ELEVEN NEW CONSTITUTIONAL BALLOT ACCESS CASES FILED IN LAST MONTH

Minor parties and independent candidates have filed eleven new ballot access cases since the August 1 issue of Ballot Access News. The next few weeks will see decisions in most or all of them.

Here are the new cases:

Alabama: on July 31, independent U.S. House candidate Andy Shugart filed a federal lawsuit, challenging the number of signatures for an independent for U.S. House in his district. The law requires him to get 6,155 signatures, yet independent presidential candidates in Alabama only need 5,000 signatures. In 1979, and again in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that states may not require more signatures for a candidate running in just part of the state than it requires for a statewide candidate. The case is Shugart v Chapman, 2:08-cv-1382, northern district. This case was made possible by donations to the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE).

Georgia: on August 29, independent U.S. House candidate Faye Coffield filed a federal lawsuit, challenging the number of signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House. She needs either 15,061 or 14,887 signatures (the state has given out two different numbers). No one has completed Georgia’s 5% petition for U.S. House since 1964. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the true test of whether a ballot access law is unconstitutional is how often it is used. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s 5% petition in 1971, the Court noted that someone had qualified statewide in both 1968 and 1966. Georgia lowered the statewide petition from 5% to 2.5% in 1979, and lowered it to 1% in 1986, but has never lowered it for district and county office. The case is Coffield v Handel, northern district, number unknown.

Illinois: on July 28, independent U.S. House candidate Allan Stevo filed a federal lawsuit, challenging the number of signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House. He needs 10,285 signatures and submitted 6,978 valid signatures. Stevo argues that since Illinois only requires 5,000 signatures in years following redistricting, and ballots for U.S. House have never been crowded in those years, there is no state interest in requiring more than 5,000 in any election year.

On August 27, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Mills upheld the law, although he did not say what the state interest is in requiring more than 5,000 signatures. Stevo appealed. On August 29, the 7^th circuit asked the state to respond to its query, "When will the ballots be printed?" The state hasn’t answered yet. This shows the 7^th circuit is interested in the case. This is another case that has only been possible because of contributions to COFOE.

Massachusetts: on August 6, Bob Barr and the state and national Libertarian Parties filed a federal lawsuit, challenging the state’s refusal to replace the stand-in presidential candidate with the actual presidential candidate. Barr v Galvin, 08-11340. This case is sponsored by the ACLU. A hearing is set for September 12.

Montana: on August 27, independent U.S. Senate candidate Patty Lovaas filed a federal lawsuit against the petition deadline and the number of signatures for an independent candidate for office other than president. The law required her to submit 9,993 signatures by mid-March. The case is Lovaas v Johnson, 9:08-cv-127.

Meanwhile, an earlier case on the same issue, Kelly v Johnson, has a status conference on September 2.

North Carolina: on August 8, an independent candidate for U.S. House, Bryan Greene, filed a federal lawsuit against the law that requires him to obtain 16,457 signatures by June 12. Greene v Bartlett, western district, 5:08-0088. The state is arguing that the lawsuit should have been filed in the eastern district, even though other North Carolina ballot access cases (McLaughlin v State Board of Elections, and DeLaney v Bartlett) were adjudicated in federal courts other than the eastern district. Greene is running in the 10^th district, which is in the west end of the state.

Meanwhile, the North Carolina lawsuit against the state’s ballot access rules for minor parties is moving along in the State Court of Appeals. The case lost in Superior Court in May. In August, the transcript of the trial was filed in the Appeals court.

Ohio: on August 27, the Green Party filed a lawsuit, asking that it be placed on the ballot for president. On August 29, the Constitution Party filed a similar lawsuit. Both suits are based on the precedent from July 17, that put the Libertarian Party on the ballot. The basis for all these lawsuits is that since the law on how a party gets on the ballot was invalidated in 2006, and since the legislature never wrote a new law, the state cannot keep any party with some public support off the ballot.

The new cases are McKinney v Brunner, 2:08-cv-819, and Constitution Party of Ohio v Brunner, 2:08-cv-666. The Green Party must win this case if Cynthia McKinney is to be on the Ohio ballot. By contrast, the Constitution Party presidential nominee, Chuck Baldwin, is already on the ballot as an independent. Therefore, his case has no effect except to determine if the "Constitution Party" label should be next to his name on the ballot.

Oklahoma: Bob Barr filed a lawsuit against that state’s 3% petition and July 15 filing deadline on July 17. Barr v Clingman, civ-08-730-R. Barr’s attorney is fighting to get a court date.

Pennsylvania: on August 29, the Constitution Party filed a lawsuit against the August 1 petition deadline. The lawsuit depends on the precedent set in this year’s winning Ohio ballot access cases. The Pennsylvania deadline was set by the Elections Department, in a court settlement, in 1984. The legislature has never approved the August 1 deadline. The Pennsylvania lawsuit also depends on Anderson v Celebrezze, and the fact that the major parties nominated long after August 1.

South Carolina: on August 7, the national voting rights office of the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit to overturn a state law that is keeping the Green Party nominee for one state house seat off the ballot. South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina Election Commission, 3:08-cv-02790-JFA. Eugene Platt became the Green Party nominee in that party’s convention in April. He also ran in the Democratic primary in June for the same seat, but lost that primary. State law seems to say that now he can’t be the Green nominee. On August 22, the Democratic Party of Charleston County intervened in the case against Platt. South Carolina permits fusion, so if Platt had won the Democratic primary, he would have been listed twice on the November ballot, once as a Green and once as a Democrat.

California: the legislature passed SB 37 on August 14. The same bill had passed in 2006, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had vetoed it. The Governor has until September 30 to decide on this year’s bill.

Massachusetts: HB 678 failed to pass the legislature. Even though both houses voted for it, the legislature adjourned on August 1 without doing the procedural step of voting to send the bill to the Governor.

On August 21, U.S. District Court Edmund Sargus issued an order, putting the Socialist Party on the Ohio ballot. This is the first time the Socialist Party has ever won a ballot access case in federal court. The Socialist Party had won an election law case against Iowa in federal court in 1985, but that case was not a ballot access case. It struck down an Iowa law that only members of the two largest parties could be mobile deputy registrars of voters (Iowa Socialist Party v Slockett).

The 2008 Ohio Socialist Party case is Moore v Brunner, 2:08cv-224.

The 2008 Ohio victory for the Socialist Party is based on the July 2008 decision that put the Libertarian Party on the Ohio ballot. Since the law determining which parties should be on the ballot had been declared unconstitutional, and since the legislature had not replaced it, the state has no authority to keep a party with some support off the ballot. Therefore, all the Socialist Party needed to do to win the case was to persuade the court that the party has some public support. Generally, Ballot Access News doesn’t single out individual attorneys for special mention, but this case cries out for an exception. Law Professor Mark R. Brown conceived of the theory that won the Libertarian Party case this year, and then he applied that principle to help the Socialist Party. He displayed great insight, skill, and determination.

As noted above, similar Ohio suits are now pending for the Green and Constitution Parties.

The Socialist Party won some ballot access court decisions in state courts, between 1900 and 1948.

The August 1 B.A.N. said the League of Women Voters had voted to study Instant-Runoff Voting. Actually, the League voted on June 27 to study the National Popular Vote Plan. If the study finds merit in the plan, the League will lobby for the plan.

On August 27, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Holmes Bell, a Reagan appointee, issued an injunction against a Michigan law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate a recall petition, if that circulator doesn’t live in the district represented by the target of the recall. Bogaert v Land, 1:08-cv-687.

The opinion is 45 pages long. It depends on the 1988 and 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say circulating a petition is core First Amendment activity, and that states cannot stop people from circulating a petition except for a compelling reason. The only compelling reason most courts recognize is avoiding fraud.

The state made a feeble attempt to claim that out-of-district circulators are more likely to engage in fraud, but the state had no convincing evidence for this. The real motivation behind restrictions on who can circulate, is that legislators frequently are hostile to the kind of activity that requires petitioning. State legislators are mostly hostile to initiatives, often hostile toward minor parties and independents, and very hostile to recalls. State legislators pass restrictions on who can circulate petitions, not because they are worried about petition fraud, but because they seek to curtail petitioning.

On August 29, the California State Senate passed AB 583, which provides for a pilot project for public funding of campaigns. The bill is limited to the 2014 race for Secretary of State. Democrats and Republicans who receive $5 contributions from 7,500 individuals may receive public funding. Independent candidates for the same office need 15,000 contributions to receive any public funding. Now the bill goes back to the Assembly. The discriminatory treatment for independent candidates is probably unconstitutional, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Davis v F.E.C.

On August 26, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that Alan Keyes, not Chuck Baldwin, should be the American Independent Party presidential nominee. King v Bowen, 34-2008-80000016.

At the hearing in that case on August 26, the Chuck Baldwin faction of the AIP made a convincing case that only its state convention had been validly called. Judge Kenny did not dispute that, but he said the lawsuit is flawed because the Chuck Baldwin faction did not serve Alan Keyes and get him into the lawsuit. Judge Kenny dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning that it could be filed again. However, a new case would not be in time to alter the California November 2008 ballot. Nevertheless, further legal activity is expected, over the issue of who the legitimate state officers are.

Alaska: the 9^th circuit heard Alaskan Independence Party v State on August 8. The issue is whether a ballot-qualified party may exclude an unsympathetic individual from running for public office in its primary. The party is trying to bar Daniel DeNardo from future primaries. He has been suing the party for $10,000,000 for defamation. Allegations have been made that he has also threatened various judges. The 9^th circuit provided for additional security for this hearing (which was held in Anchorage) but DeNardo did not attend.

Arizona: the state has not decided yet whether it will appeal Nader v Brewer to the U.S. Supreme Court. The deadline for the state’s brief is not until mid-November. The 9^th circuit had struck down the state’s independent candidate petition deadline of early June, and also its ban on out-of-state circulators. No independent candidate tried to use the decision this year to submit a petition after the statutory deadline. The state had requested that the 9^th circuit rehear the case, but the 9^th circuit had denied that on August 15.

Idaho: on August 20, the U.S. District Court that is handling the Republican Party lawsuit to gain a closed primary for itself, ruled that the Committee for a United Independent Party may intervene in the lawsuit. C.U.I.P. had filed a brief on behalf of itself and some Idaho independent voters, arguing that the court should take their interests into consideration. C.U.I.P. is headquartered in New York and holds itself out as a lobby on behalf of independent voters and independent candidates. It is approximately eight years old. Most of its activists were formerly active in the New Alliance Party, and, afterwards, in the Reform Party.

Louisiana: Jimmy Fahrenholtz, who had been removed from the Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. House, had asked the State Supreme Court to put him back on the ballot. But on July 30, that Court refused to hear his appeal. He then filed a federal lawsuit, but the federal court refused to adjudicate the issue because it said it had been decided in state court. Fahrenholtz had been removed from the ballot because he did not correctly answer a question on an official form that asked if he had any outstanding fines from his previous runs for public office.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court opinion U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, which says that states cannot bar anyone from running for Congress who meets the U.S. Constitutional qualifications to be a member of Congress, the Louisiana state courts erred. Fahrenholtz had not argued the constitutional point in state court, and the federal court also erred by not hearing the constitutional issue.

New York: on August 22, the 2^nd circuit struck down a state law that says absentee ballots cannot include a space for the absentee voter to vote for party committeemember. Price v New York State Bd. of Elections, 07-5367. The state said this law was necessary because it takes time to count absentee votes, and the party county committees need to know its membership immediately after the election. The vote was 2-1. The lower court had upheld the law.

Maine: on August 29, a U.S. District Court refused to adjudicate Herb Hoffman’s ballot access case. Hoffman v Dunlap, 08-cv-279. The issue was whether it violates due process for petition signers to have their signatures invalidated, just because another petition signature on the same page had been invalidated. Hoffman also raised the point that the Maine law is unconstitutionally vague. But because Hoffman had lost in state court, the federal court said it could not hear his substantive points. Hoffman had also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the State Supreme Court decision of July 28, but on August 20, Justice David Souter (who handles emergency injunction requests for most of New England) refused to get involved. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the case was Knutson v Dept. of the Secretary of State, 08A138.

Oklahoma: the criminal case against three initiative proponents, for conspiring to bring out-of-state circulators into the state, will begin on November 17. The three defendants are Paul Jacob, Rick Carpenter, and Susan Johnson. Meanwhile, the 10^th circuit will hear Yes! On Term Limits v Savage on September 25. That case challenges the Oklahoma law that makes it illegal for out-of-staters to circulate initiative petitions.

Oregon: on August 14, the 9^th circuit upheld the state’s petition-checking procedures for referendum petitions. Lemons v Bradbury, 08-35209. The decision is short and does not grapple with the evidence very well. The evidence showed that a voter’s signatures is seven times more likely to be rejected on a petition, than on the outer envelope of a ballot. Oregon conducts elections entirely by mail. When a voter mails the ballot, the voter must sign the outer envelope, and elections officials must check the validity of that signature. The lawsuit had been filed by proponents of a referendum to suspend a law that had just passed the legislature, allowing for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. The plaintiffs did not ask for a rehearing in the 9^th circuit. It is not known if they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

AMERICA VOTES!

America Votes! A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights, edited by Benjamin E. Griffith. Published by American Bar Association Publishing, Chicago. Paperback, 375 pages.

This book should not be confused with America Votes, a series published every two years since 1956 that contains election returns for presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial elections.

The American Bar Association has long published scholarly reference books about legal topics. As far as it known, this is the first ABA book specifically on election law. The book symbolizes the growing importance of election law in U.S. jurisprudence. It has 26 distinguished authors. The ABA limits its books to a 350-page limit (not counting the index). Therefore, the editors did not include a chapter on ballot access. Nevertheless, the election law topics that are covered are excellent, and the book will be a valuable reference tool for many people who are interested in the topics covered by B.A.N.

The book’s coverage of the Voting Rights Act is especially useful. The Act was passed in 1965 to stymie attempts by state legislatures in the deep South to thwart voter registration, and candidacy, by black citizens. As the years have passed, and the Act has been amended, and various Attorneys General have interacted with the Act in widely varying ways, the law on the subject of the Act has become extremely complex. There is no federal law on elections that has caused so many U.S. Supreme Court decisions as the Voting Rights Act. Anyone who is grappling with the Act needs this book.

The book’s chapters on Election Day Registration, Felon Disenfranchisement, and ID at the polls for voters, are also useful. There is also material about vote-counting equipment, although that is such a big subject, the book doesn’t do it justice. The book has nothing about voting rights for D.C. and the U.S. territories.

The Secretary of State ruled last month that the rarely used 250-person meeting requirement for statewide minor party and independent candidates should be interpreted liberally. The law says, "Any convention or caucus of eligible electors representing a political organization which is not a political party may make one nomination for each office to be filled…However, in order to qualify, there shall be in attendance at the convention or caucus where the nomination is made a minimum of 250 eligible electors…".

The Socialist Party asked the Secretary of State if this law is fulfilled, if the party holds an outdoor meeting, and if persons strolling by that location may validly sign the roster of the meeting. The Secretary of State said "yes". The Socialist Party then held its statewide convention on the campus of the University of Iowa, at a location with a high volume of pedestrian traffic, and met the requirement.

Iowa also permits statewide minor party and independents to qualify with a petition of 1,500 names. The petition method is been used exclusively for minor parties and independent candidates, ever since 1969. That is because generally it was believed the 250-person meeting alternative is too difficult. But with the new understanding of how that provision works, it is likely to be used a great deal in the future, instead of the 1,500-petition method.

Before 1961, the Iowa convention method had not required any minimum number of attendees. In 1961 the law was changed to require 50 attendees, and in 1970 it was raised to 250 attendees.

The Iowa interpretation matches a similar interpretation in Washington state, which has a similar law. By contrast, the Oregon law, which has an alternative meeting that requires 1,000 attendees, is interpreted far more strictly. Oregon requires that 1,000 registered voters all be in the same room simultaneously, and the Secretary of State sends an employee to watch.

In 2005, the Texas legislature changed the deadline for a qualified party to certify the names of its presidential and vice-presidential nominees, from 60 days before the general election, to 70 days before. Both major parties set their national conventions after the August 26 deadline, so both missed the deadline.

However, in 1996, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that if a party nominee loses ballot position because of an error by a state party official, that mistake may be overlooked. The cases are Bird v Rothstein, and Davis v Taylor. These precedents should mean that the Texas law, requiring an unqualified party to notify the state on January 2 if it intends to circulate a petition that year, is unenforceable.

On August 18, a Pennsylvania Republican official, Victor Stabile, challenged Bob Barr’s spot on the ballot. The Libertarian Party circulated its petition listing Rochelle Etzel for president. Then, after the petition was submitted in July, Etzel withdrew and the Substititon Committee named Barr to replace her. Pennsylvania petitions always carry the names of a Substitution Committee.

Stabile says that since the petition was circulated after the Libertarian national convention, the substitution form is invalid. Sec. 2940 of the election law permits substitution for petitioning groups. It says, "In case of the withdrawal of any candidate nominated by nomination papers, the committee may nominate a substitute…and shall set forth the facts of the withdrawal."

Stabile’s complaint depends on an invalid assumption, that the Pennsylvania Libertarians changed their presidential nominee at the national convention. Legally, the national convention had no importance; Etzel was the Pennsylvania presidential nominee until she withdrew.

(to see the latest ballot status information, click here for the online chart)

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	NADER	Party	Indp.
Alabama	37,513	5,000	*finished	0	*5,000	*finished	June 3	Sep. 8
Alaska	(reg) 7,124	#3,128	already on	*too late	already on	*finished	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Ariz.	20,449	#21,759	already on	already on	*too late	already on	Mar. 6	unsettled
Arkansas	10,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	*already on	June 30	Aug. 4
Calif.	(reg) 88,991	158,372	already on	already on	*too late	*already on	Dec. 31, 07	Aug. 8
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	already on	already on	June 1	June 17
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	*finished	*too late	*too late	*finished	- - -	Aug. 6
Delaware	(reg) 284	5,674	already on	already on	already on	*already on	Aug. 12	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	#3,883	*too late	already on	*too late	*finished	- - -	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	too late	*too late	*too late	July 8	July 8
Hawaii	663	4,291	already on	already on	already on	already on	Apr. 3	Sep. 5
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	*too late	already on	*already on	Aug. 29	Aug. 25
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	- - -	June 23
Indiana	no procedure	#32,742	already on	too late	too late	too late	- - -	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	*already on	*already on	*already on	*already on	- - -	Aug. 15
Kansas	16,994	5,000	already on	*too late	already on	*already on	June 2	Aug. 4
Kentucky	no procedure	#5,000	*already on	*500	*finished	*5,500	- - -	Sep. 2
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	*already on	*already on	May 22	Sep. 2
Maine	27,544	#4,000	*too late	already on	*too late	*already on	Dec 14, 07	Ag 8
Maryland	10,000	est. 32,500	already on	already on	*already on	*already on	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Mass.	est. (reg) 40,500	#10,000	*in court	already on	*already on	*already on	Feb. 1	July 29
Michigan	38,024	38,024	already on	already on	already on	*already on	July 17	July 17
Minnesota	110,150	#2,000	*600	*finished	*finished	*1,600	July 15	Sep. 9
Mississippi	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	*finished	Jan. 10	Sep. 5
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	*too late	*already on	*already on	July 28	July 28
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	*too late	already on	*finished	Mar. 13	Aug 13
Nebraska	5,921	2,500	already on	already on	already on	*finished	Aug. 1	*Sep. 2
Nevada	5,746	5,746	already on	already on	already on	*already on	July 3	July 3
N. Hamp.	12,524	#3,000	*finished	*too late	*too late	*already on	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	already on	already on	already on	*already on	- - -	July 28
New Mex.	2,794	16,764	already on	already on	already on	already on	Apr. 1	June 4
New York	no procedure	#15,000	*already on	*already on	*too late	*already on	- - -	Aug. 19
No. Car.	69,734	69,734	already on	in court	too late	too late	May 16	June 12
No. Dakota	7,000	#4,000	already on	*600	already on	*finished	Apr. 11	Sep. 5
Ohio	have support	5,000	already on	*in court	already on	*finished	Aug 21	Aug. 21
Oklahoma	46,324	43,913	in court	*too late	*too late	*too late	May 1	July 15
Oregon	20,640	18,356	already on	already on	already on	*already on	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	#24,666	*already on	*too late	*in court	*already on	- - -	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	18,557	#1,000	*finished	*finished	*finished	*already on	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	*already on	*too late	already on	*already on	Mar. 25	Aug. 5
Tennessee	45,254	25	*already on	*finished	*finished	*already on	unsettled	Aug. 21
Texas	43,991	74,108	already on	too late	too late	too late	May 26	May 12
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	*1,400	already on	*already on	Feb. 15	Sep. 2
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	*50	already on	*1,500	Jan. 1	Sep. 12
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	*already on	*finished	*finished	*already on	- - -	Aug. 22
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	*already on	*already on	*already on	*already on	- - -	July 26
West Va.	no procedure	#15,118	*in court	already on	*already on	*already on	- - -	Aug. 1
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	*700	*already on	June 2	Sep. 2
Wyoming	3,868	3,868	already on	*too late	*finished	*finished	June 2	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			*41	*26	*30	*33	~	~

#partisan label is OK (other than "independent").
*change since July 1 B.A.N.
"Nader" column is independent petitions, except in Hi., Md., and N.M., it is the Independent Party.
"Seek nom" means he seeks the nomination of a ballot-qualified party.

Socialist Workers: on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minn., Miss., New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

Party for Socialism and Liberation: Ark., Colo., Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Wash., and Wis.

Socialist: expected to be on in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin.

Prohibition Party: Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The party is not on in Arkansas because one presidential elector candidate wasn’t registered to vote.

America’s Independent Party has Alan Keyes on the ballot in Colorado (with "Unaffliated" as his label) and California. It is not known yet if Keyes qualified in Florida. America’s Independent Party held an on-line national convention on the evening of August 20. It nominated Keyes for president but no one for vice-president. The moderator, Tom Hoefling, ran the convention from his home in Iowa.

State units of the Reform Party that support Ted Weill for president are on the ballot in Louisiana and Mississippi. It is not known if state party officials in either state will do the paperwork to get Weill on the ballot, though.

The Boston Tea Party’s presidential candidate, Charles Jay, is on in Colorado, Florida and Tennessee.

The Objectivist Party’s presidential candidate, Tom Stevens, is on in Colorado and Florida.

Howard Lydick died on August 5. He had been nominated for vice-president by the Prohibition Party faction controlled by Earl Dodge, in June 2007. Since Earl Dodge, the presidential candidate, also died after that convention, the Prohibition Party ticket this year is the other faction’s ticket, Gene Amondson and Leroy Pletten.

Since the August 1 B.A.N., Ralph Nader has won the nomination of these qualified parties: Peace & Freedom of California, on August 2; Natural Law of Michigan, on July 30; Peace Party of Oregon, on August 22; Independent of Delaware, on August 13; and the Independence and Ecology Party, on August 16. The Independence and Ecology Party is a nationally-organized party on the ballot in Florida, Hawaii and New Mexico. It held its national convention in El Segundo, California.

The only qualified parties that have not yet chosen a presidential nominee are the Conservative and Independence Parties of New York. It is assumed that the Conservative Party will nominate the Republican ticket, but it is a mystery as to whom the Independence Party will choose.

Richard Carroll, the Green Party nominee, will be the only name on the ballot in November for Arkansas State House, district 39. The only other state in which a minor party nominee has been unopposed by any other ballot-listed candidate (in a state legislative race) since World War II is Vermont. The Vermont Progressive Party is so strong that sometimes the Progressive Party nominees for state house have no opponent.

In a normal election year, at least one minor party or independent candidate for Governor or U.S. Senator is invited to debate his or her major party opponents on television in about half the states. Certain states have a tradition of encouraging such inclusive debates, and others have a tradition of never holding them. North Carolina had been among the minority of states that had never held a televised debate with a minor party or independent candidate for Governor or U.S. Senator. But this year, the University of North Carolina’s TV station has invited the Libertarian nominee, Professor Michael Munger, into two debates.

---

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.