DISTRICT COURT KEEPS CASE AGAINST "TOP-TWO" ALIVE

On August 20, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour ruled that Washington state's "top-two" election system is not necessarily constitutional, and that more proceedings are needed to settle the lawsuit against that system. Washington State Republican Party v Washington State, C05-0927.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 18, 2008 that the system is not facially unconstitutional on the issue of whether it violates the rights of political parties to free association. But the Supreme Court said that the system still might be unconstitutional, as applied. When the Supreme Court ruled, the system had never been tried. An "as applied" challenge is typically brought after a new idea has been tried. Washington state used the system for the first time in August 2008 and November 2008, and that experience produced evidence about how the system works in practice.

The system provides that all candidates for partisan office, except for President, must run on a single ballot in August. All voters get the same ballot. Then, only the two candidates who poll the largest vote may appear on the November ballot. No other state uses a system like this, although Louisiana uses a very similar system for elections for state office (but not for Congress or President).

The Washington system provides for a ballot in which every candidate listed on the ballot has, next to his or her name, the label "Prefers (insert party name here)". For example, "Prefers Democratic Party" or "Prefers Republican Party." The law uses this wording because the system would be unconstitutional if the state implied that any particular candidate has the backing of any particular party. This is because the system does not permit the parties to indicate, on the ballot, their feelings or relationship to any particular candidate.

Judge Coughenour said that the plaintiff political parties will be given a chance to introduce evidence that the system "in practice actually creates the sort of voter confusion that would infringe upon the political parties' associational rights."

In other words, if someone with the reputation for advocating a return to racial segregation appears on the ballot with the label "prefers Republican Party", will that cause a substantial number of people to associate that idea with the Republican Party? Or if someone known for advocating that all handguns be made illegal appears on the ballot with "Prefers Democratic Party", would that cause a substantial number of people to associate that cause with the Democratic Party?

Judge Coughenour noted that state campaign finance laws mandate that a candidate must list the party he or she "prefers" (on the ballot) in all his or her campaign advertising and communications. This suggests that any confusion will exist even before voters have seen the sample ballots or the actual ballots.

The judge also said that the Washington system is vulnerable to challenge because it provides that the general electorate is empowered to select party precinct officers. In Washington, the voters of each precinct choose that precinct's representative to political party county committees, which means that the party itself is governed by officers chosen by the entire electorate, rather than by members of the party. The 9^th circuit already ruled in an Arizona case that the Constitution forbids requiring parties to let the general public choose their party officers.

The Libertarian Party's Points

Judge Coughenour rejected the Libertarian Party's points that the system is unconstitutional on ballot access and trademark arguments.

On ballot access, the Libertarian Party had argued that the first round in the Washington state system is not an election at all, because an "election" is an event at which someone can be elected. Instead, the first round is nothing more than a ballot access barrier. The first round has no function but to eliminate all but two candidates from the November ballot. Therefore, the party argued the first round should be analyzed as a ballot access barrier. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued 17 full opinions on ballot access, and, together, they make it clear that ballot access barriers in excess of 5% are too severe, and are unconstitutional. Yet the Washington system requires a candidate to show approximately 30% support, in order to qualify for the November ballot. The average second-place finisher in Washington polls, on the average, 30%.

Judge Coughenour rejected the idea that the ballot access precedents control this case. He interprets the ballot access precedents to mean that if a candidate is permitted to run in a primary, that is all that the state is required to do. He ignored the U.S. Supreme Court language in Munro v Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, that is found on page 197: "Appellees (the Socialist Workers Party) urge that this case differs substantially from our previous cases because requiring primary votes to qualify for a position on the general election ballot is qualitatively more restrictive than requiring signatures on a nominating petition. We are unpersuaded, however, that the differences between the two mechanisms are of constitutional dimension." (emphasis added).

Munro v Socialist Workers Party, a 1986 decision, upheld the former Washington state law that said no one could appear on the November ballot unless that candidate had polled 1% of the vote in the blanket primary.

The Socialist Workers Party challenged the law because one of its nominees failed to receive 1% in the primary, but he still wanted to be listed on the November ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1% vote test, saying since petitions of up to 5% had been approved, obviously a 1% vote test should also be upheld. In other words, vote test percentages are equivalent to petition requirements. Therefore, since the current system requires, in effect, a primary vote of 30%, that is far too stringent and it should be invalidated.

Judge Coughenour said that the first U.S. Supreme Court precedent that invalidated a ballot access law, Williams v Rhodes, a 1968 case, only stood for the idea that the Ohio law invalidated in that case (which required a petition of 15% of the last gubernatorial vote) barred "a minor party's only opportunity to reach the statewide electorate by ballot."

Judge Coughenour misunderstood Williams v Rhodes. The only plaintiffs in Williams were George Wallace and members of his Ohio campaign committee. No political party was a plaintiff. George Wallace was running for President in the November 1968 election, and he didn't care whether he qualified for the ballot as an independent, or as the nominee of any particular party. His briefs make this clear. Ohio didn't allow anyone to be an independent presidential candidate, and the requirements for a new party were so difficult that Wallace couldn't use them.

But Wallace was free to run for president in Ohio in the 1968 Democratic presidential primary. Ohio required only 1,000 signatures for that. Wallace was a Democrat at the time. He had run for President in the 1964 Democratic presidential primaries, and he was to go on to run for President in the 1972 and 1976 Democratic primaries. If it were true that Williams v Rhodes and the Supreme Court's other ballot access precedents only apply to candidates and parties that are not free to run in primaries, then Wallace would have lost the case. But he won it.

Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v Celebrezze that Congressman John B. Anderson had a right to be on the November 1980 Ohio ballot, even though Anderson was a Republican and he had run in many Republican presidential primaries that very same year, 1980. These precedents show that candidates in partisan elections have a right to go directly to the November ballot, and to skip primaries, if they wish to, and if they have a modicum of support.

Trademark Issue

The Libertarian Party had also argued that since it has a registered trademark for its name, the Washington system violates that trademark, in cases in which someone who has no connection to the party appears on the ballot with "prefers Libertarian Party." Judge Coughenour acknowledged the Second Circuit ruled in United We Stand America, Inc., v United We Stand America New York, Inc., a 1997 case, that trademark law relates to political groups as well as to businesses. But he said trademark protections cannot extend to state ballots. His analysis also says that if a candidate misuses the Libertarian Party name, that is not the state's fault.

However, he did not discuss the point that if the party complains to the state, then a good case can be made that it is the state's fault for permitting the misuse to continue. By analogy, in the pending lawsuit in federal court in New York Tiffany v eBay, Tiffany jeweler company sued eBay because some advertisers on eBay were selling jewelry described as Tiffany, even though it wasn't. eBay won the case in the U.S. District Court (southern district, no. 04-4607) because eBay consistently removes such sales when Tiffany brings these incidences to its attention, with evidence (Tiffany has appealed to the Second Circuit). But in the election law case, even after the Libertarian Party might complain that the ballot lists someone as "prefers Libertarian Party" who is not a bona fide Libertarian, the state would do nothing about the problem.

Judge Coughenour's decision on the ballot access and trademark issues need not be appealed until the other issues are resolved in his court, which almost certainly will require a trial. And if he rules against "top-two" at the end of that trial, there will be little practical difference that he had upheld the system on ballot access and trademark issues.

On August 4, the Ohio Secretary of State's omnibus election law bill was introduced. It is HB 260, and is 252 pages. It includes ballot access improvements. The vote test for a party to remain on the ballot drops from 5% for Governor and President, to 1% for any statewide race at either of the last two elections.

The petition for a new party drops from 1% of the last vote cast, to one-fourth of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Currently, that would mean 10,057 valid signatures.

The legislature will start holding hearings on September 8. If the bill passes quickly, the provisions would probably be in effect for 2010. If the bill moves slowly, or doesn't pass, Ohio will continue to be without a valid law, and the parties that are on now would remain on: Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Socialist.

Ohio would still have a petition deadline for new party petitions that is very early, because the Ohio Constitution requires that all qualified parties nominate by primary. The Ohio primary in midterm years is in May, so the deadline for new party petitions remains in January. The Secretary of State could have proposed to the legislature that it amend the state Constitution, to say that only large parties must nominate by primary. That would make it possible to provide that small qualified parties nominate by convention. But the Secretary of State hasn't done that.

The deadline is even earlier in presidential years, when the primary is in March. That puts the petition deadline in November of the year before the election.

Alabama: on August 21, Andy Shugart appealed his ballot access case to the 11^th circuit. Shugart v Chapman, 09-xxxx. The issue is whether Alabama can require an independent candidate for U.S. House to collect more signatures than are needed for an independent candidate for president.

Dist. of Columbia: on August 7, the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr filed a lawsuit against the Board of Elections, over the Board's refusal to count the write-ins for Barr last year. Libertarian Party v D.C. Bd of Elections, 2009CA-005836B. The case has a hearing on November 6.

Hawaii: on August 6, the 9^th circuit set a briefing schedule in Nader v Cronin, 08-16444. This case challenges the number of signatures for an independent presidential candidate, on the grounds that it is irrational for the state to require six times as many signatures for a single independent candidate as for an entire new ballot-qualified party. The first brief is due October 13.

Pennsylvania: on August 18, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order, saying its original decision stands, in the case over whether the Green Party's U.S. Senate candidate in 2006 must pay approximately $80,000 in costs to the people who challenged his petition. In re Nom. Paper of Rogers, 12 MAP 2007. Interestingly, though, the Court did not issue any ruling in the parallel case involving Ralph Nader's 2004 petition fees controversy.

Federal law: the Republican Party's lawsuit against the part of the McCain-Feingold law that inhibits the national parties from giving assistance to their nominees for state office has a hearing on August 27, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The case is Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 1:08cv-1953.

National: on July 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., refused to reconsider its opinion in Nader v Democratic National Committee.

The Conscience of a Libertarian, by Wayne Allyn Root. Hard Cover, 368 pages, John Wiley & Sons 2009.

Libertarian Party presidential candidates almost always write books about libertarian ideas. John Hospers, the 1972 nominee, wrote Libertarianism in 1971, before he had any expectation that he would be a presidential candidate. All the other books (except for one) were written after the author had won the Libertarian nomination. Roger MacBride, the 1976 nominee, wrote A New Dawn for America. Ed Clark, the 1980 nominee, wrote A New Beginning. David Bergland, the 1984 nominee, wrote Libertarianism in One Lesson. Andre Marrou, the 1992 nominee, did not write a book. Michael Badnarik, the 2004 nominee, wrote Good to be King: The Foundation of Our Constitutional Freedom. Bob Barr, the 2008 nominee, wrote Bob Barr's Lessons in Liberty.

By contrast, Harry Browne published his campaign book, Why Government Doesn't Work, in 1995, before he won the nomination in July 1996. Now Wayne Root, the 2008 Libertarian vice-presidential nominee, and a declared candidate for the party's 2012 presidential nomination, has followed Browne's strategy. Root has just published a lengthy campaign book, far in advance of the next Libertarian presidential convention. Another similarity between Browne's book and Root's book is that both have mainstream publishers.

Conscience of a Libertarian seems written specifically to persuade conservatives to become philosophical libertarians. Thus, Root sometimes introduces a subject as though he himself agrees with the conservative position. But, as one continues to read the book, the book's position on that particular issue seems to evolve before the reader's eyes, as Root leads the reader to a different conclusion than the one that he himself had first seemed to suggest.

For example, on the issue of whether mind-altering drugs should be legal, page 24 seems to say that Root is only opposed to federal laws that ban certain drugs, but that he has no quarrel with state laws. But, in the first of the chapters that deal with drug laws in more detail, page 225 says, "Let's start by legalizing medical marijuana." A following chapter, "Welcome to the Nanny States of America!" contains a riveting four-page account of how various law enforcement agencies threatened the life and well-being of Steve Kubby, a well-known Libertarian Party activist who served time in prison for growing his own marijuana for compelling health reasons. Root follows that with a general condemnation of any laws that restrict personal liberty.

The book takes a somewhat similar approach to education, seeming to evolve as one reads further.

Minor party activists of all types are sometimes oblivious to the reality that their parties don't poll more votes partly because many voters have heard their ideas and rejected them. Political persuasion is not easy. This is especially true in a culture in which most people won't even read a book about political ideas if they think at the onset that they won't agree with the book. Root's approach, of understanding why many people are not libertarians, and writing a book tailored to persuasion, is a general approach that should be emulated by people of every minority political ideology.

The book's main focus is on domestic policy, and contains very little about foreign policy. But the book does say a good deal about election law and representation issues. Root makes the case for Instant Runoff Voting, and also for a much larger U.S. House of Representatives. He favors term limits for each House of Congress: two terms with each term being six years.

The book is never boring. Root writes much as he speaks. He constantly links his ideas to his own life experiences, much as Barack Obama's "Dreams from My Father" does.

The August 1, 2009 B.A.N. carried a chart showing the lowest percentage ever received in a general election by a winning gubernatorial candidate. This issue carries a chart (below) showing the lowest percentage ever received in a general election (in each state) by the winning presidential elector slate in that state.

The purpose of the August gubernatorial chart was to test a thesis by Tara Ross, an author who resolutely supports the Electoral College. Ross said in the National Standard on July 17 that the Electoral College acts to prevent voters from fracturing their votes among many candidates. She predicted that if the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would win with as little as 15% of the national popular vote.

Several readers asked for another chart, showing the lowest-percentage presidential winner in each state. That chart is on page four of this issue. The two charts together show that U.S. voters vote in a similar fashion when voting for Governor and for President, when there are more than two popular candidates in the race. The average weakest presidential winner within a state got 39.3%, and the average weakest gubernatorial winner got 40.2%. In 29 of the 50 states the weakest winner was a presidential candidate; in the other 21 states, the weakest winner was a gubernatorial candidate. The lowest presidential winner within a state was 32.1%; the lowest gubernatorial winner was 30.5%. Thus, voters behave the same, whether the office is elected directly (Governors) or with an Electoral College.

State	Year	Winner	Winner's Party	Winner's %	Two Highest Runners-Up
Ala.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	47.6%	Democrat 40.9%, Ross Perot 10.8%
Alas.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	39.5%	Democrat 30.3%, Ross Perot 28.4%
Ariz.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	38.5%	Democrat 36.5%, Ross Perot 23.8%
Ark.	1968	George Wallace	American	38.9%	Republican 30.8%, Democratic 30.4%
Calif.	1860	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	33.0%	Democratic 32.4%, Southern Dem. 28.9%
Colo.	1992	Bill Clinton	Democratic	40.1%	Republican 35.9%, Ross Perot 23.3%
Conn.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	39.2%	Republican 35.9%, Progressive 17.9%
Del.	1992	Bill Clinton	Democratic	43.5%	Republican 35.3%, Ross Perot 20.4%
Fla.	1968	Richard Nixon	Republican	40.5%	Democrat 30.9%, American 28.5%
Ga.	1968	George Wallace	American	42.8%	Republican 30.4%, Democratic 26.8%
Hi.	1980	Jimmy Carter	Democratic	44.8%	Republican 42.9%, John Anderson 10.6%
Ida.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	32.1%	Progressive 31.0%, Republican 24.1%
Ill.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	35.3%	Progressive 33.7%, Republican 22.1%
Ind.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	42.9%	Democratic 36.8%, Ross Perot 19.8%
Iowa	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	37.6%	Progressive 32.8%, Republican 24.3%
Kan.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	38.9%	Democratic 33.7%, Ross Perot 27.0%
Ky.	1992	Bill Clinton	Democratic	44.6%	Republican 41.3%, Ross Perot 13.7%
La.	1860	John Breckinridge	Southern Dem.	44.9%	Constitutional Union 40.0%, Dem. 15.10%
Me.	1992	Bill Clinton	Democratic	38.8%	Ross Perot 30.4%, Republican 30.4%
Md.	1968	Hubert Humphrey	Democratic	43.6%	Republican 41.9%, American 14.5%
Mass.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	35.6%	Republican 31.9%, Progressive 29.1%
Mich.	1912	Theodore Roosevelt	Progressive	38.9%	Republican 27.6%, Democratic 27.4%
Minn.	1912	Theodore Roosevelt	Progressive	37.7%	Democratic 31.8%, Republican 19.3%
Miss.	1960	unpledged	dissident Demo.	39.0%	Democratic 36.3%, Republican 24.7%
Mo.	1860	Stephen Douglas	Democratic	35.5%	Const. Union 35.3%, Southern Dem. 18.9%
Mt.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	35.0%	Progressive 28.1%, Republican 23.2%
Neb.	1892	Benjamin Harrison	Republican	43.6%	Peoples 41.5%, Democratic 12.5%
Nev.	1992	Bill Clinton	Democratic	37.4%	Republican 34.7%, Ross Perot 26.2%
N.H.	1992	Bill Clinton	Democratic	38.9%	Republican 37.6%, Ross Perot 22.6%
N.J.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	41.2%	Progressive 33.6%, Republican 20.5%
N.M.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	41.4%	Republican 35.9%, Progressive 16.9%
N.Y.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	41.3%	Republican 28.7%, Progressive 24.6%
No.C.	1968	Richard Nixon	Republican	39.5%	American 31.3%, Democratic 29.2%
No.D.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	34.1%	Progressive 29.7%, Republican 26.7%
Ohio	1824	Henry Clay	no parties	38.5%	Andrew Jackson 37.0%, J. Q. Adams 24.5%
Okla.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	42.6%	Democratic 34.0%, Ross Perot 23.0%
Ore.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	34.3%	Progressive 27.4%, Republican 25.3%
Pa.	1912	Theodore Roosevelt	Progressive	36.7%	Democratic 32.4%, Republican 22.4%
R.I.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	39.0%	Republican 35.6%, Progressive 21.7%
So.C.	1968	Richard Nixon	Republican	38.1%	American 32.3%, Democratic 29.6%
So.D.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	40.7%	Democratic 37.1%, Ross Perot 21.8%
Tenn.	1968	Richard Nixon	Republican	37.8%	American 34.0%, Democratic 28.1%
Tex.	1992	George H. W. Bush	Republican	40.6%	Democratic 37.1% Ross Perot 22.0%
Utah	1912	William H. Taft	Republican	37.5%	Democratic 32.6%, Progressive 21.5%
Vt.	1912	William H. Taft	Republican	37.1%	Progressive 35.2%, Democratic 24.4%
Va.	1968	Richard Nixon	Republican	43.4%	Democratic 32.5%, American 23.6%
Wash.	1912	Theodore Roosevelt	Progressive	35.2%	Democratic 26.9%, Republican 21.8%
W.V.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	42.1%	Progressive 29.4%, Republican 21.1%
Wis.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	41.1%	Republican 32.7%, Progressive 15.6%
Wy.	1912	Woodrow Wilson	Democratic	36.2%	Republican 34.4%, Progressive 21.8%

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	WK FAM	Party	Indp.
Ala.	37,513	37,513	100	0	0	0	June 1	June 1
Alaska	(reg) 9,786	#3,128	*7,500	*2,571	0	0	June 1	Aug. 24
Ariz.	20,449	(est) #25,500	already on	*6,000	*1,000	0	Mar. 11	unsettled
Ark.	10,000	10,000	0	0	0	0	June 30	May 3
Calif.	(reg) 88,991	173,041	already on	already on	in court	0	Jan. 6	Aug. 6
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	June 1	June 15
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	already on	already on	can't start	can't start	- - -	Aug. 11
Del.	(est) (reg) 300	(est) 6,200	already on	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 10	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	#3,000	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	- - -	Aug. 25
Florida	be organized	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	0	Apr. 30	Apr. 30
Georgia	57,582	#44,089	already on	*0	*0	*0	July 13	July 13
Hawaii	692	25	already on	0	*50	0	Apr. 1	July 19
Idaho	13,102	1,000	already on	can't start	already on	can't start	Aug. 27	March 19
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	- - -	June 21
Indiana	no procedure	#32,742	already on	0	0	0	- - -	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	- - -	Aug. 13
Kansas	16,994	5,000	already on	0	0	0	June 1	Aug. 2
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	- - -	Aug. 10
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay $500	already on	already on	500	0	May 20	Aug. 20
Maine	27,544	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	Dec 11, 09	Aug. 8
Md.	10,000	(est) 35,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Aug. 2	Aug. 2
Mass.	(est) (reg) 40,000	#10,000	already on	7,522	80	*20	Feb. 1	July 27
Mich.	38,024	30,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 15	July 17
Minn.	145,519	#2,000	0	0	0	0	July 20	July 20
Miss.	be organized	800	already on	already on	already on	0	April 9	April 9
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	0	already on	0	July 26	July 26
Mont.	5,000	#15,359	already on	0	already on	0	Mar. 18	in court
Nebr.	5,921	4,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 2	Aug. 24
Nev.	9,083	9,060	already on	0	already on	0	April 12	April 12
N. Hamp.	20,394	#3,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
N.J.	no procedure	#1,300	0	0	0	0	- - -	June 2
N. M.	4,151	16,764	*300	0	already on	0	Apr. 1	June 3
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	already on	- - -	Aug. 17
No. Car.	85,379	69,734	already on	0	0	0	May 14	June 10
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	0	0	0	0	Apr. 9	Sep. 3
Ohio	unsettled	5,000	unsettled	unsettled	unsettled	0	unsettled	May 3
Okla.	73,134	pay fee	0	0	0	0	May 1	July 15
Oregon	20,640	(est) 19,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	(est) #25,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	- - -	Aug. 2
R.I.	23,589	#1,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	May 28	July 22
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	May 2	July 15
So. Dak.	8,389	3,356	0	0	already on	0	Mar. 23	June 2
Tenn.	in court	25	0	0	0	0	unsettled	April 1
Texas	43,991	43,991	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	May 24	May 10
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Feb. 15	March 15
Vermont	be organized	#500	already on	0	already on	*organizing	Jan. 1	Sep. 10
Virginia	no procedure	#11,000	0	0	0	0	- - -	June 8
Wash.	no procedure	pay fee	0	0	0	0	- - -	May 15
West Va.	no procedure	*#7,250	0	already on	0	0	- - -	May 10
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	can't start	can't start	June 1	July 13
Wyo.	4,981	4,988	already on	0	*1,550	0	June 1	Aug. 23
TOTAL STATES ON			27	16	16	4	`	`

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia have no statewide race in 2010, so the entry is for a full slate of U.S. House nominees.
*change from the June 1 2009 chart.

The lawsuit in California State Court, to determine the identity of the legitimate state officers of the American Independent Party, is finally moving ahead. The faction loyal to the Constitution Party filed the case in April, but the state chair of the Keyes faction has been ducking being served. So, the Baldwin faction completed service by running a legal ad in a newspaper, and service is deemed to have been completed on September 12. The case is King v Robinson, Solano Co. Superior Court, 033119.

The Moderate Party's petition drive to become a qualified party in Rhode Island has succeeded. This is the first time a group has completed a petition of 5% of the last vote cast, for the purpose of becoming a qualified party, since 2000, when the Libertarian and Reform Parties did a 5% petition in Oklahoma.

On August 3, Delaware held an election to fill the vacant State Senate seat, 19^th district. Results: Republican 63.0%, Democratic 30.3%, Independent Party 5.9%, Libertarian .8%. When this seat was last up, in 2006, the vote had been: Democratic 78.3%, Independent Party 21.7%.

In July 2009 the Moderate Party of California had announced it would try to qualify for the 2010 ballot, but on August 3 it said it was giving up on that goal.

On August 1, the Peace & Freedom Party held a national organizing conference in San Francisco, to discuss creating the party as a national organization. It is currently only on the ballot in California, although it has activists in other states. Since then, the body has chosen Debra Reiger to be Interim Chair of the National Organizing Continuations Committee. debra.reiger@earthlink.net. 916-698-8131.

On August 4, Detroit held a Mayoral election. D'Artagnan Collier, candidate of the Socialist Equality Party, polled 1.36%. That was the best showing for a socialist party's candidate for Mayor of Detroit since 1951, when the Socialist Workers Party candidate, Howard Lerner, received 1.58%. Detroit city elections are non-partisan.

---

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.