NEW BALLOT ACCESS BILLS INTRODUCED IN NINE STATES

Ballot access reform bills have been introduced in nine states this year:

Alabama: on January 27, the Alabama House Constitution and Elections Committee defeated HB 142 by a vote of 6-5, but the sponsor, Rep. Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) will ask for another hearing. On January 27 the Birmingham News editorialized in favor of the bill, and it did so again on February 8. The bill lowers the petition for minor parties and for non-presidential independent candidates from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5%.

Alaska: on January 15, Rep. Max Gruenberg (D-Anchorage) introduced HB 288, which lowers the number of registered voters a party needs from 3% of the last vote cast, to exactly 2,500 members.

Colorado: on February 22, the House Judiciary Committee passed HB 1271 unanimously. It eases the prior disaffiliation time period for independent candidates and also for candidates who are seeking a party nomination.

Georgia (1): three bills to improve ballot access have been introduced. On February 18, four state Representatives introduced HB 1257, which abolishes mandatory petitions for independent candidates and also for the nominees of unqualified parties. This idea is based on the Florida system, which depends on high filing fees to keep the general election ballot uncrowded. The sponsors are Alan Powell (D-Hartwell), E. Culver "Rusty" Kidd (I-Milledgeville), Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross), and Tom McCall (R-Elberton).

Georgia (2): on February 10, Rep. Bobby Reese (R-Sugar Hill) introduced HB 1141, which lowers candidate petitions for statewide office and U.S. House to exactly 5,000 signatures. Currently the statewide petition is 44,089 signatures, and the U.S. House petitions are each between 14,000 and 20,000 signatures.

Georgia (3): on February 4, Senator David Shafer (R-Duluth) introduced SB 359, which says that if a party is currently ballot-qualified for the statewide offices, then it is also automatically ballot-qualified for all offices. Also the bill legalizes fusion between a major party and a minor party, although not between two major parties, and not between two minor parties.

These Georgia bills are the first bills introduced in that state's legislature on ballot access since the 2005-2006 session.

Illinois: on February 11, Rep. Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) introduced HB 6214. It cuts the number of signatures for an independent candidate, so that they need the same number as someone getting on a primary ballot. The statewide petition would drop from 25,000 to 5,000. The petition for U.S. House would drop from 5% of the last vote cast, to approximately 600 signatures. Unfortunately the bill also moves the petition deadline from June to April, which would be unconstitutionally early for presidential independent candidates. Also it shrinks the petitioning time from 90 days to 75 days. It does not change minor party candidate petitions.

Missouri: on January 6, Senator Joan Bray (D-University City) introduced SB 679, to repeal the typographical error in the 1993 ballot access reform law. That error forces petitions to qualify a new party to list (on the petition) the name of that group's presidential candidate, even though the group need not list the names of its nominees for any other office. This error interferes with the ability of new parties to circulate their petition before they have chosen a presidential nominee, although the state does permit stand-ins. This bill has been introduced in each of the five preceding legislative sessions. No one seems to be opposed to it, but the bill has had bad luck in the past.

Maryland: on February 10, Senators Andrew Harris (R-Cockeysville) and Jamie Raskin (D-Takoma Park) introduced SB 710, to lower the party petition from 10,000 signatures to 5,000. It has a hearing in the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee on March 11.

Maryland (2): on January 22, 19 Senators introduced SB 240, to repeal the law that says petition signatures must be an exact match of that signer's name as shown in voter registration records. It has a hearing on February 25.

Michigan: Senator Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) is about to introduce a bill to permit a qualified party to change its name. This will enable the Constitution Party, which is ballot-qualified, to appear on the ballot under that name, instead of under the old U.S. Taxpayers Party name. The national party changed its name in 1999, and all other states in which the party was ballot-qualified permitted the party to change its name, if it wished to do that. But the Michigan Secretary of State has always said "no."

New Hampshire: on February 16, the House Election Law Committee passed HB 1188, which reduces the number of signatures for petitioning candidates, and also lowers the number of signatures for a new ballot-qualified party. The number of signatures for statewide candidates drops from 3,000 to 2,000; for U.S. House from 1,500 to 1,000; for State Senate from 750 to 500; and for State House from 150 to 100. The number of signatures for a new qualified party drops from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5% of the number of registered voters.

In addition to these new ballot access bills, there are bills pending in Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, that were introduced in 2009. Each of these three states has two-year legislative sessions.

Both houses of the South Carolina legislature have passed bills to make ballot access more difficult for independent candidates. However, each house has passed a separate bill, so nothing will be entirely passed until the differences in the two bills are resolved.

The Senate bill is SB 590, and it passed the Senate on February 3. The House bill, which is far worse, is HB 3746, and it passed the House on February 4.

Both bills say that primary voters may not sign an independent candidate petition, and both say that a newly-registered voter may not sign an independent candidate petition. Also, both bills say no one may sign for two different independent candidates for the same office.

Somewhat offsetting the damage, the Senate bill lowers the number of signatures for a statewide independent, and a U.S. House independent, from 10,000 signatures, to 4,000. The petition for legislature and county office drops from 5% of the number of registered voters, to 3%. The House bill does not reduce the number of signatures.

No matter how few signatures are required, it is unconstitutional for a state to say that newly-registered voters may not sign. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed a decision of a 3-judge court in 1970, in Socialist Workers Party v Rockefeller, 314 F.Supp. 984, affirmed, 400 U.S. 806.

The lower court in that New York case said, on page 992, "The provisions of Section 138, which limit signatories of independent nominating petitions to persons who had been registered to vote in the last general election, create arbitrary classifications with respect to new voters, deny otherwise qualified voters the opportunity to support candidates of their choice and bar minority parties from seeking the support of these new voters without compelling justification therefor."

The ban on primary voters signing for an independent will be unconstitutional if the final bill does not significantly lower the number of signatures. Storer v Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) said that when a state combines a 5% petition (and the law in that case was 5% of the last vote cast, not 5% of the number of registered voters) with a primary screen-out, the combination is probably unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in Storer said that lower courts should see how often independent candidates had been able to qualify. In South Carolina, even without a primary screenout, no independent candidate for either house of Congress, or for Governor, has ever qualified for a government-printed ballot. Thus, a court would ask why the legislature made the requirements even harder than they had been.

On February 1, Delaware HB 245 was signed into law. It increases the number of registrants a party must have to be ballot-qualified, from one-twentieth of 1% of the state total, to one-tenth. It takes effect immediately. As a result, the Constitution, Green, Working Families, and Socialist Workers Parties are no longer qualified. The only minor parties still on the ballot are the Independent Party and the Libertarian Party.

The old requirement was always a moving target, but it currently was about 310 registrants, so the new requirement is 620 registrants. Most of the parties that have been removed from the ballot will attempt to meet the new requirement by the August 2010 deadline.

Ten federal court precedents say that states cannot increase ballot access requirements in an election year, and have that increase go into effect that very same year. If one of the parties fails to re-qualify, it is possible it will sue to delay implementation of the law. It is also conceivable that the Delaware Attorney General will advise the Elections Commissioner not to implement the law this year.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Doe v Reed, 09-559, on April 28, 2010. This is the case over whether the names and addresses of people who sign petitions should be turned over to the public, or whether they are should be considered private.

The U.S. Supreme Court is showing interest in another ballot access case. On February 17, the Court asked for a response brief from Florida, in Citizens for Police Accountability Political Committee v Browning, 09-861. The issue is whether states can ban petitioning at the polls within 100 feet of the polling place entrance. Florida lets exit pollsters work within 25 feet, so supporters of a local initiative felt they should be able to petition within 25 feet as well, and they sued. They won in U.S. District Court but lost in the 11^th circuit.

Most requests to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeals are denied. But when the Court is interested in a case, it usually asks the side that won in the court below to file a brief. When that happens, there is a 40% chance the Court will hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing yet another case, Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law v Martinez, 08-1371, on April 19. This is not an election law case, but it is a Freedom of Association case, and all such cases invariably affect the law on political parties. This particular case is to decide whether a law school may deny recognition to student groups that are not willing to admit all students as members.

West Virginia gives the top line on the ballot to the party that polled the most votes for President in the last election. Because the Republicans have carried West Virginia for the last three elections, they have enjoyed the top spot recently. Ten Democrats in the legislature have introduced HB 4137, to give the top spot to the party with the most registered voters.

During February, three ballot access cases lost in federal court. In all three instances, the judges made factual errors in their decisions that they could have avoided if they just read the briefs.

Alabama: on February 10, the 11^th circuit upheld a law that requires more signatures for independent candidates for U.S. House than for an independent presidential candidate. Shugart v Chapman, 09-14250. This is odd, because twice the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for a statewide office.

The 11^th circuit said the first Supreme Court precedent, Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party, from 1979, only applies when the comparison is between a statewide office and a city office. In that case, the Socialist Workers Party had questioned why it had to get 42,000 signatures to be on the ballot for Mayor of Chicago when it only needed 25,000 signatures for statewide office. The Court had ruled that the Chicago petition couldn't be more than 25,000 signatures.

The 11^th circuit's conclusion that the 1979 case only applies when the office in just part of the state is city office is obviously untrue, because another U.S. Supreme Court case, Norman v Reed, from 1992, said a state can't require more signatures for county office than for statewide office. The 11^th circuit didn't even mention Norman v Reed. That is an especially bad error, because it is the most recent ballot access case involving minor party and independent candidates from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both U.S. Supreme Court decisions also said that when a state requires more signatures for an office within the state, than for a statewide office, that type of disparity is discriminatory. And the Court said in both cases that such discriminatory ballot access cases cannot survive unless they are needed for a compelling state interest.

But, the 11^th circuit did not apply that test. The three judges seem not to have even read the response brief, which discussed Norman v Reed. Also, the three judges might have done a better job if they had held an oral argument in this case, but they did not. The decision is not even signed, and will not be published. The three judges who sat on the case are Gerald Tjoflat, Edward Carnes, and Charles Wilson.

The plaintiff will probably ask for U.S. Supreme Court review. The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) is hoping to pay for the brief printing. COFOE gets all its income from the readers of this newsletter, and all donations are used solely for lawsuit costs.

Montana: on February 3, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Haddon ruled that the plaintiffs in Kelly v McCulloch, cv08-25-Bu, do not have standing to challenge the state ballot access laws for independent candidates. Ever since 2007, Montana has required non-presidential independent candidates to submit a petition of 5% of the winner's vote, due in March, and pay a filing fee as well. The candidate-plaintiff, Steve Kelly, wanted to be an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in 2008, and filed his case on April 8, 2008.

Judge Haddon said Kelly lacks standing because he had not made up his mind whether to be a candidate when he filed the lawsuit. However, Kelly's verified complaint says that he is an independent candidate. Because Kelly's complaint was written before he filed the lawsuit, the judge is wrong. "Verified complaint" means that the plaintiff signed a statement that he had read the Complaint and that it is accurate. Even if Kelly had not decided for sure to be a candidate, the 9^th circuit already ruled in Erum v Cayetano that any voter has standing to challenge a ballot access law. Montana is in the 9^th circuit. The Kelly case includes a voter plaintiff as well as the candidate-plaintiff.

On February 22, the ACLU appealed to the 9^th circuit.

New Hampshire: on February 17, a U.S. Magistrate issued an opinion in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, 08-cv-367, upholding the state's policy of refusing to let unqualified parties circulate a presidential candidate petition with a stand-in. The decision also upholds the state policy of not providing any name protection for unqualified parties.

The decision repeatedly says that the Libertarian Party wanted the court to remove George Phillies from the November 2008 ballot. The party's presidential candidate, Bob Barr, had successfully petitioned in New Hampshire and appeared on the ballot with the "Libertarian" label. In addition, some people petitioned for George Phillies to be on the ballot for President, and he also appeared with the "Libertarian" label. Phillies had sought the national convention nomination but had been defeated. The party's brief was very plain. It said, on page one, "The post-election declaratory relief that plaintiffs now seek need not include a determination that Phillies should have been removed from the ballot entirely, as defendant suggests. After all, Phillies met the New Hampshire requirements for being listed on the ballot as an independent candidate for president."

Nothing in the party's complaint ever contradicted that assertion. The party did not seek injunctive relief.

The magistrate also failed to mention any of the four precedents that say unqualified parties may use a stand-in on a petition. These cases are from Florida (two), Virginia, and Massachusetts. The magistrate seemed to assume, without providing any authority, that unqualified parties don't enjoy any of the rights that qualified parties enjoy. His conclusion is inexplicable, because in 2007 a New Hampshire state court ruled that unqualified parties have the same right to the list of registered voters as the qualified parties. Similar precedents exist in four other states. Also the decision doesn't mention any of the precedents in favor of name protection. The party will ask for review from a U.S. District Court Judge.

The issue of who can vote in partisan primaries is a volatile one this year:

Alaska: Representative Harry Crawford (D-Anchorage) has introduced HB 248. It provides that the state would print up primary ballots just for independent voters, who comprise half the voters in the state. The names of all the candidates running in partisan primaries (for all parties) would be printed on the independent voters ballot, and votes cast on that independent primary ballot would be tallied as though they had been cast by voters who had chosen a party ballot.

Arizona: in January, the Republican Party voted to seek some way to prevent independent voters from voting in Republican primaries. A 1998 initiative says independents may vote in partisan primaries. No bill to alter that law has been introduced.

Idaho: the Republican Party is currently in federal court, seeking a primary for itself that does not permit Democrats to vote in the Republican primary. The party recently presented evidence that a large percentage of non-Republicans do frequently vote in the Republican primary. This evidence will be brought out in an upcoming trial.

Kentucky: on February 2, the Senate passed SB 53, which tells political parties that they must let independents vote in partisan primaries. However, the bill is considered unlikely to pass the House.

Rhode Island: three Democratic State Senators have introduced SB 2150, which tells parties they must let independents vote in their primaries. The bill is in reaction to a decision by Republican Party leaders to try to prevent independents from voting in the Republican primary. Existing law is vague about whether parties can do that.

South Carolina: the Republican Party plans to file a lawsuit soon, to win the right to exclude Democrats from voting in Republican primaries.

South Dakota: last year, the Democratic Party voted to become the first party in the state to let independents vote in its primaries. On January 21, the House passed HB 1054, to help implement the Democratic Party's plan. The bill hasn't moved ahead yet in the Senate.

California: on February 16, a U.S. District Court issued an injunction against a San Diego city ordinance that makes it illegal for political parties to contribute any campaign funds to candidates for city office. Thalheimer v City of San Diego, 09-cv-2862.

Florida: on February 18, the State Supreme Court issued an opinion in Browning v Florida Hometown Democracy, SC08-884. The decision, by a vote of 4-2, strikes down a Florida law that makes it possible for signers of an initiative petition to remove their names as late as the deadline for submitting the petition. The decision says that the law makes it impossible for proponents of an initiative to ever know if they have enough signatures, until after it is too late for them to collect more signatures.

Louisiana: on February 19, the 5^th circuit asked the state to respond to the Libertarian Party's request for a rehearing in the case over whether Bob Barr should have been on the ballot in 2008. It is unusual for any court to pay this much attention to a request for a rehearing.

Massachusetts: on January 30, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear Simmons v Galvin, 09-920, the case over whether the Voting Rights Act applies to state laws that ban felons and ex-felons from voting. The 1^st Circuit had ruled 2-1 that the Act doesn't apply.

Arizona: Senator Jack W. Harper has introduced SB 1024, to remove the names of presidential elector candidates from the ballot. Arizona is now one of only six states that still puts them on the ballot.

Arizona (2): on February 15, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SCR 1043. It would provide for a public vote in November on whether to divert all money from public funding for campaigns, to education. The public funding program gets most of its revenue from surcharges on traffic and parking fines and other criminal fines.

California: Senator Loni Hancock and Assemblyman Mike Eng have introduced SB 1346 and AB 2732, which would give counties permission to use Instant Runoff Voting in special congressional and legislative elections.

Colorado: Representative Max Tyler (D-Lakewood) has introduced HB 1077, which would legalize fusion. It would provide for "disaggregated fusion", which means that a candidate with two nominations would be listed twice on the ballot.

Connecticut: on February 22, the Joint Government Administration & Elections Committee heard testimony on two bills that change the public funding law. HB 5021 would remove all the discriminatory provisions, and HB 5022 would lessen them. No action was taken.

Hawaii: on February 11, the House passed HB 2397, to move the primary from September to August. It also moves the deadline to qualify a new party from April to late February. However, the bill doesn't take effect until 2011.

Minnesota: on February 15, the Senate passed SF 2251, to move the primary from September to August. It also moves the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from July to June.

Vermont: on February 18, the House passed S117, the bill to move the primary from September to August. The House also amended the bill to move the independent petition deadline from September to June. This change is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to independent presidential candidates, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze. Now the bill goes back to the State Senate.

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	*already on	*2,520	0	0	June 1	Aug. 24
Ariz.	20,449	(est) #25,500	already on	*20,000	*1,700	0	*Mar. 11	May 25
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	0	0	- - -	Aug. 11
Del.	(est) (reg) 300	(est) 6,200	already on	*561	*308	*505	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	*200	50	0	Apr. 1	July 19
Idaho	13,102	1,000	already on	0	already on	0	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	0	0	0	0	- - -	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	May 27
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	Mar. 18
Nebr.	5,921	4,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 2	Aug. 24
Nev.	9,083	9,083	already on	*already on	already on	0	June 11	Mar. 12
N. Hamp.	20,394	#3,000	*100	0	0	0	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
N.J.	no procedure	#1,300	*100	*50	*50	0	- - -	June 2
N. M.	4,151	16,764	*6,500	*700	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	85,379	already on	0	0	0	May 14	June 10
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	*300	0	0	0	Apr. 9	Sep. 3
Ohio	unsettled	5,000	already on	already on	already on	0	unsettled	May 3
Okla.	73,134	pay fee	0	0	0	0	May 1	June 9
Oregon	20,640	(est) 19,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	#19,056	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. 30	June 8
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	*already on	Jan. 1	Sep. 10
Virginia	no procedure	#11,000	*100	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.	4,988	4,988	already on	0	*3,400	0	June 1	Aug. 23
TOTAL STATES ON			29*	17	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 for U.S. House.
*change from the Jan. 1 2010 chart.

On December 1, 2009, Georgia held a special run-off eleciton to fill the vacant State House seat, in the 141^st district. The vote was: Independent E. Culver "Rusty" Kidd 2,433; Democrat Darrell Black 1,286.

When this seat has last been up, in 2008, the only candidate on the ballot had been a Democrat. Kidd is a co-sponsor of one of the Georgia ballot access bills. This is fitting, because his father, Senator Culver Kidd, who is now deceased, had been the author of the last ballot access reform bill that passed in Georgia, in 1986.

The younger Kidd was in a motorcycle accident ten years ago that paralyzed his body from the waist down. His sister, Tillie Fowler, represented Jacksonville, Florida, in Congress during the 1990's.

The younger Kidd did not need a petition to get on the ballot in the 2009 special election, because Georgia lets anyone on the ballot in special elections with no petition, just a filing fee.

California: on January 12, a special election was held to fill the vacant Assembly seat, 72^nd district. The results: Republican 62.9%; Democratic 31.0%; Green 6.1%. The last time this seat had been up, in 2008, the results had been: Republican 54.8%; Democratic 45.2%.

Georgia: on January 5, a special election was held to fill the vacant State Senate seat in the 22^nd district. A Libertarian, Taylor Bryant, was one of the four candidates. He polled 9.14%. The other three candidates were all Democrats. The last time this seat had been up, in 2008, the vote had been: Democratic 79.5%; Republican 20.5%.

Massachusetts: on January 19, a special U.S. Senate election was held. The results: Republican 51.89%; Democratic 47.12%; Libertarian (on as independent) .99%.

Minnesota: on January 26, a special election was held to fill the vacant State Senate seat, 26^th district. The result: Republican 43.1%; Democrat 36.6%; Independence Party 20.4%. When this seat had last been up, in 2008, the vote had been: Republican 54.6%; Democratic 45.4%.

Missouri: on February 2, a special election was held to fill the vacant State House seat, 62^nd district. The vote: Republican 77.8%; Libertarian 22.2%. When this seat had last been up, in 2008, the vote had been: Republican 73.1%; Democratic 26.9%.

A Vermont political party has been formed to work for the secession of Vermont from the U.S. It is called the Vermont Independence Day Party. It will place candidates on the 2010 ballot for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and at least 7 State Senate seats. The candidates will qualify by petition, and their party name will appear on the ballot.

On December 28, 2009, Colorado State House member Kathleen Curry changed her registration from "Democrat" to "independent." She wants to run for re-election in 2010, but because Colorado law bars independent candidates from the ballot if they were a member of a qualified party at any time during the 17 months before an election, she will be a write-in candidate in November 2010. However, a lawsuit is pending against the 17-month period, and if that lawsuit is successful, she will be able to get on the ballot. She is also authoring a bill to ease the restriction, but it wouldn't take effect in time for the 2010 election.

The Tea Party is a ballot-qualified party in Florida. Also, it recently qualified a candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada, and it filed initial paperwork to petition in Connecticut.

---

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.