oklahoma Libertarians to use the national mailing list. Costs of the mailing are being paid for by the Oklahoma Libertarian Party. The letter has just been mailed.

The initiative will need 74,117 valid signatures, to be collected in a 90-day window. The Oklahoma initiative will probably be circulated in part of September, all of October and November, and part of December. Starting in September will make it possible to circulate the petition at the state fair, which runs September 13-23.

See www.OkVoterChoice.org for more about the initiative and the non-partisan organization that is sponsoring the initiative. Please consider making a contribution. The web site permits electronic donations. If you wish to send a check, make it out to OBAR (Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform), PO Box 14042, Tulsa Ok 74159. There is no limit on how much anyone may contribute to an Oklahoma initiative.

In the past, initiatives to lower ballot access barriers for minor parties and independent candidates were on the ballot in Massachusetts and Florida. The Massachusetts measure passed by 51.5% in 1990; the Florida one by 65% in 1998.

The initiative will lower Oklahoma signatures for a new party from 5% of the last vote cast (currently, 46,324 signatures) to a flat 5,000 signatures. Oklahoma only required 5,000 signatures between 1924 and 1974 and never had a crowded ballot. The initiative will also lower the vote test from 10% for President or Governor, to 1% for any statewide race at either of the last two elections. That vote test mirrors the Colorado law.

The Oklahoma Green Party and the Oklahoma Constitution Party, and OKIES (representing independent voters) are also working hard to assist the initiative. It is hoped that the national organizations of those parties will also help. Neither the Green Party nor the Constitution Party has ever been able to get on the Oklahoma ballot. Oklahoma is one of only five states in which Ralph Nader has never appeared on the ballot (the others are Georgia, North Carolina, Indiana and Idaho).

The Tennessee Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties will file a lawsuit on August 31, alleging that the ballot access law for new parties is unconstitutional. Tennessee is in the 6^th circuit. Last year the 6^th circuit ruled that the test of whether a ballot access law is valid, is often it has been used. It struck down the Ohio law for new parties, since it hadn’t been used since 2000.

By that standard, the Tennessee law is unconstitutional. No group has qualified since 1968, when George Wallace’s American Party qualified. Tennessee requires a petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. Parties that have tried to qualify, and failed, have been the Populist, Constitution, Reform, and Green Parties. The petition deadline is four months before the primary, and the petition must identify the signers as "members."

Tennessee has very easy requirements for independent candidates, but according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision Storer v Brown, states must have adequate procedures for both new parties and independent candidates.

Alabama: the Swanson lawsuit will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It challenges the ballot access law for minor parties and non-presidential independents. It requires a petition signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. In 2002 the deadline was moved from July to early June, making it impossible to collect signatures at the polls on primary day. Since then, no statewide petition has ever succeeded.

California: on August 6, the 9^th circuit ruled that a state cannot ban web sites that facilitate "vote-swapping." Porter v Bowen, 06-55517. In 2000, the former Secretary of State threatened a web page with prosecution. The aim of that page was to match up Nader voters in close states, with Gore voters in non-close states. Having "met" each other electronically, if the pair felt they could trust each other, the Gore supporter would vote for Nader and vice-versa. The 9^th circuit said the First Amendment protects this political behavior.

Colorado: on August 21, the 10^th circuit agreed with a U.S. District Court that state laws on campaign finance are too severe. It struck down a law prohibiting non-profit political corporations from spending money on electoral politics unless they refuse all contributions from business corporations and labor unions. Colorado Right to Life v Coffman, 05-1519. Colorado Right to Life had received $50 from a business contribution.

Florida: on August 22, initiative proponents filed a lawsuit against a law passed this year, that lets people who sign initiative petitions remove their signatures up to five months after they signed. Florida Hometown Democracy v Browning, Leon Co. Circuit Court, 2007-ca-2278. The plaintiffs have 300,000 signatures on a statewide initiative to require popular votes for land-use changes, and they argue that the new law threatens their ability to know when they will have enough valid signatures.

Georgia: a decision in U.S. District Court is expected soon in Common Cause v Billups, 4:05-cv-201, over whether a state can require voters to show government photo-ID. The old law had been struck down in 2006, but then the state repealed the fee to get an ID card. The plaintiffs point out that some voters without cars have trouble getting to the office that issues the ID cards.

Indiana: on August 2, a state court put independent candidate Mark Herak on the ballot for town council in Highland. The Election Board had removed him because he had voted in the Republican primary. The court said state law doesn’t prohibit independent candidates from voting in a primary. Herak v Lake Co., 45D05-0707, Lake Superior Court.

New Hampshire: on August 9, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against a law, providing that qualified parties may buy the statewide list of registered voters for a low price, but that no one else may obtain the list. N.H. Libertarian Party v Gardner, Merrimack Superior Court, 2007-e-327. On August 13, the judge refused to enjoin the law, and the Democratic Party then obtained the list. A few days later the party sold the list to five of its own presidential candidates, for $65,000 each. The constitutionality of the law will be settled later. In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a similar New York law, in Socialist Workers Party v Rockefeller.

New York: on August 20, a Supreme Court Judge in Brooklyn invalidated an Independence Party bylaw that says that in cities of more than 1,000,000, local party leaders cannot decide whether to let non-members of the party run in that party’s primary; however in all other parts of the state, local leaders can exercise that power. Conroy v State Committee of Independence Party, Kings Co., 700025-07. The result is a victory for the Fulani faction of the Independence Party. However, the MacKay faction of the party is appealing.

Oklahoma: a decision is expected by mid-September in Yes on Term Limits v Savage, 5:07-cv-680. The issue is whether the state can make it illegal for non-residents to circulate initiative petitions. The trial in U.S. District Court on August 20-21 went well.

Pennsylvania: on July 30, the Center for Competitive Democracy filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Green, Constitution and Libertarian Parties, in the ballot access case Rogers v Cortes. COFOE paid the $700 printing bill. On October 1, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably say whether it will hear this case. The amicus brief documents that when minor parties are kept off the Pennsylvania ballot (as they were for all statewide office, last year) voters lose the ability to vote for minor party nominees, since many populous counties in the state illegally refuse to count write-in votes.

Washington: on July 26, the State Supreme Court ruled that neither the State nor the Federal Constitution give any protection to ex-felons who have been released from prison, and who wish to register to vote, if they still owe any fines or restitution payments. Madison v State, 78598-8. The lower court had ruled that ex-felons in that position have a right to register to vote, because otherwise the state is in effect requiring payment of money in order to vote.

On August 15, the Illinois legislature passed SB 662, a 143-page election law bill. Among other things, the bill lowers the number of signatures for an independent candidate for the legislature from 10% to 5% of the last vote. It also moves the deadline for all independent candidates from the odd year before the election, to June of the election year. Finally, it removes the law that says people who signed for an independent may not vote in the primary. These improvements were made as a result of the winning Lee v Keith lawsuit.

State laws on ballot access for independent candidates for U.S. House vary wildly. Although all U.S. House districts in the United States are approximately equal in population, the number of signatures required for an independent candidate to get on the ballot for U.S. House in 2008 varies from zero signatures, to 20,131 signatures! The graph below shows the variation. For 2008, there are 318 U.S. House districts in which an independent can get on the ballot with a number of signatures that is below 5,000. Then there are 62 districts in which the number of signatures ranges between 5,000 and 9,999. Finally, there are 55 districts in which an independent needs at least 10,000 signatures.

The average district requires 4,036 signatures. However, the median district requires 2,750 signatures. The average is much higher than the median because the distribution pattern is not a bell curve. The states of extreme difficulty skew the average.

The states that require 10,000 signatures or more, in some or all districts, are California, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The worst requirement is in North Carolina’s 4^th district, where 20,131 signatures are required. Ironically, 40 states have a procedure by which an independent or new party presidential candidate can get on the ballot with fewer than 20,131 signatures.

Only three times in history has any candidate for U.S. House successfully collected enough signatures to meet a requirement higher than 10,000: (2) Frazier Reams, independent in Ohio’s 9^th district in 1954, met a hurdle of 12,919; (2) Jack Gargan, Reform Party nominee in Florida’s 5^th district in 1998, met a hurdle of 12,141; (3) Steven Wheeler, independent in California’s 22^nd district in 1996, met a requirement of 10,191.

In the graph below, the bar at the extreme left edge represents the 37 districts for which no signatures are required. The second bar represents districts for which the requirement is between 25 and 999 signatures; the third bar 1,000 to 1,999, etc.

In Illinois, there have been instances when an independent or minor party candidate for U.S. House got on the ballot, when the signature requirement exceeded 10,000, but those instances are cases when the candidate submitted a smaller number of signatures than the requirement, yet no one challenged him or her (or, if there was a challenge, it was withdrawn).

No independent candidate for U.S. House has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot in North Carolina or South Carolina. No independent candidate for U.S. House has qualified under Georgia’s existing law since 1964, and back in 1964, only 6,500 signatures were required in the district in which the independent qualified. Back then, Georgia didn’t check the signatures, and they weren’t due until October.

This data may be useful when a legal challenge is brought against the North Carolina ballot access law for independent candidates for U.S. House. Such a lawsuit is likely to be filed in September, on behalf of Jordan Greene, who wants to be an independent candidate in the 10^th district next year.

Since 1854, when the Democratic and Republican Parties became the major parties, other parties have elected state legislators in at least 47 states. Below is listed the minor party which most recently elected a state legislator in each state:

Alabama: Peoples 1900

Alaska: Repub. Moderate 2002

Arkansas: Progressive 1912

California: Green 1999

Colorado: Peoples 1900

Connecticut: Socialist 1938

Delaware: American 1854

Florida: Socialist 1908

Georgia: Peoples 1906

Idaho: Progressive 1926

Illinois: Honesty & Integrity 2002

Indiana: Progressive 1914

Iowa: Peoples 1891

Kansas: Socialist 1914

Kentucky: Peoples 1897

Louisiana: Progressive 1916

Maine: Green 2004

Maryland: Peoples 1915

Massachusetts: Socialist 1917

Michigan: Progressive 1912

Minnesota: Independence 2002

Mississippi: Greenback 1883

Missouri: Progressive 1914

Montana: Constitution 2006

Nebraska: Progressive 1926

Nevada: Socialist 1914

New Hamp.: Libertarian 2000

New Jersey: American 1859

New Mexico: Socialist 1914

New York: Independence 1995

North Carolina: Peoples 1900

North Dakota: Socialist 1910

Ohio: Progressive 1914

Oklahoma: Socialist 1914

Oregon: Progressive 1912

Pennsylvania: Socialist 1934

Rhode Island: Citizens 1920

South Dakota: Farmer-Labor 1924

Tennessee: American 1970

Texas: American 1920

Utah: Socialist 1916

Vermont: Progressive 2006

Virginia: Peoples 1897

Washington: Farmer-Labor 1922

West Virginia: Prohibition 1906

Wisconsin: Progressive 1944

Wyoming: Peoples 1900

The information above could not have been gathered without the help of Michael J. Dubin’s new book, "Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures 1796-2006." That book will be reviewed in a future BAN.

Three states are not listed above. No record of the partisan affiliation of South Carolina legislators exists prior to 1868, so that state is omitted. Also, the Dubin book does not cover territorial legislatures, so without future research, the entries for Arizona and Hawaii are also unknown. Arizona started electing a territorial legislature in 1864, and Hawaii in 1900.

The list above refers to instances at which the minor party actually out-polled all other parties for its nominee, regardless of whether that minor party’s nominee was a member of that party or not. Thus, the New Hampshire entry for 2000 above refers to Steve Vaillancourt, who appeared on the November ballot solely as the nominee of the Libertarian Party. At the time he was a registered Democrat, but since he was the Libertarian nominee, and he defeated his Democratic and Republican opponents, he is listed above.

Similarly, the New York 1995 entry refers to Francisco Diaz, who ran for the Assembly in a special election solely as the nominee of the Independence Party. He defeated the nominees of the Democratic and Republican Parties, so he is listed above, even though he was a registered Democrat.

Another method for making the list might have been to list minor party members who were elected as fusion nominees, but in which the minor party member won only because of votes on a major party line. For example, Patricia Eddington, a registered member of the Working Families Party, was elected to the New York legislature in 2002, and she was the WFP nominee, but she was also the Democratic nominee and she would not have won without votes on the Democratic line.

Note also that there are many instances when state legislators became members of various minor parties while they were in office. The Reform Party had a California legislator and a North Carolina legislator in 1996, but when they tried to get re-elected as members of the Reform Party, they were defeated. Also, the Green Party had a state legislator in New Jersey in 1999. These instances have not been counted.

On August 3, the Ohio Secretary of State confirmed that Ohio lets any adult circulate a petition to qualify a new party, even if that circulator is not a resident of Ohio.

By contrast, only someone who is registered to vote in Ohio may circulate a petition for an independent candidate. Ralph Nader is currently suing Ohio over that restriction.

The anomaly is caused by the Ohio law itself. Section 3503.06 says, "No person shall be entitled to vote at any election, or to sign any declaration of candidacy or any nominating, initiative, referendum, or recall petition, unless he is registered as an elector." Although at first glance this law seems to apply only to petition signers, it has been held to apply also to circulators. However, since a petition to create a new party is not one of the types of petition listed, that creates a loophole for party petitions.

"Rock the Debates" activists have now asked 7 leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates about more inclusive general election presidential debates. Video clips of the verbal exchanges are at www.rockthedebates.org. The page has clips of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	WK FAM	Party	Indp.
Alabama	37,513	5,000	0	0	0	0	June 3	Sep. 8
Alaska	(reg) 7,124	#3,128	already on	*3,484	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	est. #21,500	already on	7,000	0	0	Mar. 6	June 4
Arkansas	10,000	#1,000	100	*7,000	*200	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	*5,000	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	*finished	0	July 29	July 29
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	*600	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	*70,000	14,000	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	*7,200	0	0	0	Nov 26 07	Aug. 21
Oklahoma	46,324	43,913	400	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	*350	0	*6,200	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	*1,900	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	already on	*2,000	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	0	0	0	June 2	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			26	20	14	5	`

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

On August 19, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution carried an interview with former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, who was a Democrat while he served in the Senate. He said it is possible he will run for president as an independent, or as the nominee of Unity08, next year. Nunn is 68 and served in the Senate from 1972 through 1996. He was so popular in Georgia, the Republicans didn’t oppose him in 1990.

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is increasingly interested in being the Green Party presidential nominee. She has said she won’t decide until she finishes paying off her 2006 campaign debt. However, the Green Party has been helping her pay off that debt. During the second half of August, she appeared at events in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. The Green Parties in those states sponsored the meetings at which she spoke and sought contributions. Her debt will probably be completely paid off by the end of September.

The four qualified minor parties of California always make use of their presidential primaries, although these primaries are always just "beauty contests" and are not binding. For 2008, the minor party state chairs must notify the Secretary of State by October 8 of which presidential candidates to print on the February 5, 2008 ballot. The four parties are American Independent (Constitution), Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom.

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) has existed since 1985. It is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized parties. Recently the Working Families Party joined the COFOE Board. COFOE has its own web page at www.cofoe.org. The minutes of the last three annual board meetings are posted there.

A state court in Pennsylvania held a hearing on August 22, over the issue of who should receive the party’s annual bequest, the faction lead by Earl Dodge, or the faction of those who oppose him. The judge hinted that if the two factions didn’t come to an agreement, he was likely to vacate the trust. Under that pressure, the two sides agreed to split the money. That arrangement will continue indefinitely, unless either faction becomes inactive; in that case, the money will revert to the surviving faction. If the two groups merge, the unified group would receive the funds.

New York: held a special election to fill a vacancy in the 105^th Assembly district on July 31. The results: Republican 47.7%; Democratic 38.5%; Conservative 8.2%; Independence 3.9%; Working Families 1.8%. When this seat was filled in 2006, the results were: Democratic 63.6%; Republican 20.9%; Independence 8.1%; Conservative 4.1%; Working Families 3.3%. In both elections, the Conservative Party cross-endorsed the Republican nominee, and the Working Families and Independence Parties cross-endorsed the Democratic nominee.

California: held a special election to fill the 37^th U.S. House seat on August 21. The results: Democratic 67.1%; Republican 25.2%; Green 5.4%; Libertarian 2.3%. In November 2006, the same seat had voted Democratic 82.4%; Libertarian 17.6%.

The Labor Party was formed nationally in 1990 by Tony Mazzocchi, at that time president of a major union within the AFL-CIO. He is no longer living. The Labor Party has existed ever since, but it had never qualified for the ballot in any state, until it qualified in South Carolina in 2006. It is planning to run a few legislative candidates in that state in 2008; they will be the first Labor Party nominees for partisan office anywhere in the U.S.

---

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.