SUPREME COURT REJECTS TWO MORE MINOR PARTY CASES
COURT HAS SHUNNED ALL SUCH CASES FOR 20 YEARS

During October, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian Party ballot access cases from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This continues the Court’s policy of refusing to hear any election law appeal brought by a minor party or an independent candidate. The Court has refused all 49 such cases during the last twenty years, unless a major party was in the same case and on the same side as the minor party.

The only exception to that statement is that in 1996 the Court did accept a Georgia Libertarian case against a state law mandating drug tests for candidates for state office, but that decision, Chandler v Miller, was based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches, and did nothing to help minor parties and independents with their particular election law problems.

The two cases the Court refused to hear last month are (1) Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardiner, which challenged the state policy that prints party labels on the general election ballot for candidates who were not nominated by that party; and (2) Barr v Galvin, which challenged Massachusetts policy of having no objective standards on when an unqualified party may list a stand-in presidential candidate on a petition. This policy makes it impossible for a minor party that is not ballot-qualified in Massachusetts to hold its presidential convention in June of presidential election years, and leaves the law ambiguous for parties that hold conventions in July.

During those same twenty years, when a minor party or independent candidate won in the court below, and the losing state appealed to the Supreme Court, half the time, the Supreme Court accepted the case.

Each time during the past twenty years when the Court accepted a state’s appeal, the Court then reversed the lower court and awarded a victory to the state.

The Supreme Court’s hostility toward minor parties and independent candidates is documented in the chart on page 3, which lists the 49 cases the Court refused to hear in the last twenty years.

In the last twenty years, states that lost a lawsuit in the court below to a minor party or independent candidate appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court at six instances. The Court accepted these three: (1) Arkansas Educational TV Foundation v Forbes; (2) Clingman v Beaver; (3) Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party. The subjects of these cases were debates, whether a minor party can demand an open primary for itself, and fusion.

The three instances at which a state appealed to the Court, and the Court refused to hear the case, are: (1) Brewer v Nader; (2) Davidson v Campbell; (3) New York State Board of Elections v Lerman. The issues in these three cases were an early petition deadline, residency requirements for petition circulators, and whether a congressional candidate must be a registered voter.

The record above means that when a state asks for help from the U.S. Supreme Court, it gets help 50% of the time. But when a minor party or independent asks for help from the Court, over the last twenty years, they get help zero percent of the time.

Lack of Basis for Court Behavior

There is no justification for the Court’s hostility toward minor parties and independent candidates.

The language of the Constitution, the writings of the founding fathers, the opinions of political scientists, and the language of international treaties that the U.S. has signed, all condemn state election laws that discriminate against minor parties and independent candidates, and prevent voters from voting for such candidates.

The Constitution: In decisions between October 1968 and January 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court itself interpreted the First and Fourteenth Amendments to protect the right of voters to vote for minor party and independent candidates. Furthermore, in 1995, the Court interpreted Article One to protect the right of voters to vote for anyone for Congress who meets the qualifications to be in Congress, a decision that protects major party voters and candidates as well as minor party and independent voters and candidates.

The Court has never said that any of these good precedents are no longer good law. But the Court won’t act when lower courts don’t follow t
hose precedents. For example, in 1979 and again in 1992, the Court said states can’t require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than in the state as a whole. But Alabama violates this principle, and when the lower courts upheld the Alabama law, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

Opinions of the Founding Fathers: in Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison said factionalism is bad, but it can be ameliorated if there are many factions instead of just two. "Faction" means "party". Madison wrote of the "security afforded by a greater variety of parties…In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security."

The Founding Fathers would have been aghast at the thought of giving legal advantages to two particular "factions", relative to all others. In their day, there were no restrictions on whom a voter could vote for, because there were no government-printed ballots, no candidacy declaration forms, no filing fees, no petitions. There were provisions on who was eligible to hold office, but they did not prevent voters from voting for someone who didn’t meet the qualifications; they just meant, if such candidates were elected, they ran a risk of not being sworn in.

Treaties the U.S. has signed: in 1990 the United States signed the Copenhagen Document of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, known informally as the Helsinki Accords. The United States, and the other signatory nations, promised "to respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law."

Opinions of Academics: some Supreme Court Justices believe that it is bad policy to encourage voters to support minor parties and independents, but there is no academic support for this view. A review of scholarly books and articles published in the last twenty years about ballot access for minor parties and independent candidates finds many writings criticizing harsh ballot access laws, but none defending them.

The last scholarly writing that did defend harsh ballot access laws for minor parties and independent candidates was Political Scientist Larry Sabato’s 1988 book, "The Party’s Just Begun." But Sabato changed his mind about that, and commented in 1994 that it was very good that the Virginia ballot access laws that year were easy enough that four candidates for U.S. Senate qualified for the November ballot.

Vox Pop, the newsletter of the section of the American Political Science Association that deals with Political Parties, featured in its Spring 2011 issue an article by Professor J. David Gillespie, a political scientist/historian who was highly critical of restrictive ballot access laws in that article, and also in his books. Political scientists have several times filed amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to hear ballot access cases. No political scientists have ever filed an amicus with the Court opposing liberal ballot access for minor parties and independents.

Political scientist W. Dean Burnham testified in favor of the New Party, in its lawsuit that argued that states must let two different political parties jointly nominate the same candidate. That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the 8^th circuit had agreed with the New Party. The U.S. Supreme Court opinion which reversed the 8^th circuit, Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, quoted Professor Burnham to make it seem as though that the Professor was opposed to the position of the New Party, when the truth was the opposite.

Only three members of the current Court have ever written any opinion, concurrence or dissent while they were on the Supreme Court that defends minor parties or independents. Those justices are Stephen Breyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.

U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSALS TO HEAR MINOR PARTY, INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE ELECTION LAW LAWSUITS, 1991-2011

STATE	REFUSAL DATE	NAME OF CASE	ISSUE
N.H.	Oct. 11, 2011	Libertarian Party of NH v Gardner	Political party protection of its name on ballot
Mass.	Oct. 3, 2011	Barr v Galvin	Presidential stand-ins on petition
Ct.	June 28, 2011	Green Party of Ct v Lenge	Discriminatory public funding
Hawaii	May 5, 2011	Nader v Nago	Independent candidate number of signatures
Georgia	Jan. 18, 2011	Coffield v Kemp	Independent candidate number of signatures
Virginia	Sep. 30, 2010	Lux v Rodrigues	Residency requirement for circulators
Ala.	June 7, 2010	Shugert v Chapman	Independent candidate number of signatures
La.	June 7, 2010	Libertarian Party v Dardenne	Deadline for qualified party to submit electors
Illinois	May 18, 2009	Stevo v Keith	Independent candidate number of signatures
Maine	Aug. 20, 2008	Hoffman v Dunlap	Validity of signatures
Ala.	Jan. 7, 2008	Swanson v Chapman	Independent candidate number of signatures
Mont.	Oct. 9, 2007	Jones v Montana University System	Government-sponsored discriminatory debates
Pennsy.	Oct. 1, 2007	Rogers v Cortes	Petitions needed for nominees of qualified parties
Pennsy.	Feb. 16, 2007	Romanelli v Election Board	Large fees when petition is held invalid
Pennsy.	Jan. 8, 2007	Nader v Seroty II	Large fees when petition is held invalid
Ohio	June 5, 2006	Lawrence v Blackwell	Independent candidate petition deadline
Oregon	May 23, 2005	Kucera v Bradley	Arbitrary invalidation of petition signatures
Texas	March 21, 2005	Nader v Connor	Independent candidate number of signatures
Pennsy.	Jan. 10, 2005	Nader v Seroty I	Burdensome procedure for checking signatures
Calif.	Nov. 29, 2004	Baum v Superior Court	Validity of certain type of write-in votes
Ohio	Oct. 26, 2004	Blankenship v Blackwell	Residency requirement for circulators
Pennsy.	Oct. 4, 2004	Zulick v Wise	Discriminatory law on fusion
Calif.	Jan. 13, 2004	Van Susteren v Shelley	Party can’t nominate a non-member
Georgia	March 10, 2003	Cartwright v Barnes	Minor party U.S. House number of signatures
Arizona	Dec. 16, 2002	Browne v Bayless	Independent candidate petition deadline
Ohio	Oct. 7, 2002	Nader v Blackwell	Ballot labels, candidates who use indp. procedure
Ill.	March 18, 2002	Tobin for Gov. v Bd. of Elections	Immunity for election officials
Ohio	Oct. 1, 2001	Schrader v Blackwell	Ballot labels, candidates who use indp. procedure
Virginia	April 30, 2001	Wood v Quinn	Independent candidate petition deadline
federal	April 30, 2001	Nader v Fed. Elec. Commission	Access to corporate-funded presidential debates
Mich.	Oct. 9, 2000	Buchanan v Miller	State fails to adjudicate internal party dispute
P.R.	Oct. 2, 2000	Civil Action Party v Puerto Rico	Only notary-attorney may circulate petition
So. D.	Oct. 2, 2000	Nader 2000 v Hazeltine	When deadline held invalid, what relief due
Idaho	Sep. 28, 2000	Nader 2000 v Cenarrusa	Independent candidate number of signatures
Virginia	March 20, 2000	DeBauche v Trani	Government-sponsored discriminatory debates
Iowa	Jan. 11, 1999	Marcus v Iowa Public Television	Government-sponsored discriminatory debates
Ohio	Oct. 5, 1998	Miller v Lorain Co. Bd. Elections	Independent candidate number of signatures
Fla.	Oct. 6, 1997	Libertarian Party of Fl. V Smith	Discriminatory filing fees
Ill.	Oct. 6, 1997	Libertarian Party of Il. V Rednour	Minor party U.S. House number of signatures
Maine	March 25, 1996	McLaughlin v N.C. Bd. Elections	How a party remains on ballot
Okla.	Oct. 2, 1995	COFOE v McElderry	Write-in ban combined with tough ballot access
Ark.	Feb. 21, 1995	Langguth v McKuen	Independent candidate petition deadline
Kansas	Jan. 23, 1995	Hagelin for President v Graves	Independent candidate petition deadline
Me.	Oct. 11, 1993	Libertarian Party of Me. v Diamond	Number of signatures in small party primary
Illinois	June 21, 1993	Reed v Kusper	Must new party run a full slate
Calif.	Feb. 22, 1993	Lightfoot v Eu	Number of write-ins to win a party primary
Cal.	Sep. 24, 1992	Natural Law Party v Eu	Independent candidate petition deadline
Wisc.	June 22, 1992	Swamp v Kennedy	Ban on two parties nominating same candidate
Colo.	Apr. 20, 1992	Libertarian Party v Colo. Sec. of State	Party can’t nominate a non-member

Most of these instances are denials of cert petitions; a few are denials of injunctive relief.

On October 7, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 205, which would have made it illegal to pay registration workers on a per-registration basis. Because (due to Proposition 14) the only way California minor parties can remain ballot-qualified is to have approximately 110,000 registrants, this bill, if it had taken effect, would have crippled registration drives needed to preserve party existence.

On October 17, the 8^th Circuit upheld a North Dakota law that has kept all minor party legislative candidates off the general election ballot since 1976. Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger, 10-3212. The decision is by Judge Kermit Bye, a Clinton appointee, and co-signed by Judge Roger Wollman, a Reagan appointee, and Judge Bobby Shepherd, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The law requires that no one may be nominated for the legislature in a party primary, even if that person got the most votes, unless he or she polls a number of votes that equals 1% of the population (including children and aliens). In 2010, the turnout in all three primaries (Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian) was low, so that in some districts, 15% of the voters who voted in all three primaries put together would have needed to choose the Libertarian primary ballot, in order for the party to place its nominee on the November ballot. In other words, 1% of the population equaled 15% of the actual voters in all party primaries put together.

Minor parties, even when they have considerable voter appeal, almost always have very low turnout in their primaries. In 1998, only 3% of the voters who actually voted in all party primaries chose to vote in the Minnesota Reform Party primary. Notwithstanding that, the Reform Party elected the Governor in November.

The judges erroneously believed that once a party submits 7,000 valid signatures, it is on the ballot forever after. The decision says that the primary vote restriction is needed to keep the ballot from being crowded with too many candidates, because party qualification is so easy.

Actually, submitting the petition only puts a party on the ballot for one election year, and the party must re-do that same petition every two years unless it polls 5%. On October 31, the party filed a request for a rehearing that points out this error.

Americans Elect says one reason it exists is because the system by which the major parties choose presidential nominees is so unfair and chaotic. This argument is especially powerful in 2012, when the length of the presidential primary season is an unprecedented 178 days long, almost six months. The first primary is on January 10 and the last is June 26. By contrast, in all presidential elections from 1912 through 1972, the primary season was never more than 90 days long.

The chart on page 4 has all presidential primary dates for elections 1988-201
2. The chart also shows the median date (i.e., the date on which half the primaries are over) for the years 1988-2012. The 2012 median date is two months later than it was in 2008. This is because so many states that used February presidential primaries in 2008 have shifted to later months for 2012.

DATES OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

State	2012	2008	2004	2000	1996	1992	1988
Alabama	March 13	February 5	June 1	June 6	June 4	June 2	March 8
Arizona	February 28	February 5	February 3	February 22	February 27	– – –	– – –
Arkansas	May 22	February 5	May 18	May 23	May 21	May 26	March 8
California	June 5	February 5	.March 2	March 7	March 26	June 2	June 7
Colorado	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	March 5	March 3	– – –
Connecticut	April 24	February 5	March 2	March 7	March 5	March 24	March 29
Delaware	April 24	February 5	February 3	February 5	February 24	– – –	– – –
D. C.	April 3	February 12	January 13	May 2	May 7	May 5	May 3
Florida	January 31	January 29	March 9	March 14	March 12	March 10	March 8
Georgia	March 6	February 5	March 2	March 7	March 5	March 3	March 8
Idaho	May 15	May 27	May 25	May 23	May 28	May 26	May 24
Illinois	March 20	February 5	March 16	March 21	March 19	March 17	March 15
Indiana	May 8	May 6	May 4	May 2	May 7	May 5	May 3
Kansas	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	April 7	– – –
Kentucky	May 22	May 20	May 18	May 23	May 28	May 26	March 8
Louisiana	March 24	February 9	March 9	March 14	March 12	March 10	March 8
Maine	– – –	– – –	– – –	March 7	March 5	– – –	– – –
Maryland	April 3	February 12	March 2	March 7	March 5	March 3	March 8
Mass.	March 6	February 5	March 2	March 7	March 5	March 10	March 8
Michigan	Feb. 28	January 15	– – –	February 22	March 19	March 17	– – –
Minnesota	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	April 7	– – –
Mississippi	March 13	March 11	March 9	March 14	March 12	March 10	March 8
Missouri	February 7	February 5	February 3	March 7	– – –	– – –	March 8
Montana	June 5	June 3	June 8	June 6	June 4	June 2	June 7
Nebraska	May 15	May 13	May 11	May 9	May 14	May 12	May 10
Nevada	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	March 26	– – –	– – –
New Hamp.	Jan. 10	January 8	January 27	February 1	February 20	February 18	February 16
New Jersey	June 5	February 5	June 8	June 6	June 4	June 2	June 7
New Mex.	June 5	June 3	June 1	June 6	June 4	June 2	June 7
New York	April 24	February 5	March 2	March 7	March 7	April 7	April 19
No. Car.	May 8	May 6	– – –	May 2	May 7	May 5	March 8
No. Dakota	– – –	– – –	– – –	– – –	February 27	June 9	June 14
Ohio	June 12	March 4	March 2	March 7	March 19	June 2	May 3
Oklahoma	March 6	February 5	February 3	March 14	March 12	March 10	March 8
Oregon	May 15	May 20	May 18	May 16	March 12	May 19	May 17
Pennsyl.	April 24	April 22	April 27	April 4	April 23	April 28	April 26
Puerto Rico	– – –	June 1	– – –	February 27	– – –	April 5	March 21
Rhode Is.	April 24	March 4	March 2	March 7	March 5	March 10	March 8
So. Caro.	Jan. 21	January 19	February 3	February 19	March 2	March 7	March 5
So. Dakota	June 5	June 3	June 1	June 6	February 27	February 25	February 23
Tennessee	March 6	February 5	February 10	March 14	March 12	March 10	March 8
Texas	March 6	March 4	March 9	March 14	March 12	March 10	March 8
Utah	June 26	February 5	February 24	March 10	– – –	– – –	– – –
Vermont	March 6	March 4	March 2	March 7	March 5	– – –	March 1
Virginia	March 6	February 12	February 10	February 29	– – –	– – –	March 8
Washington	– – –	February 19	– – –	February 29	March 26	May 19	– – –
West Va.	May 8	May 13	May 11	May 9	May 14	May 12	May 10
Wisconsin	April 3	February 19	February 17	April 4	March 19	April 7	April 5
MEDIAN	April 13	February 12	March 2	March 14	March 12	April 7	March 8
RANGE	168 days	147 days	147 days	126 days	105 days	112 days	119 days

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB’T	GREEN	CONSTI	AM. ELE	Party	Indp.
Ala.	44,829	5,000	0	0	0	*53,000	Mar. 13	Sep. 6
Alaska	(reg) 7,406	#3,271	already on	*2,158	*19	already on	June 1	Aug. 8
Ariz.	23,041	(est) #27,000	already on	already on	0	already on	Mar. 1	Sep. 7
Ark.	10,000	#1,000	already on	*3,500	0	0	June 30	Aug. 1
Calif.	1,030,040	172,859	already on	already on	negotiation	finished	Jan. 2	Aug. 10
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $500	already on	already on	already on	*finished	Jan. 8	June 4
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 8
Del.	(est.) (reg) 650	(est.) 6,500	already on	540	*finished	0	Aug. 21	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	(est.) #3,900	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 21
Florida	0	112,174	already on	already on	already on	already on	*Sep. 1	July 15
Georgia	*50,334	#*51,845	already on	0	0	*25,000	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Hawaii	691	#4,536	already on	500	0	finished	Feb. 22	Sep. 7
Idaho	13,102	1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Aug. 30	Aug. 24
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	June 25
Indiana	no procedure	#34,195	already on	0	0	0	– – –	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	– – –	Aug. 17
Kansas	16,776	5,000	already on	0	0	already on	June 1	Aug. 6
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Sep. 7
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $500	already on	already on	0	0	May 17	Sep. 4
Maine	28,639	#4,000	0	already on	0	*5,000	Dec 8, 11	Aug. 8
Md.	10,000	(est.) 35,000	already on	already on	*300	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Mass.	(est) (reg) 40,000	#10,000	15,857	already on	0	0	Nov. 1, 11	July 31
Mich.	32,261	30,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 19	July 19
Minn.	105,352	#2,000	0	0	0	0	May 1	Aug. 21
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Jan. 6	Sep. 7
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	0	already on	finished	July 30	July 30
Mont.	5,000	#5,000	already on	0	200	*3,000	Mar. 15	Aug. 15
Nebr.	4,880	2,500	already on	0	0	0	Aug. 1	Sep. 1
Nev.	7,013	7,013	already on	0	already on	already on	April 13	July 6
N. Hamp.	13,698	#3,000	*14,000	0	0	0	Aug. 8	Aug. 8
N.J.	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	– – –	July 30
N. M.	3,009	18,053	already on	700	0	0	Apr. 2	June 27
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 21
No. Car.	85,379	85,379	already on	*500	3,000	*2,000	May 16	June 14
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	*150	0	0	0	Apr. 13	Sep. 7
Ohio	*show support	5,000	already on	*already on	*already on	*already on	unsettled	Aug. 8
Okla.	51,739	43,890	*19,000	0	0	*5,000	March 1	July 15
Oregon	21,804	18,279	already on	*8,956	already on	*12,000	Aug. 28	Aug. 28
Penn.	no procedure	(es) #25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 1
R.I.	17,115	#1,000	0	0	0	*4,000	June 1	Sep. 7
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	*3,000	May 6	July 15
So. Dak.	7,928	3,171	*6,300	0	0	0	Mar. 27	Aug. 7
Tenn.	40,042	275	0	0	0	*5,000	April 5	Aug. 16
Texas	49,729	80,778	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	May 20	May 14
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	0	already on	finished	Feb. 15	Aug. 15
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	organizing	0	organizing	Jan. 1	Jun 14
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 24
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 28
West Va.	no procedure	#7,135	0	already on	0	0	– – –	Aug. 1
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	can’t start	can’t start	already on	can’t start	June 1	Sep. 7
Wyo.	3,740	3,740	already on	0	*3,500	0	June 1	Aug. 28
TOTAL STATES ON			29	16*	12*	7*	“	`

#partisan label permitted (other than "independent").
"AMER ELE" = Americans Elect Party.
* change since Oct. 1 issue.

On October 14-16, the Socialist Party held its presidential convention in Los Angeles. Stewart A. Alexander, 60, of Murrieta, California, was nominated for President. He is black and is the first racial or ethnic minority the Socialist Party has ever nominated for President. He was the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2008.

The Socialist Party has not had its presidential nominee on the California ballot since 1940. Stewart hopes the Peace & Freedom Party will nominate him so that he can be on in California.

For vice-president, the convention chose Alejandro Mendoza, 35, who is currently seeking his Masters Degree in Geosciences at the University of Texas in Dallas.

The Green Party presidential convention will be July 14-15, either in Baltimore or Sacramento.

West Virginia elected a Governor on October 4. The results: Democrat Earl Tomblin 149,346 (49.54%); Republican Bill Maloney 141,991 (47.10%); Mountain Party nominee Bob Henry Baber 6,083 (2.02%); Marla Ingalls, independent, .2,875 (.95%); Harry V. Bertram of American Third Position, 1,111 (.37%). The Constitution Party candidate, Phil Hudok, received 79 write-ins.

Louisiana held its election for state officers on October 22.
For Governor, Republican Bobby Jindal, received 673,239 (65.80%). The four Democrats received 288,161 (28.16%). The Libertarian, Scott Lewis, received 12,528 (1.22%). The four independents received 49,235 (4.81%).

For Agriculture and Forestry Commission, the results are: Republican Mike Strain 640,886 (66.50%); Democrat Jamie LaBranche 267,942 (27.80%); Reform Party nominee Belinda Alexandrenko 54,888 (5.70%).

On October 18, Massachusetts held a special election for State House, Berkshire 3 District. The official results are still not available, and the Secretary of State will not release unofficial results. Press reports vary. One report says the Green Party nominee, Mark C. Miller, lost to the Democrat by only 92 votes; another report says he lost by 192 votes. Miller easily outpolled the Republican nominee and the independent nominee. The next issue of B.A.N. will carry the official results.

Minnesota also held a special legislative election on October 18, and in the State Senate 61^st district, the Green Party nominee placed second and outpolled the Republican nominee. The results are: Democrat Jeff Hayden 1,856 (68.34%); Green Party nominee Farheen Hakeem 595 (21.91%); Republican Bruce Lundeen 221 (8.14%); Independence Party nominee Matt Brillhart 44 (1.62%).

---

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.