TWO COURTS SUPPORT EQUALITY FOR MINOR PARTIES

During late March, two U.S. District Court Judges issued strong rulings in defense of equality for minor parties. Neither case involved ballot access. Instead, the Michigan ruling concerns which parties can get a list of presidential primary voters, and the Connecticut ruling concerns discriminatory public funding. The American Civil Liberties Union sponsored both lawsuits.

Michigan

On March 26, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, a Bush Sr. appointee, struck down a law passed last year, on the subject of which parties can get a list of the voters who vote in presidential primaries. Green Party of Michigan v Land, 08-10149.

Michigan law says only parties that got 20% of the vote in the last election may have a presidential primary. The state has six ballot-qualified parties, but only the Democratic and Republican Parties have a presidential primary. The other ballot-qualified parties are Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Natural Law (in Michigan, the Constitution Party uses the name "U.S. Taxpayers Party").

The law passed last year says that only parties with their own presidential primary may have the list of voters who vote in presidential primaries. So, the law provided that the Republican Party could get the list of who voted in the Republican presidential primary and the Democratic presidential primary. The Democratic Party could also get the list for both primaries. But, no one else could have the list. It was a crime for anyone else to possess the list.

The list is very valuable, because Michigan does not have registration by party. Furthermore, there is no other record of which voters choose which party’s primary ballot.

The state argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has approved discrimination against minor parties, and cited some bad ballot access precedents, especially Jenness v Fortson. But Judge Edmunds refused to accept the idea that because the U.S. Supreme Court has sometimes injured minor parties, that therefore there is generalized permission for states to discriminate against minor parties in all areas of election law.

She said, "Defendant’s proposed approach to the Equal Protection Clause would strip the clause of all meaning. Any statute could avoid running afoul of the clause simply by creating an arbitrary classification to divide those whom the statute intends to protect from those it does not. This would strike at the very heart of the clause, the basic concern of which is ‘with state legislation whose purpose or effect is to create discrete and objectively identifiable classes’."

Judge Edmunds denigrated the state’s argument that giving the list only to the Democratic and Republican Parties protects "stability." Frequently, when a state government wants to defend a law that discriminates in favor of the two major parties, it claims that such discrimination enhances "stability." Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who wrote all the unfavorable ballot access decisions from 1972 through 1992, always mentioned "stability" as justification for restrictive ballot access laws. White even used "stability" to justify banning write-in votes. However, he never defined "stability", nor did he explain the connection between "stability" and restricting voters’ choices. Judge Edmunds simply noted that there is no connection between the issue in this Michigan case, and the cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court had used "stability."

Connecticut

On March 20, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill, a Clinton appointee, issued a 49-page ruling in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 3:06cv-1030. The ruling denies the motion for summary judgment in favor of the law. The law under attack in this lawsuit sets up public financing for candidates for Connecticut state office.

The law discriminates against minor party and independent candidates. Although the only concrete effect of the March 20 ruling is require a trial in this case, the ruling suggests that the Connecticut law is likely to be held unconstitutional.

The state argued that it may discriminate, because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a discriminatory public funding law for presidential elections in 1976. The case, Buckley v Valeo, ruled 7-2 that Congress could provide for general election public funding only for parties that received 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election. Parties that polled 5% in the current election, but not the past election, could also receive funding, immediately after the current election was over.

Judge Underhill differentiated between the federal presidential scheme, and Connecticut law. He noted that virtually every presidential election is sharply competitive between the Democratic and Republican nominee. By contrast, over half of all Connecticut state legislative races are uncompetitive. Most legislative districts are either so Democratic, or so Republican, that there is no real contest. Yet the Connecticut public funding law funds all Republican nominees and all Democratic nominees fully, without requiring them to collect any signatures.

By contrast, independents, and candidates of new parties, and parties that polled less than 10% of the vote for that office in the last election, must submit very difficult petitions, in order to get public funding. For full public funding they must submit petitions signed by 20% of the vote in the last election; for two-thirds public funding, 15% petitions; for one-third public funding, 10% petitions.

Judge Underhill wrote, "The size of the 10%-15%-20% (petition) thresholds is not as problematic as the fact that thresholds (i.e., petitions) apply only to minor party and independent candidates in the first instance. Plaintiffs argue that it is unfair to impose additional qualifying requirements only on minor party and independent candidates because, in one-party dominant districts, the minor party candidate’s chances to win the general election are as good as, or better than, the token (or nonexistent) major party candidate, yet the token major party candidate is presumptively entitled to the full complement of public funds, whereas the minor party candidate must show additional ‘modicums of support’. That argument is persuasive."

On March 5, the 6^th circuit ruled that Ohio’s law, making it illegal to pay petition circulators on a per-signature basis, is unconstitutional. Citizens for Tax Reform v Deters, 07-3031. The U.S. District Court had reached the same conclusion last year. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the law added $300,000 to the cost of their statewide initiative.

This is the first time any U.S. Court of Appeals has ever struck down a law that makes it illegal to pay circulators by the signature. It will be interesting to see if Ohio appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision says, "By making speech more costly, the State is virtually guaranteeing there will be less of it."

On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Washington State Grange v Washington Republican Party, 06-713. The decision said that the Washington law does not on its face violate the associational rights of political parties. However, footnote eleven says that other arguments against the Washington system were not considered by the Court, and that new lawsuits may be filed without prejudice.

The Washington system was passed by the voters in November 2004, but it has never been used. A U.S. District Court ruled in 2005 that the system violates the Associational rights of political parties, and did not rule on other arguments against the system. The 9^th circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court in 2006.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision also says that it is possible the Washington system does violate the Associational rights of political parties, but we can’t know this yet. For example, the state still hasn’t even decided how the wording on the ballot, involving political party names, will be handled. The Court said after Washington elections officials decide how party preference labels will be shown on the ballot, and after the state experiences the system in 2008, the parties are free to file new lawsuits, using the evidence that has yet to be gathered.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The two dissenters are Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to say that, in general, election laws should not be invalidated before they have been tried at least once.

Washington state’s system provides that all candidates run on the same primary ballot in August (the system does not apply to presidential elections). Then, only the two candidates who poll the highest vote totals may appear on the November ballot.

Data from Louisiana (which has used a very similar system since 1975), and blanket primary data from Washington and California, show that no one but Democrats or Republicans ever place first or second in the first round. The Libertarian Party had presented evidence in this case that the 2^nd place finisher in past Washington blanket primaries typically polled 30% of the vote.

Thus, for Congressional elections, the system may be unconstitutional on ballot access grounds. Since 1872, Congress has provided that congressional elections are held in November. The November event IS the congressional election. A preliminary screening election may be permitted, but the "screening" cannot be excessive. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Washington state law that said independent and minor party candidates must poll 1% in the September blanket primary. The Court said the primary vote test should be thought of as similar to a petition. Since the Court has previously set a ceiling of 5% on ballot access petitions, it follows that a vote test in a preliminary screening election should also be capped at 5%.

The reason the Supreme Court said the Washington system does not violate the rights of political parties to control their own nominations process, is that there are no partisan elections in the state (except for president, and county office in certain charter counties). The lower courts had struck down the law anyway, since the law does provide for party labels. But the law says that party labels mean only that the candidate "prefers" the party he or she lists. The Secretary of State will probably put next to each candidate’s name the slogan "Prefers the (blank) Party". Washington state has no limits on the names of parties a candidate may "prefer"; a candidate may say he or she prefers the "Libertarian Democratic Party", or the "Pro-Choice Republican Party", or the "Grange Party".

Arizona: on April 15, the 9^th circuit will hear Ralph Nader’s lawsuit against the law that makes it illegal for out-of-staters to circulate an independent candidate petition, and against the early June petition deadline for independent candidates.

California: on March 13, the 9^th circuit rejected the state’s request for a rehearing in Porter v Bowen. The original decision, which stands, said that the First Amendment protects "vote-swap" web pages. The case originated in 2000, when the Secretary of State threatened a web site with prosecution for offering to match Nader voters in close states with Gore votes in non-close states, so that they could make a deal with each other to "swap" a Nader vote for a Gore vote.

Hawaii: a U.S. District Court held a trial March 10-11 in Nader v Cronin, over whether the state violates due process by disqualifying petition signatures for trivial reasons. The trial went well, but the Judge said he won’t rule until June 1, to see if the State Supreme Court wants to act in a parallel case in that Court.

Maryland: on March 13, Michael Schaefer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case against a law that puts primary candidates on the ballot in alphabetical order. Schaefer v Lamone, 07-1143.

Mississippi: on March 5, the 5^th circuit heard arguments in Mississippi Democratic Party v Barbour, the case over whether the Democratic Party may close its primaries to non-members. The panel consisted of Judges Edith Jones, W. Eugene Davis (Reagan appointees), and Emilio Garza (a Bush Sr. appointee).

Montana: Steve Kelly, an independent candidate for U.S. House, is about to file a lawsuit against the March petition deadline. The deadline had been in June, until the 2007 session of the legislature moved it. The lawsuit will also challenge the imposition of filing fees on independent candidates, another change made in 2007.

North Carolina: on March 17, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Bartlett v Strickland, 07-689, a case which may force North Carolina to redistrict some of its legislative and U.S. House districts in 2009, depending on which side wins.

Ohio: on March 7, Socialist Party presidential candidate Brian Moore filed a federal lawsuit against a state law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate an independent candidate petition, unless the circulator is a registered voter in Ohio. Moore v Brunner, 08-224, s.d.

Oregon: the issue of whether petition signers have a due process right to have their signatures counted has gone to the 9^th circuit. Lemons v Bradbury, 08-35209. The U.S. District Court had ruled that there is no such right. The case arose when the state rejected a referendum petition, despite evidence that it had enough valid signatures.

Pennsylvania: the March 1 B.A.N. said that it was likely that the state’s county distribution requirement for statewide primary petitions would soon be in court, since it appeared that two Democratic candidates for State Treasurer had failed to comply with that requirement (which requires 100 signatures from each of 5 counties, as well as 1,000 signatures generally). However, it turned out that both candidates did meet the county distribution requirement, so the issue was put off for another day.

Arkansas has one U.S. Senate race up this year, and four U.S. House races. In all five races, the incumbents are running for re-election. The Green Party is on the ballot and hopes to nominate candidates for all five races. No Democrat or Republican is running against any congressional incumbent in Arkansas. Therefore, unless some independent candidates qualify, the Green Party will offer the only candidates running against any Arkansas members of Congress this year.

Alaska: Rep. Max Gruenberg recently introduced HB 402, to ease the definition of "political party". The bill would define a party as a group that has 2,500 registered members. Alaska’s current definition is registration of 3% of the last vote cast, which is now approximately 7,100, but which will probably be 10,500 after November 2008. Unfortunately HB 402 was introduced too late in the session to have a realistic chance of moving ahead, but the sponsor will reintroduce it next year.

Connecticut: on February 29 the Joint Committee on Government Administration & Election heard testimony about the National Popular Vote Plan bill, HB 6018.

Illinois: Governor Rod Blagojevich must either sign or veto the National Popular Vote Plan bill by April 7.

Maine: on March 20, LD 1799 passed the Joint Legal & Veterans Affairs Committee. The bill legalizes fusion.

Missouri: SB 797, which deletes the requirement that petitions for a new party list presidential elector candidates, passed the Senate Financial, Governmental Operations and Elections Committee on March 6.

Utah: SB 126 failed to pass, and the legislature has now adjourned. It would have imposed filing fees on declared write-in candidates.

Vermont: on March 19, the Vermont legislature passed S270, the bill to use Instant-Runoff Voting for congressional general elections. This is the first time any state legislature has ever approved use of IRV in a statewide general election. Unfortunately, Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, will probably veto it.

Washington: HB 1534, which would have improved ballot access for minor parties and independents, failed to advance in the Senate, and the legislature has now adjourned. Even if it had passed, it would not have conformed to the "top-two" system that will be used in 2008.

~	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Richrdsn	Kucinich	Biden	Dodd	Gravel	other
Alabama	223,089	300,319	7,841	1,017	- -	1,174	523	- -	2,663
Arizona	229,501	193,126	23,621	2,842	1,973	- -	484	340	3,748
Arkansas	220,136	82,476	5,873	810	393	515	308	325	3,398
California	2,608,184	2,186,662	193,617	19,939	24,126	18,261	8,005	8,184	- -
Conn.	165,426	179,742	3,424	436	846	440	912	275	3,038
Delaware	40,760	51,148	1,241	- -	192	2,863	170	- -	- -
Dt. Col.	29,470	93,386	347	145	193	- -	- -	- -	339
Florida	870,986	576,214	251,562	14,999	9,703	15,704	5,477	5,275	- -
Georgia	330,026	704,247	18,209	1,879	2,096	2,538	904	952	- -
Illinois	667,930	1,318,234	39,719	3,538	4,234	3,788	1,171	- -	- -
Louisiana	136,925	220,632	13,026	4,257	1,404	6,178	1,924	- -	- -
Maryland	314,211	532,665	10,506	2,098	1,909	3,776	788	804	11,417
Mass.	705,185	511,680	20,101	1,846	2,992	3,216	1,120	1,463	8,041
Michigan	328,309	- -	- -	- -	21,715	- -	3,845	2,361	238,168
Miss.	159,273	265,370	3,933	1,396	912	1,815	739	591	42
Missouri	395,185	406,917	16,763	689	820	626	250	438	3,342
N.Hamp.	112,404	104,815	48,699	13,269	3,891	638	205	404	715
N. Jersey	597,329	487,046	14,025	3,057	2,795	3,792	- -	- -	- -
N. York	1,068,496	751,019	21,924	8,227	8,458	4,321	- -	- -	- -
Ohio	1,212,362	982,489	38,305	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Okla.	228,480	130,130	42,725	7,078	2,378	- -	2,511	- -	3,905
Rhode Is.	108,949	75,316	1,133	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1,041
So. Car.	140,990	294,898	93,801	726	551	693	247	245	- -
Tenn.	336,245	252,874	27,820	1,178	971	1,531	526	461	3,158
Texas	1,459,814	1,358,785	30,012	10,769	- -	5,327	3,747	- -	- -
Utah	51,333	74,538	3,758	549	408	462	117	166	72
Vermont	59,806	91,901	1,936	- -	1,010	- -	- -	- -	- -
Virginia	349,766	627,820	5,206	991	1,625	795	- -	- -	- -
Wash.	315,744	354,112	11,892	2,040	4,021	1,883	618	1,071	- -
Wisc.	453,954	646,851	6,693	528	2,625	755	501	517	861
TOTAL	13,920,268	13,855,412	957,712	104,303	102,241	81,091	35,092	23,872	283,968

~	McCain	Romney	Huckabee	Paul	Giuliani	Thompsn	Keyes	Hunter	other
Alabama	204,867	98,019	227,766	14,810	2,134	1,835	778	391	1,555
Arizona	255,197	186,838	48,849	22,692	13,658	9,492	970	1,082	2,257
Arkansas	46,343	30,997	138,557	10,983	658	628	- -	- -	987
California	1,238,988	1,013,471	340,669	125,365	128,681	50,275	11,742	14,021	9,589
Conn.	78,836	49,891	10,607	6,287	2,470	538	376	137	2,462
Delaware	22,628	16,344	7,706	2,131	1,255	- -	- -	- -	175
Dt. Col.	4,198	398	1,020	494	101	- -	- -	- -	- -
Florida	701,761	604,932	262,681	62,887	286,089	22,668	4,060	2,847	1,573
Georgia	304,751	290,707	326,874	28,096	7,162	3,414	1,458	755	324
Illinois	426,777	257,265	148,053	45,055	11,837	7,259	2,318	- -	858
Louisiana	67,551	10,222	69,594	8,590	1,593	1,603	837	368	811
Maryland	176,046	22,426	91,608	19,196	4,548	2,901	3,386	522	356
Mass.	204,779	255,892	19,103	13,251	2,707	916	- -	258	2,112
Michigan	257,985	338,316	139,764	54,475	24,725	32,159	- -	2,819	18,926
Miss.	113,074	2,177	17,943	5,510	945	2,160	842	414	221
Missouri	194,053	172,329	185,642	26,464	3,593	3,102	892	307	2,462
N.Hamp.	88,571	75,546	26,859	18,308	20,439	2,894	203	1,225	592
N. Jersey	309,842	158,692	45,699	26,913	14,446	3,135	- -	- -	- -
N. York	333,001	178,043	68,477	40,113	23,260	- -	- -	- -	- -
Ohio	634,875	35,219	324,072	49,032	- -	16,369	- -	- -	- -
Okla.	122,772	83,030	111,899	11,183	2,412	1,924	817	317	700
Rhode Is.	17,480	1,181	5,847	1,777	- -	- -	117	- -	594
So. Car.	147,686	68,142	132,943	16,154	9,557	69,651	- -	1,051	315
Tenn.	176,091	130,632	190,904	31,026	5,159	16,263	978	738	2,024
Texas	709,477	27,624	523,553	69,954	6,174	11,815	8,594	8,262	19,209
Utah	15,931	264,956	4,252	8,846	988	613	261	211	- -
Vermont	28,417	1,809	5,698	2,635	931	- -	- -	- -	- -
Virginia	244,829	18,002	199,003	21,999	2,024	3,395	- -	- -	- -
Wash.	262,304	86,140	127,657	40,539	5,145	4,865	2,226	1,056	- -
Wisc.	224,755	8,080	151,707	19,060	1,935	2,709	- -	799	1,035
TOTAL	7,613,865	4,487,320	3,955,006	803,825	584,626	272,583	40,855	37,580	69,137

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	NADER	Party	Indp.
Alabama	37,513	5,000	0	0	0	0	June 3	Sep. 8
Alaska	(reg) 7,124	#3,128	already on	*3,448	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	est. #22,500	already on	*finished	100	200	Mar. 6	June 4
Arkansas	10,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	June 30	Aug. 4
Calif.	(reg) 88,991	158,372	already on	already on	already on	can’t start	Dec. 31, 07	Aug. 8
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	already on	0	June 1	June 17
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	0	*500	0	0	- - -	Aug. 6
Delaware	(reg) *284	*5,674	already on	already on	already on	0	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	*3,000	0	0	July 8	July 8
Hawaii	663	4,291	already on	*finished	*finished	finished	Apr. 3	Sep. 5
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	0	already on	0	Aug. 29	Aug. 25
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	*800	already on	*0	300	- - -	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	*300	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	0	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Mass.	est. (reg) 40,500	#10,000	*500	already on	65	0	Feb. 1	July 29
Michigan	38,024	38,024	already on	already on	already on	probly on	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 28	July 28
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	650	already on	0	Mar. 13	July 30
Nebraska	5,921	2,500	*9,100	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	*2,400	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	*finished	finished	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	*100,000	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	*uncertain	0	*10,500	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	#24,666	*1,000	*50	*0	0	- - -	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	maybe on	May 4	July 15
So. Dakota	8,389	3,356	*0	0	*already on	0	Mar. 25	Aug. 5
Tennessee	45,254	25	in court	in court	in court	0	unsettled	Aug. 21
Texas	43,991	74,108	already on	*5,000	*0	0	*May 26	May 12
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	*0	already on	0	Feb. 15	Sep. 2
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Jan. 1	Sep. 12
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	*1,000	*1,000	0	7,500	- - -	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	*8,600	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	*250	0	June 2	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			28	21	*17	0	~	~

#partisan label is OK (other than "independent").
*entry changed since March 1, 2008 B.A.N.
"Nader" column refers to independent petitions, except that Nader is qualifying the Independent Party in Hawaii and New Mexico.

During late March, both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties gathered considerable publicity, because some well-known individuals hinted that they will try to obtain those parties’ presidential nominations. Alan Keyes is expected to declare for the Constitution Party nomination on April 15. Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party on March 25 and on March 26 said he would try to win its presidential nomination. Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr says he is thinking about entering the Libertarian race as well. Finally, Mary Ruwart, who is well-known inside the Libertarian Party, said on March 17 that she will seek the nomination.

Massachusetts Green: Ralph Nader 744, Cynthia McKinney 474, Kat Swift 60, Jared Ball 42, Kent Mesplay 39, Elaine Brown 38, no preference 194, write-ins 273.

Liberty Union (Vt.): Brian Moore 178, write-ins 221.

Vermont Progressive Party chairman Anthony Pollina announced his gubernatorial candidacy on March 13. He is very well known throughout Vermont and conceivably could be elected. He founded Rural Vermont in 1985, to work for a more favorable property tax for farmers. In 1991 he became Policy Advisor to Bernie Sanders, then the independent Congressman for Vermont. In 1996 Pollina became director of Vermont PIRG (Public Interest Research Group).

Pollina polled 9.59% for Governor in 2000. In 2002 he polled 24.76% for Lieutenant Governor. The Democratic Party of Vermont does not have a well-known candidate for Governor so far this year, and some Democrats have indicated they will support Pollina.

On February 28, Ralph Nader announced that Matt Gonzalez will be his vice-presidential running mate. Gonzalez is a former San Francisco County Supervisor, who changed his registration to "Green" while he was in office. In 2003 he ran for Mayor (the election was officially non-partisan) and polled 47% in a two-person race. He re-registered "Independent" recently.

On March 11, Indiana held a special U.S. House election to fill the vacant 7^th district seat. The results: Democratic 53.2%; Republican 43.8%; Libertarian 2.9%. When this seat was up in 2006, the results had been: Democratic 53.8%; Republican 46.2%.

Although the Prohibition Party continues to be split into two competing national groups, both groups have agreed that Gene Amondson is the party presidential nominee.

The Alaskan Independence Party has appeared on the ballot in every Alaska state election since 1970, but it had never entered a presidential race until 2004, when it nominated Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party nominee. The Alaskan Independence Party held a state convention on March 14-16 and decided to again nominate a presidential candidate. The choice will be between whomever the Constitution Party nominates (that national convention is in late April), and Frank McEnulty. McEnulty started out as an independent presidential candidate this year, and he is now also the presidential candidate of the New American Independent Party (a party without ballot status in any state so far). McEnulty attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention.

---

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.