MAJOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TRIPPED UP BY RELATIVELY LENIENT BALLOT ACCESS LAWS

The ballot access laws for candidates to get on presidential primary ballots are very easy, compared to the laws for minor parties and independent candidates to get on the general election ballot. Nevertheless, some Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have had trouble with ballot access recently.

As of December 28, the deadlines for filing for the presidential primary had passed in 26 states (counting the District of Columbia as a state). Of these 26 states, only 8 have mandatory petitions for all presidential candidates (for either major party). They are Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia (Republicans only), Illinois, New Jersey, New York (Democrats only), Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Rhode Island has not yet checked any petitions. In all remaining seven states, at least one Democrat or Republican who was considered important enough to be allowed into most debates, failed to qualify.

Democratic Failures

Alabama: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel did not submit any signatures. 500 are required; any registered voter may sign; no one checks petition validity.

Delaware: Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel did not submit any signatures. 500 are required; only registered Democrats can sign; the signatures are checked. The Richardson campaign said that no petition was submitted because the campaign preferred to put its resources elsewhere.

Illinois: Mike Gravel did not submit any signatures. 3,000 are required; anyone can sign who didn’t vote in the Republican 2006 primary; signatures are not checked unless someone challenges.

New Jersey: Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel did not submit any signatures. 1,000 are required; only Democrats may sign; the signatures are not checked unless someone challenges. The Dodd campaign said it did not try to petition in New Jersey because it preferred to put its resources into other states.

New York: Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel did not submit any signatures. 5,000 are required; only Democrats may sign; the signatures are not checked unless there is a challenge.

Virginia: On the afternoon of the last day, Chris Dodd turned his signatures into the Richmond city Board of Elections, instead of the State Board of Elections office. Therefore, they were invalid. Mike Gravel did not submit any signatures. Although Virginia requires 10,000 signatures, the Democratic Party collected 7,300 signatures for all eight Democratic presidential candidates who have been allowed into debates. Also, any voter can sign, and signatures are not checked (there is no challenge procedure). Therefore, each Democrat only need to collect 2,700 signatures on his or her own.

Republican Failures

Delaware: Fred Thompson turned in 580 signatures, but when they were checked, he was left with only 430 valid. Duncan Hunter only turned in 48 signatures.

District of Columbia: Fred Thompson took out petition blanks, but did not turn any signatures in. Republicans needed 298 signatures; only party members could sign. D.C. does elect Delegates to the Republican National Convention, so being on the D.C. ballot is valuable to Republican candidates who are trying to win delegates.

Illinois: Duncan Hunter did not turn in a petition.

New Jersey: Duncan Hunter did not turn in a petition.

Virginia: Duncan Hunter did not submit a petition.

Instances at which Tom Tancredo did not turn in a petition are excluded above, since he probably knew he was going to withdraw, and therefore it was rational for him to abstain from petitioning in D.C., New Jersey, and Virginia.

Leniency

The failures noted above are especially significant, given that such lenient treatment was given to the important Democratic and Republican presidential contenders. New Jersey’s policy of not checking the signatures made it possible for some candidates to turn in barely over the required 1,000 signatures. For example, Fred Thompson only turned in 1,133; Joe Biden turned in 1,018; Dennis Kucinich submitted 1,052; Bill Richardson submitted 1,305.

Illinois not only doesn’t routinely check signatures; it accepts petitions that have fewer signatures than the legal requirement. For example, although 3,000 are required, Alan Keyes got on the ballot even though he submitted only six petition sheets (probably about 100 signatures). His petition was challenged, but the State Board of Elections ruled that the challenger did not have standing to bring a challenge.

In Alabama, the signatures were due by 5 p.m. on November 7. However, the state office of the Republican Party (the proper place to submit signatures) kept its doors open until 7 p.m. to accommodate Duncan Hunter.

See next story for what this means.

Probably very few federal judges have ever had any experience petitioning. Yet they seem to think that a petition hurdle of 500 signatures is a trivial challenge.

Yet, as noted on page one, petition requirements as low as 500 signatures have barred some major party presidential candidates from the ballot in this year’s presidential primaries. Nor is 2008 unique. In 1996, all the Republicans except Bob Dole failed to get on the New York presidential primary ballot, until the 2^nd circuit declared the New York Republican primary ballot access laws unconstitutional. In 2004, John Edwards failed to obtain the needed 1,000 signatures in Rhode Island, although the Rhode Island Supreme Court put him on the ballot anyway. In 1996, only two of the leading Republican presidential candidates succeeded in collecting the needed 5,000 signatures in Texas, although the Republican Party then waived the petition requirement retroactively.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court heard American Party of Texas v White. One of the co-plaintiffs was Robert W. Hainsworth. He was an African-American minister who had tried to collect 500 valid signatures to be on the ballot as an independent candidate for the Texas State House. He was permitted to argue his own case as a pro se litigant. He did his best to explain why even a 500-signature requirement, when combined with a 30-day limit, and a requirement that each signature be notarized, was burdensome. However, the Court brushed off his points in its 1974 decision.

Ever since then, the Court has taken it as proven that a signature requirement as low as 500 can’t possibly be burdensome. On October 3, Justice David Souter said at oral argument in N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v Lopez Torres, "There is concededly no unreasonable barrier to somebody who wants to become a delegate. He’s got to get 500 signatures, but that can be done."

A few minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts said to the attorney for Lopez Torres, "What did he have to do to get on the ballot for delegate, 500 signatures, right? If we don’t think that’s a sufficient burden, do you lose?" Also Justice Anthony Kennedy had earlier asked, "What about the burden on a single delegate wanting to be on the ballot? I think that requires 500 signatures, and there was no specific finding that that was a burden, was there?"

The Connecticut public funding law requires that an independent candidate for statewide office submit 224,682 valid signatures, in order to receive equal public funding with his or her major party opponents (those major party opponents don’t need any signatures). That law is under court challenge. The state has hired a witness who says in his expert report, "The number of volunteers needed and the number of days that they would have to work, are realistic and easily achievable for a candidate with even a modest constituency and for a campaign with basic, conventional organizing ability."

That is theory. What is happening in this year’s presidential primaries is reality.

On December 24, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that the State Constitution protects free speech activity in shopping centers. New Fashion Valley Mall v National Labor Relations Board, S144753. The vote was 4-3.

The same court had said the same thing in 1979, but the dissenters angrily argued that the 1979 precedent (called Robins v Pruneyard Shopping Center) should be reversed. Justice Ming Chin’s dissent says, "Pruneyard was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it." He is referring to the fact that most other State Supreme Courts have ruled that their state’s "free speech" provisions don’t cover privately-owned shopping centers.

Pennsylvania’s assessment of huge costs (for candidates who submit petitions that are found to be insufficient), levied against Ralph Nader in 2004, and the Green Party in 2006, is an issue that will not go away, and the war against the policy is being waged on four fronts:

District of Columbia Superior Court: Nader has asked the court not to let the people who challenged him, raid his bank account. The case is in D.C. because that is where Nader’s bank is. The people who challenged his 2004 petition want the D.C. court to order the bank to give them approximately $80,000. Nader filed a motion for relief from judgment on November 7. He argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court judgment against him was tainted by conflicts of interest. The firm representing the challengers had done large favors for several of the Justices who were hearing the case, and this not disclosed while the case was pending. Serody v Nader, 2007 CA 3385F. Three rounds of briefs have been filed. A decision could come at any time.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: on November 28, Carl Romanelli, Green candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006, asked that Court to reconsider its November 21 decision, upholding the challenge/costs system. In re Nomination Paper of Rogers, 12 MAP 2007. The request is still pending.

Federal court: The Pennsylvania Constitution Party has found an attorney to file a federal lawsuit against the challenge/costs system, and that case will probably be filed in January. Other parties may join the case.

Pennsylvania Legislature: Rep. Kerry Benninghoff (R-Bellefonte) is about to introduce a bill that will let candidates seeking a place on any type of ballot (primary or general) pay a fee as an alternative to a petition. The formula will be $1 for each required signature, with a cap on the highest possible filing fee. The cap will probably range between $2,000 and $4,000.

On November 26, U.S. Senator Barack Obama issued a press release on voting rights. It says, "Voting is our most basic right and one of our most important responsibilities as Americans. Any law that creates discriminatory barriers to the exercise of this fundamental right should be immediately revoked." The purpose of the press release was to publicize the pending U.S. Supreme Court hearing in the lawsuit against Indiana’s law that requires voters at the polls to show government photo-ID. The hearing is January 9, 2008.

Indiana defends its law by saying that the government should not need to prove the need for a voter restriction. Indiana points to an unfavorable ballot access case, Munro v Socialist Workers Party. In that case, the evidence showed that Washington state had no need to fear a crowded general election ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law anyway, saying that evidence doesn’t matter in election law cases. Hopefully, the Court will repudiate that precedent. Indiana has never had an instance of a voter impersonating another voter at the polls.

On November 27, 2007, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party won its lawsuit against a state law that says the statewide list of registered voters should only be available to qualified political parties. In New Hampshire, only the Democratic and Republican Parties are currently qualified. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardiner, Merrimack Co., 07-E-327. The state is not appealing. This is the first time any minor party has ever won a constitutional election law lawsuit in New Hampshire.

Senator Peter Burling, the legislator who wrote the law that was declared unconstitutional, plans to introduce a bill this month, saying the list should also be made available to unqualified parties that place any nominee on the November ballot, and to independent candidates that qualify for the ballot.

By an odd coincidence, three attorneys who won ballot access cases some time ago, finally won an award for attorneys’ fees during the last 40 days. Under the "Equal Access to Justice" Act passed by Congress in 1976, attorneys who win civil rights cases (voting rights cases are a subset of civil rights) may receive attorneys’ fees from state governments, when those attorneys win their cases.

Maryland: on December 10, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County awarded $253,250 to the two attorneys who won the Green Party ballot access case in 2003.

Colorado: on December 17, the State Supreme Court refused to disturb a 2006 ruling by the State Court of Appeals that the attorney who won the Socialist Party’s 2004 ballot access lawsuit should receive $25,000. The issue in that case had been whether the Socialist presidential candidate had filed his filing fee on time. The deadline had been July 4, and it was placed in the Secretary of State’s office on that day (by slipping it under the door), but the Secretary of State didn’t receive it until the next day, since the office was closed on July 4.

Ohio: on November 20, a U.S. District Court awarded $44,062 to the attorney who won the Libertarian ballot access case in the 6^th circuit in 2006. This is good news for the Ohio Libertarian Party, and for COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections), both of which had contributed to this lawsuit.

Even after courts award attorneys’ fees, it sometimes takes the states weeks to put the check in the mail.

The New Jersey Assembly passed the National Popular Vote Plan (A4225) on December 13. It is expected to pass the State Senate in the first week of January. The Illinois bill, HB 1685, is also expected to pass during the first week of January.

Arizona: Nader v Brewer will probably have its oral argument in the 9^th circuit in the spring of 2008. The case, filed in 2004, challenges Arizona’s early June petition deadline for independent candidates, and the law making it illegal for out-of-staters to circulate an independent presidential candidate petition.

Hawaii: Nader v Yoshina will have an oral argument in U.S. District Court on March 4. It challenges state law that requires an independent presidential candidate to get six times as many signatures as an entire new party. It also challenges state procedures for checking signatures.

Ohio: Nader’s brief in Nader v Blackwell was filed in the 6^th circuit on December 18. It attacks former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell for ruling that independent candidate petitions could not be circulated by out-of-staters. Blackwell had almost simultaneously ruled that out-of-staters could circulate initiative petitions. However, the law on both types of petitions was identical. Blackwell is no longer Secretary of State, but this lawsuit asks for damages against Blackwell personally.

Democratic Party activists in both Florida and Michigan have sued their own state elections officials to postpone or cancel the presidential primaries in both states. Since the national Democratic Party says the January presidential primaries violate national party rules (they are too early), neither state may send any delegates to the national convention. The two lawsuits argue that the national party rules are legitimate. Therefore, they blame the state for holding the primaries too early.

The Florida lawsuit, Ausman v Browning, has a hearing in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee on January 3. The Michigan lawsuit, Hayes v Michigan Democratic Party and Secretary of State, has one in Grand Rapids on January 7.

Others: Third Parties from Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party to the Decline of Socialism in America, Volume III, by Darcy Richardson, 2007. Hardcover, 407 pages, $34.90.

This is the third in Richardson’s series about political parties, especially third parties, in U.S. history. It covers the period 1909-1919, the decade of the 20^th century in which minor parties were most successful.

Richardson’s books contain details that other books of this type do not contain. For example, his account of the 1912 election includes the fascinating story of how the U.S. Supreme Court got involved in its first ballot access case, involving presidential elector slates from Kansas, and whether either or both Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft would be on the ballot. It also details the intricate political dance involving the creation of Roosevelt’s Progressive Party. For one brief moment, it appeared somewhat likely that Woodrow Wilson (who was discouraged about winning the Democratic nomination) might become Roosevelt’s running mate.

The book also explains that Roosevelt campaigned very hard in the South, something that Republicans generally didn’t do. That explains why Roosevelt’s greatest percentages of the vote were in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina.

The book is equally generous in its detailed account of the Prohibition Party’s history during this decade, when it elected its first Governor, its first Congressman, and had three former Governors competing for its 1916 presidential nomination.

And of course, the book contains a great deal about how the Socialist Party’s fortunes grew great, and then declined somewhat, and then seemed to catch fire again in 1917.

Many books contain the detail that the Socialist Party had over 1,000 elected officials in the spring of 1912, but Richardson explains how that happened. Surprisingly, many of the Socialist mayors were elected in towns that had never had a strong Socialist Party organization.

If there is any book I wish all members of the federal judiciary would read, it is Others III. That is because it illuminates how the political system works in the absence of discriminatory, restrictive ballot access laws. U.S. politics during the 1910’s was very similar to the politics we see today in Great Britain and Canada. Although all three nations are two-party systems, Great Britain and Canada have powerful third parties, just as the U.S. did in the 1910’s.

Goldfeder’s Modern Election Law, by Jerry H. Goldfeder, 2007. Softcover, 446 pages, $125.00.

New York is famous for its complicated election laws and rules, especially concerning ballot access for both the primary and general elections, and also on how political parties manage their nominations.

If you need to understand New York election law, this book is for you. Goldfeder is a Law Professor who has specialized in New York election laws, and he has a gift for explaining them clearly. The Table of Contents is especially well-done; one can turn to it and easily find what one needs.

Goldfeder does not try to criticize the laws; he merely explains them. Virtually all of the book deals with New York. When Goldfeder does stray into the laws of other states (to make a point), he is on less firm footing. When he discusses Tom DeLay’s withdrawal in 2006 from a Texas election, he says that DeLay was not permitted to withdraw. Actually, Texas law did permit DeLay to withdraw; the problem for the Republicans was that the party was not entitled to replace him with a new nominee. Goldfeder is working on a 2^nd edition and that will be corrected.

Florida: on December 18, a U.S. District Court granted an injunction against a state law that won’t let voters register, unless the Florida drivers license number the voter provides (or the last four digits of his or her Social Security number) matches a government database. Florida State Conference of the NAACP v Browning. On December 27, the 11^th circuit refused to disturb the injunction. As a result, 16,000 voters were immediately added to the voter rolls.

Mississippi: on December 21, the 5^th circuit expedited the lawsuit over whether the Democratic Party may have a closed primary. Mississippi State Dem. Party v Barbour, 07-60667. The 5^th circuit also said that while the case is pending, Mississippi should continue using open primaries.

New Mexico: on December 11, the 10^th circuit refused to rehear Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Herrera, the ballot access case filed in 2006. The 10^th circuit had not ruled on the ballot access per se, but had merely dismissed the case because of a procedural problem. The party is free to re-file the case.

On December 24, the Colorado Secretary of State disqualified the Reform, Gun Owners Rights, and Pro Life Parties, for failing to poll enough votes at the last election. The latter two parties qualified in 2004 but never ran any nominees.

Richard Winger has an article in the latest edition of the University of Arkansas Law Review. It is, "Can U.S. Voters Still Recruit Someone to Run for President as an Independent After the Identities of the Major Party Presidential Candidates Are Known?" Copies are free to anyone who subscribes to B.A.N., as long as supplies last.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	Unity08	Party	Indp.
Alabama	37,513	5,000	0	0	0	0	June 3	Sep. 8
Alaska	(reg) 7,124	#3,128	already on	*3,478	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	est. #21,500	already on	*8,200	*50	0	Mar. 6	June 4
Arkansas	10,000	#1,000	already on	already on	*already on	*500	June 30	Aug. 4
Calif.	(reg) 88,991	158,372	already on	already on	already on	12	Dec. 31, 07	Aug. 8
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	already on	500	June 1	June 17
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	*0	*0	*0	*0	- - -	Aug. 6
Delaware	est. (reg) 290	est. 5,800	already on	already on	already on	175	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	already on	Sep. 2	July 15
Georgia	44,089	#42,489	already on	*2,500	0	0	July 8	July 8
Hawaii	663	4,291	already on	*200	*100	0	Apr. 3	Sep. 5
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	0	already on	0	Aug. 29	Aug. 25
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	*June 23
Indiana	no procedure	#32,742	already on	0	0	0	- - -	*June 30
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	*0	*0	*0	*0	- - -	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	*500	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Mass.	est. (reg) 40,500	#10,000	19,253	already on	65	0	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	*already on	Jan. 10	Sep. 5
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	finished	0	*July 28	*July 28
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	650	already on	0	Mar. 13	July 30
Nebraska	5,921	2,500	*7,900	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	*1,800	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	*500	0	Apr. 1	June 4
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 19
No. Car.	69,734	69,734	*88,500	9,000	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	*8,400	0	*7,700	0	Aug 21	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	0	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	*est. #25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	- - -	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	18,557	#1,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	May 30	Sep. 5
So. Caro.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	May 4	July 15
So. Dakota	8,389	3,356	1,500	0	7,800	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 19	May 8
Utah	2,000	#1,000	*2,200	300	already on	0	Feb. 15	Sep. 2
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	organizing	*0	Jan. 1	Sep. 12
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	- - -	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	*8,200	0	- - -	Aug. 1
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	*0	*0	June 2	Sep. 2
Wyoming	3,868	3,868	already on	0	*200	0	June 2	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			27*	21	15*	2*	`

#partisan label is permitted (other than "independent").
* means entry changed since Nov. 1, 2007 B.A.N.
When "reg." appears in the "Full Party" column, it means the party must have a certain number of registered voters; it doesn’t mean a petition is needed.

On December 16, former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney formally declared her candidacy for the Green Party nomination. The announcement was no surprise, since she had already successfully placed herself on the Green Party presidential primary ballots in all five states in which filing has now closed. They are Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Illinois and Massachusetts.

The only two other contenders for that nomination who also managed to get on the ballot in all five states are Jared Ball of the District of Columbia, and Kent Mesplay of California.

Kat Swift of Texas has qualified in all those states except Illinois. Jesse Johnson of West Virginia has qualified in California and D.C. Elaine Brown of Georgia has qualified in California and Massachusetts.

Ralph Nader has not declared that he is running for president. However, his name has been placed on the Green primaries in California and Massachusetts, states that do not require a declaration of candidacy. Howie Hawkins of New York, who is perceived to be a stand-in for Nader, has qualified in D.C. and Illinois.

The Green Party is holding a presidential debate in San Francisco on January 13 (Sunday) at 2 p.m., in the Herbst Theater. Ralph Nader will participate, but not as a candidate. Instead he is listed as a special guest.

Other Green presidential primaries (for which filing has not closed) will be held in Nebraska (in May) and New Mexico (in June). The national convention is in July.

The Peace & Freedom Party of California has seven candidates on its presidential primary ballot. They are all invited to debate each other in San Francisco on January 12 (Saturday), 1 p.m., at the Brava Theater, 2781 24^th Street. The seven candidates are Stewart Alexander, John Crockford, Stanley Hetz, Gloria LaRiva, Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore, and Ralph Nader.

Three Republican presidential candidates have qualified for primary season matching funds. The amounts each is entitled to are: John McCain $5,800,000; Tom Tancredo $2,100,000; Duncan Hunter $100,000. It is not determined whether Tancredo will receive his funds, however, since he withdrew on December 20. If he had waited until January to withdraw, he would have been entitled to the funds.

Four Democrats have also qualified: John Edwards $8,800,000; Chris Dodd $1,400,000; Joe Biden $857,000; Dennis Kucinich $100,000.

The only non-major party candidate trying to qualify for primary season matching funds is Cynthia McKinney.

Massachusetts: held a special election for State Senate, Middlesex 4 district, on December 11. The results: Democratic 59.4%; Republican 36.1%; Constitution Party candidate Thomas Fallon 4.5%. In November 2006, the results had been: Democratic 66.2%; Republican 33.8%.

Virginia: held a special election for U.S. House, First District, on December 11. The results: Republican 60.8%; Democratic 37.3%; independent Lucky Narain 1.8%. In November 2006, the results had been: Republican 63.0%; Democratic 35.5%; Independent 1.4%.

On December 9, the Libertarian National Committee unanimously passed a resolution, which says, in part, "In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, to be decided in Denver, Colorado, during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008." The resolution was authored by former Congressman Bob Barr, who is a member of the Committee.

---

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.