ARIZONA VOTERS DEFEAT TOP-TWO BY MARGIN OF 2:1

AUTHORS OF TOP-TWO LOSE IN CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON

On November 6, Arizona voters defeated Proposition 121 by 1,340,286 to 662,366. Proposition 121 was an initiative to change elections to a top-two system, similar to those used in Washington state and California.

One reason the measure lost is that it was described clearly on the ballot: "Proposition 121 Relating to Direct Primary Law. A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of replacing the current party primary election with a ‘top-two’ primary election in which all voters, regardless of party affiliation, vote in a single, combined primary, and the top two vote-getters for each seat advance to the general election ballot. This ‘top-two’ primary will not apply to the election of the U.S. President or to elections in which no party affiliation appears on the ballot."

By contrast, when California voters passed a top-two measure by 53.73% in June 2010, the ballot said, "Proposition 14. Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. Changes the primary process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference."

Mark Rogalski, an Arizona activist, took the lead in getting the measure described accurately on the ballot. He persuaded the Secretary of State to revise the language so that it included the term "top-two."

Supporters of the initiative said they lost because opponents received a big contribution for advertising. The contribution was from Americans for Responsive Leadership. It contributed $450,000 on October 15, and another $150,000 at the end of October. The money paid for direct mail and TV ads against Prop. 121.

The direct mail piece said, "Prop. 121 would completely eliminate Arizona’s open primary elections. If Prop. 121 passed, big special interest money will control our elections." Also, "You May Not Have a Choice of Political Party in the general elections. Prop. 121 could result in general elections between two candidates from the same political party. Two Democrats only. Or two Republicans only. No other parties to choose from. No choice between a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or other political parties."

The TV spot showed a picture of a ballot with a fairly lengthy list of candidates, but then most of them vanished. The narrator stressed that the measure would shrink voter choice in the general election.

The Goldwater Institute held a forum for opponents of the measure, which publicized the fact that the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green Parties opposed the measure. Christina Tobin of Free & Equal toured the state and spoke against Proposition 121 in five cities. The League of Women Voters opposed the measure.

Proponents also used direct mail, which carried the message that the initiative would weaken the control of political parties and cause more moderate legislators to be elected.

Although proponents complained about the spending against the measure, they raised $1.343,540, most of it raised from business interests, including $50,000 from Rob Walton, head of Walmart.

The League of Women Voters will now ask the proponents to work with them to persuade the legislature to ease ballot access for independent candidates.

California

On November 6, Abel Maldonado, the Republican candidate for U.S. House, 24^th district, lost to Lois Capps, the Democratic incumbent, 55%-45%. Ironically, this was the only election Maldonado has ever lost in his part of California, the central coast. And, it is the only top-two election he has ever been in.

Maldonado won partisan elections in the blanket primary years of 1998 and 2000, and the semi-closed primary years of 2002, 2004, and 2008. Although he has lost two statewide elections (in 2006 for Controller and in 2010 for Lieutenant Governor), he always carried San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in those statewide primaries and elections.

This is all very ironic, because Maldonado is the man who forced the California legislature in 2009 to put the top-two measure on the ballot, and he campaigned vigorously for it. However, chances are, the 2012 congressional race would have turned out the same even if it had been conducted with a semi-closed primary.

More importantly, the California 2012 top-two experience did not perform as its supporters had predicted. The California large newspapers and business interests promoted Proposition 14 as a way to reduce the number of Republicans in the legislature who refused to be flexible on raising taxes. But only one state legislative race in 2012 appears to have worked that way. In the 5^th Assembly race, an anti-tax former state legislator, Rico Oller, lost to another Republican who said he would consider raising taxes. Probably Oller would have won under California’s former semi-closed primary system.

Offsetting that success (from the point of view of the proponents), Proposition 14 had the unfortunate result of cheating the Democratic majority in the U.S. House race, 31^st district, from a chance to elect a Democrat. Only two conservative Republicans were on the November ballot, and there was no write-in space. The district voted heavily for President Obama and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Democrats far outnumber Republicans in the district. Every observer agrees that if a Democrat had been on the November ballot, he or she would have won.

No Democrat was on the ballot in the 31^st district because four strong Democrats split the primary vote, whereas only two Republicans ran in June, so Republicans narrowly won both the first and second place spots in the primary.

Some backers of Proposition 14 argued that a top-two system would help independent candidates, but no independent candidates were elected, even though a few of them had as much campaign funding as their major party opponents.

By contrast, 17 independent candidates and 8 minor party candidates were elected to state legislatures last month, all in states that don’t use top-two systems. Also two independent U.S. Senators were elected or re-elected, also in states that don’t use top-two.

Washington

On November 6, Rob McKenna, Republican candidate for Governor, lost to Democratic candidate Jay Inslee by 1,575,909 to 1,483,176 (these figu
res are not final). McKenna had been the champion of the top-two system in his state. As Attorney General, he personally argued in defense of the top-two system in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, and he won the case, although the 2008 decision only says the system doesn’t violate freedom of association on its face, and the decision also says in footnote eleven that the ballot access issue is still open.

Furthermore, when the case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court this year, McKenna used his clout with the state Republican Party to keep the Republican Party from participating in the new appeal. That was probably the reason the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the new appeal, on October 1, 2012. The Republican Party wanted to be in the appeal, but McKenna was the party’s presumptive gubernatorial nominee and he used his influence to block the party from appealing.

In other results in Washington state in the 2012 election, the top-two system maintained its characteristic of helping incumbents to be re-elected. 2012 was the third election in a row at which Washington used the top-two system. In all three elections, no incumbent member of Congress has been defeated for re-election.

On November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, 12-96. The issue is whether the federal Voting Rights Act, section 5, is unconstitutional. This part of the Act has been upheld by the Court several times in the past. Section 5 requires certain states, and parts of certain other states, to get permission from the U.S. Department of Justice before altering any election laws or practices. The lower court had upheld the act.

That makes two election law cases that the Court has accepted this term. The other one is Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 12-71, over whether the state may add extra questions to the federal voter registration form.

The Court will probably decide in January 2013 whether to hear Daneilczyk v U.S., 12-579, over whether corporations have a right to make donations (up to the contribution limit) to candidates for federal office. As is well known, in 2010 the court ruled that corporations may make independent expenditures.

The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan, by Timothy Stanley, 455 pages, 2012.

The author is a historian at Oxford University who specializes in U.S. history. His biography of Pat Buchanan includes three chapters on Buchanan’s experience winning the Reform Party presidential nomination in 2000, and running as its nominee. There are so few books about the Reform Party, especially its history after 1996, that this book is valuable. Also, the author is a talented writer, and the book is so interesting it is hard to put it down.

Unfortunately, the book’s chapters on the Reform Party are not well researched. For those chapters, the author depended on his extensive interviews with Pat and Bay Buchanan, plus articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post. He did not interview leaders of the Reform Party nor of the Natural Law Party. One chapter is "Pat Buchanan vs. the Flying Buddhists." This is a reference to Buchanan’s struggle with John Hagelin, leader of the Natural Law Party, for the nomination of the Reform Party. "Flying Buddhists" is inaccurate as a nickname for the Transcendental Movement created by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of the world’s Natural Law Parties. It is true that the TM movement practiced yogic flying but to the extent TM has religious roots, they are Hindu, not Buddhist.

Also the author didn’t understand the process by which candidates for the Reform nomination were supposed to qualify. He says candidates were obliged to get signatures from all 50 states, and then the people who signed those ballot access petitions would automatically receive a mail ballot to let them help choose the Reform Party nominee. Actually, the Reform Party was already on the ballot in 1999 in 21 states, and the candidates were expected to collect signatures only in the other 29 states, not all 50 states.

~	Dem.	Rep.	Indp, misc	Lib’t.	Green	Consti.	Reform	Am. Elect	other
Alaska	73,468	137,666	268,797	7,719	2,007	80	?	?	16,964
Arizona	952,931	1,120,992	1,023,603	22,086	4,863	?	?	237	– –
Calif.	7,966,422	5,356,608	4,138,251	108,736	115,034	260	17,937	3,313	539,409
Colorado	887,470	925,785	900,490	19,585	7,197	5,702	?	3,017	– –
Conn.	767,693	430,439	873,337	1,603	1,815	182	87	?	14,155
Delaware	300,332	181,717	144,198	908	634	414	105	?	3,953
Dt. Col.	354,658	30,483	81,595	?	4,225	?	?	?	– –
Florida	4,781,978	4,245,991	2,572,901	19,892	5,705	974	1,961	103	304,941
Idaho	36,220	196,271	550,189	1,312	?	548	?	?	– –
Iowa	628,043	629,443	694,558	2,203	875	0	0	0	– –
Kansas	446,237	790,345	522,096	11,373	0	0	978	223	0
Kentucky	1,665,853	1,151,331	216,333	2,615	637	226	92	?	66
Louis’na	1,429,073	815,769	707,159	6,889	1,707	118	1,441	764	79
Maine	297,445	258,463	337,535	?	32,315	?	?	58	– –
Maryland	2,059,544	959,858	655,000	11,256	8,716	?	?	153	– –
Mass.	1,551,693	484,099	2,286,646	13,336	6,507	102	205	?	253
Nebraska	374,191	558,170	228,563	3,117	?	?	?	125	– –
Nevada	526,986	436,799	226,072	8,448	1,186	58,130	?	?	– –
N. Hamp.	224,915	258,714	307,805	?	?	?	?	?	– –
N. Jersey	1,787,480	1,084,757	2,621,197	1,899	1,203	164	71	?	551
N. Mex.	596,209	395,992	249,350	3,541	6,953	143	3	1	2,081
N. York	5,913,035	2,873,360	2,480,766	3,874	22,955	?	?	?	675,202
No. Car.	2,871,249	2,052,608	1,707,318	19,347	?	?	?	?	– –
Okla.	965,073	895,771	254,225	?	?	?	?	18	– –
Oregon	878,460	688,504	521,595	15,434	11,143	3,401	?	82	100,738
Pennsyl.	3,877,434	2,890,368	968,009	36,353	12,599	3,814	?	?	– –
Rhode Is.	299,037	77,177	355,511	?	?	?	?	106	1,090
So. Dak.	189,493	243,113	94,536	1,126	?	349	?	4	– –
Utah	120,929	614,730	556,911	5,572	1,089	3,221	?	15	34
W. Va.	638,086	353,179	236,555	1,448	1,317	?	?	?	– –
Wyo.	51,109	160,361	27,709	1,139	?	90	?	9	21
TOTAL	43,512,746	31,298,863	26,808,810	330,811	250,682	77,918	22,880	6,408	1,659,537
Percent	41.85%	30.10%	25.79%	.32%	.24%	.07%	.02%	.01%	1.60%

All figures are from October and November 2012, except the Connecticut minor party numbers are as of February 2012.

Totals October 2010 were: Dem. 43,140,758 (42.98%), Rep. 30,700,138 (30.58%), Indp. & misc. 24,359,097 (24.27%), AIP/Constitution 476,669 (.47%), Libertarian 278,446 (.28%), Green 246,145 (.25%), Working Families 44,867 (.04%), Reform 30,237 (.03%), other parties 1,107,843 (1.10%).

Totals October 2008 were: Dem. 43,933,901 (43.62%), Rep. 30,944,590 (30.72%), Indp. & misc. 24,157,259 (23.98%), AIP/Constitution 438,222 (.44%), Green 255,019 (.25%), Libertarian 240,328 (.24%), Reform 32,961 (.03%), other parties 675,980 (.67%).

Totals October 2004 were: Dem. 37,301,951 (42.19%), Rep. 28,988,593 (32.79%), Indp. & misc. 20,471,250 (23.15%), Constitution 320,019 (.36%), Green 298,701 (.34%), Libertarian 235,521 (.27%), Reform 63,729 (.07%), Natural Law 39,670 (.04%), other parties 695,639 (.79%).

Totals October 2000 were: Dem. 38,529,264 (43.84%), Rep. 28,813,511 (32.78%), Indp. & misc. 18,999,126 (21.62%), Constitution 348,977 (.40%), Libertarian 224,713 (.26%), Green 193,332 (.22%), Reform 99,408 (.11%), Natural Law 61,405 (.07%), other parties 620,668 (.71%).

Totals October 1992 were: Dem. 35,616,630 (47.76%), Rep. 24,590,383 (32.97%), Indp. & misc. 13,617,167 (18.26%), Green 102,557 (.14%), Libertarian 100,394 (.13%), other parties 554,668 (.74%).

~	Obama	Romney	Johnson	Stein	Goode	Barr	Anderson	Hoefling	P.S.L
Alabama	795,696	1,254,925	12,328	3,397	2,981	5	8	?	?
Alaska	122,640	164,676	7,392	2,917	?	?	?	?	?
Arizona	1,025,232	1,233,654	32,100	7,816	289	?	119	?	?
Arkansas	394,409	647,744	16,276	9,305	0	0	0	0	0
Calif.	7,854,285	4,839,958	143,221	85,638	503	53,824	992	38,372	1,734
Colorado	1,322,998	1,185,050	35,540	7,508	6,233	5,055	1,262	679	316
Conn.	905,083	634,892	12,340	863	?	?	4,971	?	?
Del.	242,584	165,484	3,882	1,940	23	?	?	?	?
D.C.	267,070	21,381	2,083	2,458	?	?	?	?	?
Florida	4,237,756	4,163,447	44,726	8,947	2,607	8,154	1,754	946	322
Georgia	1,773,827	2,078,688	45,324	1,516	432	?	154	?	?
Hawaii	306,658	121,015	3,840	3,184	0	0	0	0	0
Idaho	212,787	420,911	9,453	4,402	2,222	?	2,499	?	?
Illinois	3,019,512	2,135,216	56,229	30,222	415	?	185	?	?
Indiana	1,152,887	1,420,543	50,111	625	290	?	?	35	?
Iowa	822,544	730,617	12,926	3,769	3,038	?	?	?	371
Kansas	440,726	692,634	20,456	714	187	58	95	?	?
Kentucky	679,370	1,087,190	17,063	6,337	245	?	60	?	?
Louisiana	809,141	1,152,262	18,157	6,978	2,508	0	1,368	?	622
Maine	401,306	292,276	9,352	8,119	?	?	62	?	?
Maryland	1,677,844	971,869	30,195	17,110	418	64	204	?	?
Mass.	1,921,290	1,188,314	30,920	20,691	?	?	?	?	?
Michigan	2,564,569	2,115,256	7,774	21,897	16,119	?	5,147	42	?
Minn.	1,546,167	1,320,225	35,098	13,023	3,722	46	1,996	?	397
Miss.	562,949	710,746	6,676	1,588	2,609	?	?	?	?
Missouri	1,223,796	1,482,440	43,151	?	7,936	?	?	?	?
Montana	201,839	267,928	14,165	?	39	6	59	5	?
Nebraska	302,081	475,064	11,109	?	?	?	?	?	?
Nevada	531,373	463,567	10,968	0	3,240	0	0	0	0
N. Hamp.	369,561	329,918	8,212	324	708	?	?	?	?
N. Jersey	2,122,786	1,478,088	21,035	9,886	2,063	?	1,723	?	445
N. Mex.	415,335	335,788	27,788	2,691	982	0	1,174	0	0
N. York	4,471,871	2,485,432	47,092	37,826	6,270	?	212	34	2,039
No. Car.	2,178,391	2,270,395	44,515	?	534	?	?	?	?
No. Dak.	124,966	188,320	5,238	1,362	1,186	?	?	?	?
Ohio	2,827,621	2,661,407	49,493	18,574	8,151	?	?	?	?
Okla.	443,547	891,325	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Oregon	970,488	754,175	24,089	19,427	?	?	3,384	?	?
Penn.	2,990,274	2,680,434	49,991	21,341	?	?	?	?	?
R.I.	279,677	157,204	4,388	2,421	430	?	416	?	132
S.Car.	865,941	1,071,645	16,321	5,446	4,765	0	0	0	0
S.Dak.	145,039	210,610	5,795	0	2,371	0	0	0	0
Tenn.	960,709	1,462,330	18,623	6,515	6,022	?	2,639	?	?
Texas	3,308,124	4,569,843	88,580	24,657	1,287	?	426	?	?
Utah	251,813	740,600	12,572	3,817	2,871	18	5,335	?	393
Vermont	199,239	92,698	3,487	?	?	?	1,128	?	695
Virginia	1,971,820	1,822,522	31,216	8,627	13,058	?	76	?	?
Wash.	1,755,396	1,290,670	42,202	20,928	8,851	?	4,946	?	1,318
W.Va.	238,269	417,655	6,302	4,406	119	31	12	?	?
Wisc.	1,620,985	1,410,966	20,439	7,665	4,930	88	112	?	516
Wyoming	69,286	170,962	5,326	?	1,452	?	?	?	?
TOTAL	65,899,557	60,931,959	1,275,559	466,877	122,106	67,349	42,518	40,113	9,300

Reform: had three different presidential candidates, each on the ballot in one state. Chuck Baldwin received 5,017 in Kansas; Andre Barnett received 820 in Florida plus these write-ins: Alabama 1, Maryland 19, Minnesota 4, Montana 2, Texas 87, Utah 5, total 938; Barbara Washer received 1,016 in Mississippi.

Objectivist: 235 in Colorado, 3,856 in Florida, total 4,302.

Socialist: 308 in Colorado, 799 in Florida, 2,967 in Ohio, plus these write-ins: Alabama 2, California 82, Indiana 17, Michigan 89, Montana 4, Texas 162, total 4,430.

Socialist Workers: 192 in Colorado, 445 in Iowa, 389 in Louisiana, 1,051 in Minnesota, 709 in New Jersey, 1,205 in Washington, plus these write-ins: Alabama 1, California 72, Connecticut 5, Georgia 21, New York 26, total 4,116.

Grassroots: 3,149 in Minnesota.

American Third Position: 268 in Colorado
, 664 in New Jersey, 1,739 in Tennessee, plus these write-ins: Alabama 1, Maryland 26, New York 6, West Virginia 11, total 2,715.

We the People: 791 in Colorado, 1,767 in Louisiana, plus these write-ins: Arizona 6, California 6, Virginia 1, total 2,571.

Twelve Visions: 2,588 in Colorado, plus these write-ins: Alabama 1, Arizona 17, Delaware 1, Florida 36, Georgia 30, Illinois 131, Indiana 8, Kansas 4, Maine 30, Maryland 7, Minnesota 8, New York 12, Ohio 23, Utah 6, Virginia 14, total 2,916.

Socialist Equality: 189 in Colorado, 355 in Louisiana, 553 in Wisconsin, plus these write-ins: California 79, Illinois 12, Kentucky 4, Michigan 68, New York 19, total 1,279.

Constitutional Government: 1,092 in Minnesota, plus one write-in in Maryland, total 1,093.

NSA Did 911: 1,024 in New Jersey.

Prohibition: 518 in Louisiana.

Candidates on the ballot as "independent" are Randall Terry, who got 6,872 in Kentucky, 2,408 in Nebraska, and 3,806 in West Virginia, plus these write-ins: Colorado 4, Ohio 14, total 13,104. Also Richard Duncan in Ohio, 12,502, plus these write-ins: Florida 3, Kentucky 37, West Virginia, total 12,543. Also Jerry Litrzel, Iowa, 1,027.

The Constitution Party of Oregon placed Will Christensen on the ballot, and he got 4,432 in that state, plus these write-ins: Arizona 14, Kansas 1, Minnesota 1, Utah 5, total 4,453.

The Freedom Socialist presidential candidate, Stephen Durham, wasn’t on the ballot anywhere, but he got these write-ins: California 54, Connecticut 1, Florida 3, Indiana 1, Kentucky 2, Maryland 19, New York 34, Utah 1, total 115.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB’T	GREEN	CONSTI	JUSTICE	Party	Indp.
Ala.	44,829	44,829	in court	in court	in court	0	in court	in court
Alaska	(reg) 8,925	#2,975	already on	2,007	*80	0	June 1	Aug. 26
Ariz.	23,041	(est) #31,000	already on	(reg) 4,863	0	already on	Feb. 28	May 28
Ark.	10,000	10,000	0	0	0	0	April 12	May 1
Calif.	(reg) 103,004	65 + fee	already on	already on	260	already on	unsettled	March 7
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	Jan. 8	July 10
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	can’t start	already on	0	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 13
Del.	(est.) (reg) 650	(est.) 6,500	already on	already on	*414	unknown	Aug. 19	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	(est.) #3,900	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 6
Florida	0	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	already on	Sep. 1	July 15
Georgia	50,334	#50,334	already on	can’t start	can’t start	0	July 8	July 8
Hawaii	706	25	0	already on	0	0	Feb. 20	June 10
Idaho	13,102	1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Aug. 30	March 14
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	June 23
Indiana	no procedure	#34,195	already on	0	0	0	– – –	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	– – –	Aug. 15
Kansas	16,776	5,000	already on	0	0	already on	June 2	Aug. 4
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 12
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay fee	already on	already on	118	764	May 15	Aug. 15
Maine	28,639	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	Dec 12, 11	June 2
Md.	10,000	(est.) 40,000	already on	already on	0	already on	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Mass.	(est) (reg) 43,000	#10,000	13,336	6,507	102	0	Nov. 5, 11	July 29
Mich.	32,261	30,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 16	July 16
Minn.	146,297	#2,000	0	0	0	0	May 1	June 17
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	April 4	April 4
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	0	already on	0	July 28	July 28
Mont.	5,000	#11,823	already on	0	0	0	March 13	unsettled
Nebr.	4,880	4,000	already on	0	0	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 25
Nev.	9,738	9,738	already on	0	already on	0	April 11	Feb. 7
N. Hamp.	20,779	#3,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
N.J.	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	– – –	June 3
N. M.	3,009	18,053	already on	already on	already on	already on	in court	June 24
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 19
No. Car.	89,366	89,366	already on	0	0	0	in court	June 12
No. Dak.	7,000	1,000	0	0	0	0	Apr. 11	Sep. 5
Ohio	show support	5,000	already on	already on	already on	ambiguous	unsettled	May 5
Okla.	66,744	pay fee	in court	in court	0	0	in court	April 11
Oregon	17,700	18,279	already on	already on	already on	82	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Penn.	no procedure	(est.) 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	0	June 2	July 17
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	May 4	July 15
So. Dak.	7,928	3,171	already on	0	already on	already on	Mar. 25	June 3
Tenn.	40,042	25	0	0	0	0	Aug. 6	April 3
Texas	49,729	49,729	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	May 20	April 27
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	0	already on	0	March 1	March 17
Vermont	be organized	#500	already on	0	0	already on	Jan. 1	in court
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	June 10
Wash.	no procedure	#pay fee	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	May 17
West Va.	no procedure	#6,516	already on	already on	0	0	– – –	Aug. 1
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	0	already on	already on	May 1	June 3
Wyo.	4,833	4,833	already on	0	already on	0	June 1	Aug. 25
TOTAL STATES ON			31	20	15	12	“	`

#
partisan label permitted (other than "independent").
"AMER ELE" = Americans Elect Party.

During 2012, only three presidential candidates received primary season matching funds. Ironically, all three were (for a time) minor party candidates. Buddy Roemer received $351,961; Jill Stein $333,331; Gary Johnson $510,261.

In November 2012, 17 independent state legislators, and 8 minor party nominees, were elected to state legislatures. This is the greatest number of such legislators since 1942. The eight minor party legislators include 7 Progressives in Vermont, and one Green in Arkansas.

As far as is known, the only other partisan victories won by minor parties are two Green Party victories in Arkansas, one Green Party victory in Colorado, and one Libertarian Party victory in Arkansas. The offices for the Greens in Arkansas are Craighead County Clerk and Justice of the Peace, district 6, Mississippi County. The Colorado Green Party race was County Commissioner in San Miguel County. The Arkansas Libertarian race was for Constable, DeKalb Township, Grant County.

The next B.A.N. will list non-partisan offices won by minor party candidates on November 6, 2012.

During October and November, there were three presidential debates involving minor party nominees. On October 24, Free & Equal sponsored a debate in Chicago. Participants were Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. The same four particpants debated again in Washington, D.C., on November 4, sponsored by Ralph Nader. Johnson and Stein debated each other again on November 5, also in Washington, D.C., in another Free & Equal debate.

---

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.

Ballot Access News is published by and copyright by Richard Winger. Note: subscriptions are available!