166 MINOR PARTY & INDEPENDENT NOMINEES HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO STATE OFFICE IN LAST 30 YEARS

EVIDENCE WILL HELP WIN VARIOUS LAWSUITS

In the last 30 years, there are at least 166 instances at which someone who was not the nominee of either major party was elected to partisan state office. These include 5 gubernatorial elections and 161 legislative races.

On November 1, this evidence, and other material, was submitted to the U.S. District Court that will hear Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, the ACLU lawsuit that challenges Connecticut’s discriminatory public funding law.

Defenders of discriminatory public funding laws always assert that it is pointless to give public funding to anyone except Democratic and Republican nominees, because other nominees always lose. This new evidence rebuts that assumption.

Connecticut law, passed in 2005, makes it impossible for any nominee of a party that polled at least 1%, but under 10%, of the vote in the last election, to get public funding.

Independent candidates, and nominees of parties that did not poll 1% at the last election for that office, can get public funding, but only if they submit massive petitions (in addition to raising the same number of small donations that Democrats and Republicans must raise). A petition signed by 20% of the voters is needed for independent candidates to get equal public funding; a 10% petition gets them public funding equal to one-third of what Democratic and Republican nominees get.

Connecticut’s attorneys have been trying to get the lawsuit dismissed, before any evidence had been submitted. However, on November 16, the Court refused to stop the discovery process. Plaintiffs submitted two expert reports, including one by History Professor J. David Gillespie.

The evidence on the frequency of non-Democratic, non-Republican winners for state office will be useful in other lawsuits, such as the one about to be filed by the Michigan Libertarian Party against a law discussed on page three. In addition, note that candidates who weren’t Democratic or Republican nominees have been elected to Congress 15 times in the last 30 years, including two independent U.S. Senators in 2006.

See the list of the non-major party winners to state office on pages 3 and 4. This list does not include minor party members who were elected as fusion nominees (in other words, they were nominated by their own minor party, as well as one or both major parties). For example, the four Libertarians elected to the New Hampshire legislature in 1992, and four of the Progressives elected to the Vermont legislature in 2006, are not on the list because they were also nominated by one of the major parties.

On November 26, Johnny Swanson appealed his ballot access case against Alabama to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lower courts had upheld the Alabama law (for minor parties, and for independent candidates other than president), even though the existing law has existed since 2001 and has never been used statewide. Swanson v Chapman, number not assigned yet.

On November 12, New Mexico Secretary of State Mary Herrera ruled that the Green Party is a qualified party in her state.

The definition of a qualified minor party in New Mexico is very unclear. It may require a party to poll one-half of 1% for either President or Governor at either of the last two elections. Or, it may permit a party to remain on as long as that party continues to run candidates for some office, but abstains from running for those top-of-the-ticket races. In the case of the Green Party, it had three candidates on the ballot in 2006, but it didn’t run anyone for Governor. It had run for president in 2004 but had polled under one-half of 1%.

The November 12 ruling does not analyze the law. It merely says that since the previous Secretary of State had told the Green Party in mid-2006 that it could remain on for 2008 if it ran candidates for the legislature, but not for Governor, therefore the current Secretary will honor that promise. The ruling also says, "There are several credible readings of Section 1-7-2(c), but I believe it would be imprudent to apply a different interpretation at this point in the 2008 election cycle."

On November 9, Illinois’ Governor signed SB 662, easing ballot access for independent candidates. Formerly, all non-presidential independent petitions were due in the year before the election. Now, they are due in June of election years. The number of signatures for legislative independents dropped from 10% of the last vote, to 5%.

On November 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a murky decision in the case on whether Carl Romanelli, the Green nominee for U.S. Senate in 2006, owes $80,408 plus interest for the costs of removing him from the ballot. In re Nomination Paper of Rogers, 12 MAP 2007.

Pennsylvania is the only state in which the first step in determining whether a petition has enough signatures is to let judges decide on the validity of each signature. Starting in 2004, Pennsylvania courts for the first time started assessing court costs against minor party and independent candidates who don’t submit enough valid signatures.

The lower court, on January 24, 2007, had assessed $25,481 for wages for the witnesses for the challengers, $1,500 for handwriting expert witness fees, $48,285 in attorneys’ fees for the challengers, stenographic costs of $3,726, and $1,415 for copying costs. Romanelli had appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that there is no basis to charge him these costs, because there was no finding that his petition was fraudulent.

On November 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote only a single paragraph: "And now, the above case is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to the Commonwealth Court to amend its Order to comply with the Order of this Court of October 4, 2006 at 108 MAP 2006. In that Order the Commonwealth Court was directed to issue a final order which included in its text an assessment of costs referenced by category and amount assessed as well as a statement of rationale behind the imposition of these costs. The amended final Order of the Commonwealth Court will thereby serve to give future candidates notice of what actions on their part might justify the imposition of fees and costs. In all other respects, the decision of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed."

The good news is that the Commonwealth Court will probably take several months to comply with this request. That will give time for the various minor parties of Pennsylvania to file a constitutional challenge in federal court to the whole system that puts candidates and unqualified parties in jeopardy of paying large amounts of money.

Carl Romanelli has no real estate, no automobile, and neglible savings. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled unanimously that states cannot charge candidates fees to run for office, if those candidates cannot afford those fees. Lower courts have thrown out laws in Florida and North Carolina that required minor parties to pay the costs of checking their signatures. The 8^th circuit ruled in 1995 that if a state requires a party to nominate by primary, the government must pay for that primary. The 3^rd circuit ruled in 2001 that Pennsylvania’s filing fee of only $100 is unconstitutional for poor candidates.

The Pennsylvania state courts have been blind to these precedents and their underlying principles. It should be obvious that if no other state needs to impose costs on candidates whose petitions don’t have enough valid signatures, then Pennsylvania has no strong state interest in such a system either. The vast majority of states provide that elections officials check signatures to determine if they have enough valid signatures. Elections officials in almost all states are very efficient at doing this work. They use automated equipment that calls up an image of any voter’s signature on a computer screen. This equipment makes it possible for clerical employees to check several signatures per minute. Many states also use random sampling. The 23 states that have the initiative process long ago solved the problem of checking large numbers of signatures on petitions. Yet Pennsylvania state courts seem oblivious to the world beyond the state’s borders.

Commonwealth Court Judge James R. Kelly, who ruled against Romanelli in January, must be perplexed by the Supreme Court order.

The lower court’s opinion of January 24, assessing the costs against Romanelli, already assessed the costs by category and already made a statement of rationale for why the costs were being imposed. That order is 24 pages long and discusses each type of costs in turn. The rationale for imposing these costs, in every case, was that Romanelli and the Green Party had failed to provide at least nine reviewers, to sit all day between 8:30 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, during the month of September 2006 when the signatures were being reviewed in court. The lower court had found that, on the average day, the Green Party only had six reviewers present in court.

Since the lower court already broke down the type of costs, and provided a rationale for imposing such costs for each category, in its January 2007 order, one wonders how the lower court will cope with the recent directive from the Supreme Court. If 24 pages of rationale wasn’t good enough, what will be good enough? For this reason, it seems the matter will be delayed for some time.

On November 7, the 10^th circuit ruled against the New Mexico Libertarian Party’s ballot access lawsuit. Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Herrera, no. 06-2303. However, the court did not reach the merits of the case. It said, "We need not resolve" the issue of whether the law is too strict or not. Instead, the court ruled that the party’s attorney made a legal error while the case was pending in the U.S. District Court. The 10^th circuit said his Rule 56(f) Motion wasn’t detailed enough. The motion was to describe the evidence that the party planned to present.

On November 21, the party asked for a rehearing before all the judges of the 10^th circuit. If that doesn’t work, the party is free to file a new lawsuit as soon as it has nominated candidates for the 2008 election. In any event, the party is on the ballot for 2008 for president.

Ralph Nader has gone on the offensive against the forces that worked to keep him off many state ballots in 2004. First, he filed a brief with the District of Columbia Superior Court in Serody v Nader, 2007 CA 3385. This is the case in which the Pennsylvania challengers to Nader in 2004 are trying to persuade a D.C. court to let them remove approximately $80,000 from Nader’s D.C. bank account.

Nader’s brief says the garnishment should be quashed, on the grounds that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (which approved an order requiring Nader to pay for the costs of removing his name from the 2004 ballot) ruling was tainted.

Nader’s brief shows that the law firm that represented the challengers was simultaneously representing one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices while Nader’s case was pending. Nader also documents that another member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had been the beneficiary of an open invitation to join that law firm, should he ever need a well-paying job (this offer was made in 1985, before the Justice was on the Supreme Court, and was accepted in 1991). Finally, Nader documents that three other justices received contributions from that law firm.

The challengers filed a rebuttal brief on November 21. They agree that all of Nader’s charges are true, but argue that there was nothing improper about the links between the Pennsylvania Justices and the law firm.

Nader also filed two new lawsuits against the Democratic National Committee, alleging that the Committee was part of a conspiracy to keep him off as many state ballots in 2004 as possible. One case is in District of Columbia Superior Court, and one is in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. The first is Nader v Democratic National Committee, 2007ca-7245B; the second is Nader v McAuliffe, 1:07-cv-1101. Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic national chair, lives in Virginia.

It is difficult to evaluate the two Nader cases, because nothing similar has ever before been done. Although the national Democratic Party made some attempts to remove various third party and independent presidential candidates in past elections (1936, 1948, 1976 and 1980), these past efforts were confined to one or two states. By contrast, the 2004 Democratic efforts were massive, and existed in almost half the states.

The Nader cases ask for a jury trial. It is rare for election law cases to go to juries. One such case was the recent Reform Party internal battle over the identity of the true national party officers. Another was a case from Arkansas over candidate debates (the jury ruled in favor of the TV station and against the excluded candidate).

Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform (OBAR) has reluctantly concluded that the initiative launched on October 15 to reform the ballot access laws cannot obtain the needed 74,117 signatures by the January 15, 2008 deadline. OBAR will now use its remaining funds to try to persude the legislature to improve the laws.

The chief reason for the demise of the initiative effort is Oklahoma’s law making it a crime for someone who is not domiciled in Oklahoma to ask people to sign an initiative petition. Oklahoma’s best professional petitioners are working for initiative drives in other states that pay higher wages than OBAR can afford. Although OBAR’s professional petitioning firm hired over 200 Oklahoma residents to circulate, the vast majority of these employees are neophytes, and their production was poor. Only 12,000 paid signatures were obtained during the first 36 days of the drive, plus 2,000 volunteer signatures. BAN thanks every reader who has contributed to OBAR. The money will not have been wasted if the lobbying effort succeeds, since some of the money raised for the effort will be used for the lobbying.

On November 21, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the state may give the list of voters who participate in presidential primaries to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The law says the two major parties may give or sell the list to whomever they wish. However, it is a crime for anyone else to possess the list. Grebner v State, 135274.

On November 7, the Ingham County Circuit Court had ruled the law unconstitutional, partly because it discriminates against minor parties. On November 16, the State Court of Appeals had also ruled 2-1 that the law is unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court had reversed these courts, only two days after it had been asked to take the case.

The Supreme Court majority did not mention the 1982 Michigan Supreme Court decision Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State. That case had ruled that the State Constitution forbids the state from discriminating for or against any party. The dissenters did mention that case.

The majority did not mention that in 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court had summarily affirmed a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruling that if the state gives a free or inexpensive copy of the list of registered voters to the unqualified parties, it must give the list on the same basis to unqualified parties that are trying to qualify. That case was Socialist Workers Party v Rockefeller, 400 U.S. 806.

In June, the Colorado Secretary of State revised the voter registration form, so that it lists all qualified parties as a choice. It also lists any group that has been a qualified party. The choices are Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, American Constitution, Reform, Pro Life, and Gun Owners’ Rights. The latter two parties were not bona fide parties. A wealthy Democrat had paid circulators to qualify them for the ballot, but they didn’t run any candidates, and are no longer qualified.

YEAR	STATE	DIST.	NAME	PARTY LABEL(s)	VOTE	PERCENT
1978	Alaska	Rep 20	Dick Randolph	Libertarian	6,784	43.9
	Illinois	Rep 26	Taylor Pouncey	Citizens for Taylor Pouncey	10,813.5	42.6
	Maine	Sen 20	Harold L. Silverman	Independent	?	?
	Maine	Rep 15	Robert James Barry	Independent	?	?
	Mass.	Rep B-12	David R. Nelson	Independent	4,738	47.3
	Mass.	Rep Hs-2	William A. Carey	Independent	6,109	45.2
	Tenn.	St Sen 27	William J. Davis	American (on ballot as indep)	15,954	57.48
	Tenn.	Rep 71	Jimmy Wallace	Independent	8,425	100.0
	Vt.	?	?	Independent	?	?
	Vt.	?	?	Independent	?	?
1979	Miss.	Rep 72	Jim Neal	Independent	2,153	39.3
	Miss.	Rep 81	Johnny Stringer	Independent	2,398	44.7
	Va.	Del. 9	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	13,746	81.8
1980	Alaska	Rep 20	Dick Randolph	Libertarian	11,163	55.0
	Alaska	Rep 20	Kenneth Fanning	Libertarian	9,819	48.4
	Illinois	Rep 26	Taylor Pouncey	People for Pouncey	11,753.5	31.1
	N.Y.	Asm 56	Albert Vann	Liberal	6,766	49.3
	Vt.	Rep L-1	Franklin Hooper	Independent	?	?
	Vt.	Rep R-6-5	Harold E. Billings	Independent	?	?
1981	Va.	Del 9	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	14,655	91.6
1982	N.H.	Rep G-7	Stephen Harnish	Independent	509	59.4
	Tenn.	Rep 72	James H. Wallace	Independent	6,494	100.0
	Vt.	Rep R-3	Donald A. Moore	Independent	674	41.7
	Wyo.	Rep-Nio.	Melvin ZumBrunnen	Independent	852	56.3
1983	Alab.	Sen 13	Gerald Dial	Independent	7,386	52.9
	Alab.	Sen 30	J. Foy Covington	Independent	6,670	44.5
	Alab.	Rep 38	Bill Fuller	Independent	3,010	47.4
	Alab.	Rep 59	Lewis G. Spratt	Independent	1,712	53.5
	Alab.	Rep 67	Lucius Black	Independent	7,219	54.8
	Alab.	Rep 88	James Sasser	Independent	2,950	50.4
	La.	Rep 94	Pepe Bruneau	Independent	votes uncounted	100.0
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	9,232	100.0
1984	Alaska	Rep 5B	Andre Marrou	Libertarian	4,529	40.5
	R.I.	Rep 6	Thomas J. Rossi	Independent	1,953	50.5
	Vt.	Rep R-6-1	Lyle K. Rice	Independent
1985	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	9,616	100.0
	Va.	Del 92	Mary T. Christian	Independent	6,821	52.9
1986	Calif.	Sen 8	Quentin Kopp	Independent	81,501	46.9
	N.Y.	Asm 56	Albert Vann	Liberal	8,511	63.6
	N.Y.	Rep B-3	Roger L. Green	Liberal	7,192	54.9
	Vt.	Rep B-3	Charles Palmer	Independent	528	54.4
1987	La.	Rep 43	Odon L. Bacque	Independent	6,811	57.2
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	10,368	71.6
1988	Ark.	Rep 61	Jim Lendall	Independent	14,821	64.6
1989	Va.	Del 4	Jack Stump	write-in	7,981	67.0
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	12,007	100.0
1990	Calif.	Sen 8	Quentin Kopp	Independent	116,885	72.7
	R.I.	Rep 69	Mark Dailey	write-in	290	40.7
	So.C.	Rep 80	James Cromer	Independent	2,775	53.4
	Vt.	Rep C-7-4	Terry Bouricius	Progressive	587	52.4
	Vt.	Rep C-7-7	Tom O. Smith	Progressive	903	61.7
	Alas.	Governor	Walter Hickel	Alaskan Independence	75,721	38.9
	Ct.	Governor	Lowell Weicker	A Connecticut	460,576	40.4
1991	La.	Sen 26	Nell Doland	Independent	uncounted	100.0
	La.	Rep 22	Steve Gunn	Independent	9,931	50.2
	Miss.	Rep 7	Charles G. Davis	Independent	3,985	100.0
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	10,520	70.3
1992	Alas.	Sen E	Judith Salo	Independent Democrat	6,014	49.1
	Alas.	Rep 25	Ed Willis	Independent	2,829	47.6
	Alas.	Rep 40	Carl Moses	Alaskan Independence	1,829	53.1
	Ark.	Rep 44	Greg Wren	Independent	4,757	44.3
	Calif.	Sen 39	Lucy Killea	Independent	187,353	60.4
	So.C.	Rep 80	James Cromer	Independent	5,447	62.3
	Vt.	Rep C-7-2	Tom O. Smith	Progressive	1,171	46.1
	Vt.	Rep C-7-3	Dean Corren	Independent	2,288	69.3
	Vt.	Rep C-7-4	Terry Bouricius	Progressive	1,097	100.0
	Vt.	Rep A-1	Roger Kayhart	Independent	1,914	53.8
	Vt.	Rep C-4	Gary Bressor	Independent	929	44.0
	Vt.	Rp E-C-2	Gordon Stafford	Independent	841	53.6
1993	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	13,129	100.0
1994	Alas.	Rep 25	Ed Willis	Independent	2,722	51.3
	Calif.	Sen 8	Quentin Kopp	Independent	135,712	63.5
	Ks.	Rep 74	Ellen Samuelson	write-in	4,118	54.5
1994	Maine	Sen 5	Jill Goldthwait	Independent	6,536	40.3
	Maine	Governor	Angus King	Independent	180,829	35.4
	So.C.	Rep 12	Jennings McAbee	Independent	3,155	52.3
	So.D.	Rep 8	Dale Kringen	Independent	4,299	53.4
	Vt.	Rep C-7-3	Dean Corren	Progressive	1,141	51.0
	Vt.	Rep C-7-4	Terry Bouricius	Progressive	580	55.0
	Vt.	Rep A-1	Roger Kayhart	Independent	1,285	44.7
1995	Miss.	Rep 7	Charles G. Davis	Independent	4,112	100.0
	Miss.	Rep 35	Charles B. Smith	Independent	4,399	55.9
	Miss.	Rep 81	Tommy Horne	Independent	5,772	100.0
	N.Y.	Asm 68	Francisco Diaz, Jr.	Liberal, Independence	4,560	53.4
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	15,330	100.0
1996	Maine	Sen 5	Jill Goldthwait	Independent	12,561	65.7
	Maine	Rep 73	Belinda Gerry	Independent	1,265	50.8
	So.C.	Rep 96	James Cromer	Independent	5,681	100.0
	Vt.	C-7-3	Dean Corren	Progressive	1,988	73.5
	Vt.	C-7-3	David Zuckerman	Progressive	1,995	73.8
	Vt.	C-7-4	Terry Bouricius	Progressive	886	100.0
	Vt.	Rp Wh-4	Wendell Coleman	Independent	999	45.2
1997	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	13,195	78.4
1998	Maine	Sen 5	Jill Goldthwait	Independent	9,949	76.3
	Maine	Rep 73	Belinda Gerry	Independent	976	62.0
	Maine	Governor	Angus King	Independent	246,772	58.6
	Mo.	Rep 162	Denny J. Meredith	Independent	3,307	54.4
	Ore.	Rep 57	Bob Jenson	Independent	7,822	68.4
	R.I.	Rep 23	Aram Garabedian	Independent	1,945	41.7
	Tn.	St Sen 15	Charlotte Burks	write-in	30,252	93.1
	Vt.	Rep C-7-2	Steve Hingtgen	Progressive	983	53.4
	Vt.	Rep C-7-3	David Zuckerman	Progressive	1,021	100.0
	Vt.	Rep C-7-3	Dean Corren	Progressive	1,010	98.9
	Vt.	Rep C-7-4	Terry Bouricius	Progressive	561	100.0
	Vt.	Rep A-2	Tony Dominick	Independent	747	40.2
	Vt.	Rp E-C-2	William Johnson	Independent	740	57.3
	Minn.	Governor	Jesse Ventura	Reform	773,403	37.0
1999	Calif.	Asm 16	Audie Bock	Green	14,674	50.6
	Miss.	Rep 35	Charlie Smith	Independent	4,175	53.0
	Miss.	Rep 52	Tom Cameron	Independent	3,158	53.7
	Miss.	Rep 81	Tommy Horne	Independent	4,996	100.0
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	12,842	80.9
2000	Ga.	Rep 29	Ginger Collins	Independent	5,096	73.1
	Ga.	Rep 172	Buddy DeLoach	Independent	2,653	100.0
	Maine	Sen 5	Jill Goldthwait	Independent	13,781	67.4
	Maine	Rep 74	John M. Michael	Independent	2,357	59.7
	Mn.	Sen 3	Bob Lessard	Independent	17,631	54.3
	N.H.	Rep H-44	Steve Vaillancourt	Libertarian	1,622	53.9
	Vt.	Rep C-7-2	Steve Hingtgen	Progressive	1,475	86.9
	Vt.	Rep C-7-3	David Zuckerman	Progressive	2,090	100.0
	Vt.	Rep C-7-3	Bob Kiss	Progressive	1,730	90.6
	Vt.	Rep C-7-4	Carina Driscoll	Progressive	863	76.3
	Vt.	Rp Wh22	Daryl Pillsbury	Independent	799	50.9
2001	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	13,285	100.0
	Va.	Del 59	Watkins Abbott	Independent	11,782	63.2
2002	Alaska	Sen Q	Tom Wagoner	Republican Moderate	5,638	46.1
	Ga.	Rep 127	Buddy DeLoach	Independent	7,757	100.0
	Ill.	Sen 15	James T. Meeks	Honesty and Integrity	22,434	40.1
	Maine	Rep 31	John Eder	Green	1,796	64.7
	Maine	Rep 44	Richard Woodbury	Independent	2,625	62.2
	Maine	Rep 60	Gary Sukeforth	Independent	1,786	44.5
	Maine	Rep 151	Troy Jackson	Independent	2,171	64.9
	Mass.	Rep E-16	William Lantigua	Independent	2,440	51.9
	Mn.	Sen 30	Sheila Kiscaden	Independence	12,388	41.6
	R.I.	Rep 46	William McManus	Independent	3,009	59.7
	Vt.	Rep C-3-3	Steve Hingtgen	Progressive	970	48.3
	Vt.	Rep C-3-4	Bob Kiss	Progressive	1,022	54.5
	Vt.	Rep C-3-4	David Zuckerman	Progressive	1,200	64.0
	Vt.	Rp Wh33	Sarah R. Edwards	Progressive	689	53.5
	Vt.	Rep Wa-6	Tom Pelham	Independent	1,168	51.1
	Vt.	Rp Wh32	Daryl Pillsbury	Independent	1,041	100.0
	Vt.	Rep Wr-5	Jack Anderson	Independent	1,160	66.9
2003	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	16,398	100.0
	Va.	Del 59	Watkins Abbitt	Independent	11,834	67.1
2004	La.	Rep 45	Joel Robideaux	Independent	2,751	55.3
	Maine	Rep 107	Richard Woodbury	Independent	3,303	61.0
	Maine	Rep 118	John Eder	Green	2,417	50.9
	Mass.	Rep E-16	William Lantigua	Independent	3,989	57.0
	Vt.	Rep C-3-4	David Zuckerman	Progressive	2,424	100.0
	Vt.	Rep C-3-4	Bob Kiss	Progressive	2,095	86.4
	Vt.	Rp Wh32	Daryl Pillsbury	Independent	1,525	100.0
2005	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	19,152	100.0
	Va.	Del 59	Watkins Abbitt	Independent	16,398	100.0
	Va.	Del 68	Katherine Waddell	Independent	13,424	49.9
2006	Ky.	Sen 2	Robert Leeper	Independent	15,497	41.1
	Mass.	Rep M-6	Pam Richardson	write-in	4,259	37.3
	Mont.	Rep 12	Rick Jore	Constitution	2,045	55.4
	Vt.	Rp A-R-1	Will Stevens	Independent	1,105	63.6
	Vt.	Rep C-3-4	Christopher Pearson	Progressive	1,253	76.7
	Vt.	Rep C-3-4	David Zuckerman	Progressive	1,634	100.0
	Vt.	Rp Wh32	Daryl Pillsbury	Independent	1,131	84.4h
2007	La.	Rep 45	Joel Robideaux	Independent	uncounted	100.0
	La.	Rep 55	Jerome "Dee" Richard	Independent	4,120	58.6
	Mass.	Rep N-11	Paul McMurtry	Independent	2,948	37.6
	Va.	Del 19	Lacey E. Putney	Independent	11,908	72.7
	Va.	Del 59	Watkins Abbitt	Independent	13,874	60.3

Earl Dodge, long-time Prohibition Party activist and candidate, died unexpectedly on November 7.

PARTY	La.	Miss.	N. Jersey	Virginia
Consti.	- -	10,891	- -	- -
Green	- -	- -	- -	9,208
Lib’t.	- -	- -	2,038	8,312
Soc Wkr	- -	- -	95	- -

Party	La.	Miss.	N.Jersey	Virginia
Consti.	491	2,364	- -	- -
Green	- -	89	12,095	4,376
Lib’t.	- -	- -	5,215	- -
Soc Wkr	- -	- -	233	- -

The four states above elected legislatures this year. The only minor parties with nominees in these elections were Constitution (10 nominees), Green (18 nominees), Libertarian (12 nominees) and Socialist Workers (3 nominees). The tables above show the number of voters who voted for each party’s nominees for each legislative chamber.

Libertarian: Susan Bell, Judge, Hagerstown, In.; Michael Sloan, Pottawatomie Park council, In.; in Pennsylvania: Myron Dietrick, Avis Mayor; Mary Lucas, Strattenville Council; Erik Viker, Selingsgrove Council; Ray Onrusek, Eastern Lebanon Co. Sch. Bd.; David Owens, Landenberg Twp. Supervisor; Bill Beeman, Waterford Twp. Auditor.

Working Families: Luis Cotto and Larry Deutsch, Hartford, Ct., city council.

Green: Allan Brison, New Haven, Ct., council; Jean de Smet, Windham, Ct., Selectman (under the label "Bottom Line Slate"); Hector Lopez and Erik Eisenberg, Constable, New Canaan, Ct.; Sam Ettaro, Curwensville Council, Pa.

Constitution: Scott Stevens, Warren, Mi. city council; Matt Curry, Lewiston, Utah city council.

Green: John Anton, Portland, Me. City council; Luc Schuster, Cambridge, Ma. School committee; Chuck Turner, Boston, Ma. City council; Dan Robinson, Takoma Park, Md., city council; Larry Bragman and Lew Tremain, Fairfax, Ca., city council; Chris Simmons, Loudon Co., Va., Soil and Water Board; Kathleen Harrigan, Tri-County Soil and Water Board, Fredericksburg, Va.; Daniel Metraux, Soil and Water Board, Staunton, Va.

Libertarian: Bill Lynn, Davenport, Ia Alderman; Rob Oates, Caldwell, Id. city council; Mark Owen, Owasso, Mi. city council; Andy LeCureaux, Hazel Park, Mi. city council; Mary Byrne, Port Huron, Mi. city council; David Eisenbacher, Troy, Mi. city council; T. J. Rohr, Lenoir, N.C., city council; Henry Boschen, Roxobel, N.C. town council; Ruben Perez, San Antonio River Authority Board, Tx., Bob Mills, Biddeford, Me. city council; John McAlister, Gahanna, Oh., city council.

The usual 2008 presidential petitioning chart is missing from this issue, but will return in the January 2008 issue. Charts in previous issues erroneously said the Illinois deadline is June 26. However, the actual deadline is June 23.

The only petition that has been submitted in the last 30 days is the Utah Libertarian petition. The state is still checking it. Unity08 will begin massive petitioning in January 2008, according to its web site. On November 9, Unity08 joined the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) Board.

---

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.