Ballot Access News -- January 1, 2009

WELL-KNOWN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR PUBLISHES BOOK BLASTING RESTRICTIVE BALLOT ACCESS LAWS

The Springer Company has just published Stifling Political Competition: How Government Has Rigged the System to Benefit Demopublicans and Exclude Third Parties. It is by Professor James T. Bennett, who has written 18 other books and has had more than 60 articles published in scholarly periodicals. He is an Eminent Scholar at George Mason University and holds the William P. Snavely Chair of Political Economy and Public Policy in the Economics Department. He is the founder and editor of the Journal of Labor Research.

The book criticizes not only restrictive ballot access laws, but federal campaign laws. The book also attacks laws that make it illegal for two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate; and it attacks the Commission on Presidential Debates.

It is news that a book on this subject has been published by a prestigious academic publishing company. Springer was founded in Germany in 1842, and today is the world's largest publisher of books on science, technology and medicine. It is also the second-largest publisher of journals in those professions. Over 150 Nobel prize-winners have been published by Springer. Springer turns out 5,500 new book titles every year, and publishes 1,700 scholarly journals. It has publishing offices in 20 countries.

"Stifling Political Competition" is part of Springer's "Studies in Public Choice" series. Other titles in the series include Economic Hierarchies, Organization and the Structure of Production; Markets and Politicians: Politicized Economic Choice; Economics of Income Distribution; The Economics of Special Privilege and Rent Seeking; Political Equilibrium: A Delicate Balance; and The Political Economy of the Educational Process.

One might think that a book like this is dull, difficult to read, or laden down with jargon. Actually, the book is astonishingly readable and witty. Perhaps the book reveals too much about the author's personal politics. Reading the book is almost like having an intimate conversation with Professor Bennett. But because some readers may disagree with his politics, they may dismiss the book's message.

The book is short (only 141 pages). But it points the reader to relevant scholarly studies, and thus leads readers to other sources of information and ideas. For instance, one reference is to an article in Party Politics, called "Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party." The nub of this article, according to Bennett, is "the recent period has witnessed the emergence of a new model of party, the cartel party, in which colluding parties become agents of the state and employ the resources of the state to ensure their own collective survival." This article is by Richard S. Katz of John Hopkins University and Peter Mair of the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.

Another reference is to an article in Public Choice which is called, "Campaign-Finance Reform: A Public Choice Perspective." That article is by Economists Burton A. Abrams and Russell F. Settle, who ask, "Free markets and individual liberty have served the United States and its citizens well. Why adopt a nonmarket solution for running political campaigns?"

The book is only in hardcover, and is expensive ($99, although Amazon currently has it for $86.91). However, a paperback edition is coming soon. Disclosure: the book makes reference to this newsletter and its editor.

TWO MORE VICTORIES FOR PETITIONING

The December 1 B.A.N. reported that the 6^th Circuit had struck down laws that prohibit out-of-state circulators. Since then, two more victories for petitioning have occurred:

Oklahoma: on December 18, the 10^th circuit struck down laws that prohibit out-of-state circulators. Yes on Term Limits v Savage, 07-6233. The decision is by Judge Michael Murphy, a Clinton appointee. It was signed by Judge Monroe McKay, a Carter appointee, and Judge Michael McConnell, a Bush Jr. appointee. The case is from Oklahoma, the only state in the 10^th circuit that bans out-of-state circulators (the ban only applies to initiatives, not to other kinds of petitions). This decision will make it harder for Oklahoma to continue to prosecute Paul Jacob, Susan Johnson, and Rick Carpenter for conspiring to hire out-of-state circulators.

Nevada: on December 1, the 9^th circuit ruled that just because a public sidewalk or public park has been temporarily rented out to a private group, that sidewalk or park should still be available for normal First Amendment activity. Dietrich v John Ascuaga's Nugget, 06-17135. The vote was 3-0.

The case arose when a group circulating a recall petition for a city councilmember in Reno wanted to work on a sidewalk adjacent to a public park. But the park had been rented for the day for the "Best in the West Nugget Rib Cook-Off." The decision says that if the group renting the park is worried that the public will think there is a connection between the event, and the petitioners, the group that rented the park is free to post signs making it clear that there is no association.

LOBBYING FOR BETTER BALLOT ACCESS LAWS

Alabama: Rep. Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) is expected to re-introduce his 2007 ballot access bill, which cuts the number of signatures in half. The Alabama legislature, unlike most legislatures, does not convene in January; it begins on February 3.

Alaska: Rep. MaxGruenberg (D-Anchorage) is expected to re-introduce his bill, cutting the number of registrants for a political party to exactly 5,000. The legislature convenes January 20.

Arkansas: Rep. Richard Carroll (Green-North Little Rock) is expected to introduce a bill, changing the definition of "party" from a group that got 3% for President or Governor, to one that got 3% for any statewide office. The bill will also expand the amount of time for a new party to circulate its petition, from 60 days to six months. The legislature convenes January 12.

Georgia: Activist Mike Crane has founder a legislative sponsor for a bill to lower petition requirements, but he prefers that the sponsor's identity not be publicized until the bill is introduced. The legislature convenes January 14. To work with Crane, e-mail him at mikecrane@tds.net.

Indiana: no legislative sponsor has been found yet, and bills must be introduced by January 11. This state's ballot access is so severe, the candidate who placed third in each of the last three presidential elections (Ralph Nader) has never appeared on the ballot. The only other states about which this is true are Georgia, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.

Missouri: Senator Joan Bray has already introduced SB 70 to delete the requirement that the petition to create a new party must list a presidential candidate, and candidates for presidential elector.

Montana: the ACLU is searching for a sponsor to introduce a bill to change the non-presidential independent deadline from March, to August. The legislature convenes January 5.

Nebraska: the Secretary of State is again asking the legislature to provide that if a party meets the vote test, it is ballot-qualified for the next two elections, not just the next election. The bill will also delete a provision that allows a party to be ballot-qualified in just a single county, or a single U.S. House district. The Senate convenes January 7.

New Hampshire: Rep. David Pierce (D-Etna) is expected to re-introduce his bill to ease the definition of "political party". The legislature convenes January 7.

North Carolina: Senator Jimmy Jacumin (R-wheverever) is expected to introduce a bill to ease the independent candidate petition requirements. They are so severe, no independent candidate for either branch of Congress has ever been on a government-printed ballot. Such ballots have existed since 1901. The legislature convenes January 28.

North Dakota: the state chair of the Constitution Party, Herb Mittelstedt, is seeking a sponsor for a bill to repeal the state's law, requiring a minimum number of votes in a partisan primary, before a candidate may appear on the November ballot. The law requires between 125 and 150 primary votes for a state legislative candidate. Voters who vote in a minor party primary cannot vote in a major party primary. Since legislative districts only have about 4,000 votes cast in the primary, the requirement is burdensome. No minor party legislative candidate has qualified for the November ballot, with a party label, since 1976. The legislature convenes January 6.

Ohio: activists will be meeting with the Secretary of State's office to draft a bill to ease ballot access for parties, during early January. If you wish to be involved, contact Kevin Knedler at kknedler@columbus.rr.com. The legislature convenes January 5. If it does nothing, parties can continue getting on with no petition.

Oklahoma: Senator Randy Brodgon (R-Owasso) is expected to re-introduce his bill, easing the definition of "party". The legislature convenes February 2.

Oregon: Treasurer Ben Westlund is expected to introduce a bill to repeal the primary screen-out for petitions for independent candidates. In Oregon, statewide elected officers have the ability to introduce bills. The legislature convenes January 12.

Pennsylvania: Senator Mike Folmer (R-Lebanon) and Rep. Eddie Pashinski (D-Wilkes-Barre) are expected to introduce a bill, putting parties on the ballot if they have registration of one-twentieth of 1% of the state total. Such parties would nominate by convention. The bill is based on Delaware's law. The bill will also lower independent candidate petitions. The legislature convenes January 6.

Rhode Island: Senator David Bates (R-Barrington) is expected to introduce a bill, lowering the petition for a new party from 5% of the last vote cast, to 1%. That petition is so severe, no group has ever used it. The legislature convenes January 6.

Tennessee: Rep. Donna Rowland (R-Murfreesboro) is expected to again introduce her bill to lower the party petition from 2.5% of the last vote cast, to an exact 2,500 signatures. Parties that complete that petition would nominate by convention. No minor party has appeared on the ballot since 1972, although a lawsuit is pending. The legislature convenes on January 13.

Texas: no ballot access bill has yet been pre-filed. Rep. Mark Strama is willing to re-introduce the bill, but he wants to wait until committee assignments have been made, so that he will know who the best co-sponsors will be. Contact Stephen (Sky) King at skykings7@hotmail.com.

Vermont: the Secretary of State will again ask the legislature to pass a law providing that write-in candidates for president who want their write-ins tallied should file a declaration of write-in candidacy.

West Virginia: Del. Barbara Fleischauer (D-Morgantown) will again introduce her bill to lower the independent and minor party petitions from 2% of the last vote, to 1%. These petitions were raised to 2% in 1999.

ARIZONA ASKS U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR NADER CASE

On December 17, Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal in Brewer v Nader, 08-648. The 9^th circuit had earlier this year struck down Arizona's early June petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, and also that state's ban on out-of-state circulators. Arizona is fighting to reinstate both laws. The state's brief focuses most of its attention on the out-of-state issue.

Also on December 17, the Attorneys General filed an amicus curiae brief, urging the Court to hear the case. It was initiated by the outgoing Attorney General of Montana, Mike McGrath, a Democrat. Other Democratic Attorney Generals who signed the brief are: Joseph Biden III of Delaware, Nancy Rogers of Ohio, Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, and Bruce Salzburg of Wyoming.

Republican Attorneys General who signed the brief are Troy King of Alabama, Talis Colberg of Alaska, John Suthers of Colorado, Bill McCollum of Florida, Lawrence Wasden of Idaho, Mike Cox of Michigan, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Larry Long of South Dakota.

If you live in one of those states, you may wish to ask your Attorney General why he or she co-signed this brief. Ironically, four of the states that signed this brief (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, and New Hampshire) permit out-of-state circulators, so one wonders how they can argue that such bans are needed. Also, all the states that signed the brief (except Colorado) have independent presidential petition deadlines that are at least 45 days later than Arizona's deadline. Alabama's deadline is 94 days later than Arizona's deadline.

All of the Attorneys General who signed the brief are elected, except in Alaska, New Hampshire and Wyoming.

The U.S. Supreme Court will probably decide in February whether it will hear this case.

ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY LOSES PRIMARY CASE

On October 6, the 9^th circuit upheld Alaska law that permits anyone registered in a party to run in that party's primary, no matter what the party leadership thinks about any particular candidate. Alaskan Independence Party v State, 07-35186. On December 17, the full 9^th circuit refused to rehear the case. The party may ask for U.S. Supreme Court review.

The party filed the case to prevent Daniel DeNardo from running in its primary. DeNardo has been suing the party for slander for several years now. He has also been in legal trouble for allegedly threatening judges. When the 9^th circuit held arguments on this case in Anchorage on August 8, the courtroom had extra security, although DeNardo did not attend.

CONNECTICUT CASE ON PUBLIC FINANCING

On December 10-11, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill held a trial in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 3:06-cv1030. The case concerns the law for public funding of campaigns. The first set of plaintiffs (Greens and Libertarians) challenge the requirement that the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, must not only raise the same number of qualifying contributions as Democrats and Republicans, but must also submit petitions of up to 20% of the last vote cast. The second set of plaintiffs challenges the law's ban on contributions from lobbyists and state contractors and their spouses and dependent children.

On December 19, Judge Underhill upheld the ban on contributions. He won't rule on the minor party part of the case until March or April, after some remaining evidence is available. At the trial he commented that he can't prove that the law had been written to injure minor parties, but that if he were writing a law to injure them, the existing law would be a way to do it.

MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

Alabama: on December 23, a U.S. District Court Magistrate transferred Shugart v Chapman from the Northern District to the Middle District, at the state's request. The lawsuit challenges the number of signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House, on the grounds that Alabama requires more signatures for U.S. House than it requires for an independent for president. The case had been filed in the Northern District because the candidate lives there, but the state persuaded the court that the case belongs in the Middle District, where the state capital is.

Idaho: the Republican Party's lawsuit to win a semi-closed primary for itself will be argued in U.S. District Court on February 17. Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, 08-cv-165.

Pennsylvania: on December 4, the Commonwealth Court refused to re-open the judgment that Ralph Nader must pay over $80,000 to the law firm that challenged his 2004 ballot access petition. Nader had pointed out that the challenge had been illegally financed by state government resources. The Commonwealth Court said the people who are seeking the judgment are not the same people who have been indicted for fraudulent use of state resources for a private petition challenge. On December 19, Nader filed a new brief, rebutting that conclusion.

South Dakota: on December 16, the 8^th circuit affirmed a lower court order that the city of Martin should use Cumulative Voting to elect its city council. Cumulative Voting gives each voter 3 votes, and the voter may spread the vote among 3 candidates, or give all 3 votes to a single candidate. The remedy was ordered so that Native Americans (who comprise almost 40% of the city, but who don‘t dominate any neighborhood) will be able to elect one of their own.

National: on December 5, Ralph Nader filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., in Nader v Democratic National Committee, 08-7074. The case arose from the 2004 election.

2008 U.S. HOUSE VOTE

`	Democratic	Republican	Libertarn.	Green	Wk Fam	Constit'n	other (1)	other(2)	indepndnt
Alabama	718,367	1,120,903	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Alaska	142,560	158,939	0	0	0	0	14,274	0	0
Arizona	1,055,305	1,021,798	61,100	8,080	0	0	0	0	9,394
Arkansas	415,481	215,196	0	155,851	0	0	0	0	0
Calif.	7,380,215	4,515,898	220,118	60,912	0	6,286	47,659	0	88,892
Colorado	1,259,714	990,831	12,135	10,026	0	8,894	2,176	0	0
Conn.	908,761	504,785	2,059	25,826	82,854	0	3,082	19	0
Del.	146,433	235,435	3,586	0	0	0	0	0	0
D.C.	228,376	0	0	16,693	0	0	0	0	0
Florida	3,434,831	3,792,167	0	0	0	0	2,042	9	191,904
Georgia	1,858,123	1,796,541	0	0	0	0	3	0	0
Hawaii	319,660	82,465	11,284	0	0	0	4,038	0	0
Idaho	259,776	377,464	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Illinois	3,171,615	1,961,425	0	110,258	0	0	0	0	0
Indiana	1,388,963	1,240,577	47,306	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iowa	759,460	698,241	0	6,664	0	0	4,599	0	12,843
Kansas	470,031	690,005	25,663	0	0	0	22,603	0	0
Kentucky	761,209	955,182	0	0	0	0	0	0	33,444
Louisiana	398,474	594,306	549	1,883	0	0	0	0	50,964
Maine	431,903	278,198	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Maryland	1,677,238	762,539	47,708	6,828	0	0	0	0	0
Mass.	2,245,778	318,461	0	0	0	0	0	0	19,848
Michigan	2,516,640	2,114,293	83,424	66,162	0	21,057	0	0	8,987
Minn.	1,612,480	1,069,015	0	0	0	0	116,835	0	0
Miss.	731,805	527,330	0	1,876	0	0	0	0	3,736
Missouri	1,413,016	1,313,018	82,647	0	0	12,747	0	0	0
Montana	155,930	308,470	16,500	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nebraska	264,885	510,513	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nevada	457,320	383,548	14,692	9,219	0	22,813	0	0	14,922
N. Hamp.	364,767	294,560	15,221	0	0	0	0	0	0
N. Jersey	1,911,827	1,461,818	1,600	12,554	0	1,551	1,848	564	46,132
N. Mex.	457,135	321,083	0	0	0	0	0	0	36,348
N. York	3,977,872	1,797,070	2,599	9,481	210,581	0	194,841	157,831	3,706
No. Car.	2,293,971	1,901,517	19,605	0	0	0	0	0	0
No. Dak.	194,577	119,388	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ohio	2,746,283	2,488,784	44,833	13,812	0	0	0	0	71,565
Okla.	503,614	802,530	0	0	0	0	0	0	30,783
Oregon	1,036,171	435,920	15,806	50,293	0	69,680	65,109	0	0
Penn.	3,209,168	2,520,805	6,155	23,214	0	11,251	0	0	17,311
R.I.	465,898	118,773	0	0	0	0	0	0	15,108
S.Car.	919,529	939,703	0	7,332	0	4,093	0	0	0
S.Dak.	256,041	122,966	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tenn.	1,193,759	976,682	0	0	0	0	0	0	128,327
Texas	2,972,888	4,208,586	303,076	0	0	0	0	0	43,162
Utah	393,761	503,917	11,356	0	0	27,805	0	0	0
Vermont	248,203	0	0	0	0	0	9,081	5,307	33,008
Virginia	1,852,690	1,590,571	5,265	0	0	0	14,100	0	13,870
Wash.	1,725,316	1,189,147	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
W.Va.	432,075	213,339	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wisc.	1,383,536	1,274,987	12,842	0	0	0	0	0	98,997
Wyoming	106,758	131,244	11,030	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	65,230,188	51,950,933	1,078,179	596,964	293,435	186,177	502,290	163,730	973,251

Parties in the "Other (1)" column: Ak., Alaskan Independence; Cal., Peace & Freedom; Co., Unity; Ct., Indp. Party; Fl., Term Limits; Hi., Indp. Party; Iowa, Soc. Wkrs.; Ks., Reform; Mn., Independence; N.J., Soc. Wkrs.; N.Y., Conservative; Ore., Indp. Party; Vt., Prog.; Va., Indp. Green. Parties in the "Other (2)" column: Ct., Soc.; Fla., Soc.; N.J., Soc.; N.Y., Independence; Vt., Liberty Union.

2008 U.S. SENATE VOTE

`	Democratic	Republican	Libertarn.	Green	Constit.	S. Wkrs	Indepnce	other	indepndnt
Alabama	752,391	1,305,383	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Alaska	151,767	147,814	2,483	0	0	0	0	13,197	1,385
Arkansas	804,678	0	0	207,076	0	0	0	0	0
Colorado	1,230,984	990,751	0	50,004	59,733	0	0	0	0
Delaware	244,146	132,940	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Georgia	1,757,419	1,867,090	128,002	0	0	43	0	0	0
Idaho	219,903	371,744	9,958	0	0	0	0	0	43,172
Illinois	3,616,210	1,520,896	50,228	119,147	24,061	?	0	0	0
Iowa	941,665	560,006	0	0	0	?	0	0	0
Kansas	441,399	727,121	25,727	0	0	0	0	16,443	0
Kentucky	847,005	953,816	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Louisiana	988,298	867,177	18,590	0	0	0	0	0	22,509
Maine	279,510	444,300	0	0	0	0	0	0	620
Mass.	1,971,974	926,044	93,713	0	0	?	0	0	0
Michigan	3,038,386	1,641,070	76,347	43,440	30,827	0	0	18,550	0
Minn.	1,211,375	1,211,590	13,916	0	8,905	0	437,404	0	0
Miss.	480,915	766,111	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Montana	348,289	129,369	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nebraska	317,456	455,854	0	7,763	11,438	0	0	0	0
N. Hamp.	357,153	312,601	21,439	0	0	0	0	0	0
N. Jersey	1,951,218	1,461,025	18,810	0	0	9,187	0	0	42,205
N. Mex.	505,128	318,522	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
No. Car.	2,249,311	1,887,510	133,430	0	0	0	0	0	0
Okla.	527,736	763,375	0	0	0	0	0	0	55,708
Oregon	864,392	805,159	0	0	92,565	0	0	0	0
R. I.	320,644	116,174	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
S. Car.	790,621	1,076,534	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
S. Dak.	237,889	142,784	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tenn.	767,236	1,579,477	9,367	9,170	0	0	0	0	59,335
Texas	3,389,365	4,337,469	185,241	0	0	0	0	0	0
Virginia	2,369,327	1,228,830	20,269	0	0	0	0	21,690	0
W. Va.	447,560	254,629	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wyo.	60,631	189,046	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	34,481,981	29,492,211	807,520	436,600	227,529	9,230	437,404	69,880	224,934

In 2002, when the same Senate seats were up, totals were: Republican 21,593,229; Democratic 19,807,922; Libertarian 864,349; Reform 175,107; Green 129,475; Constitution 32,159; Natural Law 10,716; other parties 61,965; independents 300,464.

2008 GUBERNATORIAL VOTE

`	Democratic	Republican	Libertarn.	Green	Constitutn	Lib Union	Blue Enig	indp.	write-in
Delaware	253,446	119,564	0	0	0	0	1,596	0	?
Indiana	1,082,463	1,563,885	57,376	0	0	0	0	0	27
Missouri	1,680,611	1,136,364	31,850	0	28,941	0	0	0	12
Montana	318,670	158,268	9,796	0	0	0	0	0	?
N.Hamp.	477,146	187,388	14,924	0	0	0	0	0	326
No. Car.	2,146,189	2,001,168	121,584	0	0	0	0	0	0
No. Dak.	74,279	235,009	0	0	0	0	0	6,404	?
Utah	186,503	735,049	24,820	0	0	0	0	0	153
Vermont	69,534	170,492	0	0	0	1,710	0	77,091	258
Wash.	1,598,738	1,404,124	0	0	0	0	0	0	?
W. Va.	492,697	181,612	0	31,317	234	0	0	0	17
TOTAL	8,380,276	7,892,923	260,350	31,317	29,175	1,710	1,596	83,495	776

PRESIDENTIAL SHOWINGS COMPARED

PARTY/CAND.	2004	2008
Ron Paul	- -	.82%
Ralph Nader	.67%	.66%
Libertarian	.33%	.42%
Constitution	.17%	.24%
Alan Keyes	- -	.19%
Green	.18%	.17%
Socialist Workers	.03%	.02%
Socialist	.04%	.02%
Soc & Liberation	- -	.02%
Boston Tea	- -	.02%
Objectivist	- -	.01%
Prohibition	.05%	.01%

This chart shows the percentage of the vote received by each minor party or independent presidential candidate in the areas in which that candidate was on the ballot. The chart only covers candidates who were on the ballot in at least two states.

The chart thus permits the reader to compare the strength of the various candidates, if ballot access is set aside. Thus, one sees that Ron Paul had the highest percentage of the vote, in the areas in which he was on the ballot, of any minor party or independent presidential candidate. Of course, since Paul was only on the ballot in Louisiana and Montana, his actual national vote total was quite small. It should also be noted that Paul did not intend to be a candidate, and was put on the ballot without his permission.

The chart also permits a comparison between 2004 and 2008. It shows that the only minor parties that polled a higher percentage of the vote (in the areas in which they were on the ballot) in 2008, relative to 2004, were the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.

PRESIDENTIAL VOTE FOR NEW YORK FUSION PARTIES

New York's ballot-qualified minor parties all cross-endorsed one of the major party presidential nominees. The Working Families Party nominated Barack Obama. The Conservative Party, and the Independence Party, both nominated John McCain. The chart below shows how each of them did, relative to other recent presidential elections:

PARTY	1996	2000	2004	2008
Conserv.	2.90%	2.12%	2.10%	2.24%
Indepen.	7.97%	.36%	1.14%	2.15%
Wk Fam	- -	1.30%	1.81%	2.09%

AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY STATE OFFICERS STILL DISPUTED

On December 19, a California Superior Court heard oral arguments in King v Bowen, 34-2008-80000016. The issue is the identity of the American Independent Party officers. Judge Michael Kenny didn't reach the merits of the lawsuit, because he believes the lawsuit has procedural flaws.

The matter can be resolved without the help of any court, in 2010. California law permits a qualified party to settle such disputes in its own primary. Whichever faction runs the most candidates for public office is likely to control the 2010 state central committee. Under the rules for the AIP, the state central committee is composed of the party's nominees for public office and their appointees.

January 1, 2009 – Volume 24, Number 8