September 2015 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
September 1, 2015 – Volume 31, Number 4

This issue was printed on gray paper.


Table of Contents

  1. STEVE PEACE, AUTHOR OF CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO, NOW WANTS TOP-THREE WITH INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING
  2. PENNSYLVANIA WILL APPEAL BALLOT ACCESS DECISION
  3. U.S. DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDS ARKANSAS MARCH 3 DEADLINE
  4. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
  5. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
  6. SOUTH DAKOTA ACCIDENTALLY REPEALED DEADLINE
  7. HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS THAT SORE LOSER LAWS DON’T APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
  8. 2015 PARTY REVENUE FROM STATE INCOME TAX “CHECK-OFF”
  9. 2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  10. THREE MINOR PARTIES CHOOSE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES
  11. GREENS SET LATE CONVENTION
  12. FORMER CONGRESSMAN SEEMS LIKELY TO SEEK CONSTITUTION NOMINATION
  13. CANADA HOLDS 4-PARTY DEBATE
  14. OREGON INDEPENDENT PARTY QUALIFIES FOR ITS OWN PRIMARY
  15. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

STEVE PEACE, AUTHOR OF CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO, NOW WANTS TOP-THREE WITH INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING

On August 19, former California State Senator Steve Peace, the man who wrote Proposition 14, the top-two system used in California, declared publicly that he now favors changing the system to top-three with instant runoff voting.

The announcement was made at a public forum organized by the Independent Voters Network and California Forward. The meeting featured California’s Secretary of State and six state legislators. Despite the impressive roster of speakers, no news media covered the meeting and thus Peace’s announcement has not been publicized in California.

Peace expressed his opinion twice at the meeting. In conversation later, he said he would also consider top-four, again with IRV. A co-chair of the Independent Voters Network, Dan Howle, said that IVN does not support the initiatives in Florida and Arizona for a top-two system, and if asked, he would advise top-two backers in other states not to proceed with advocacy for a top-two system.

The approximately 120 people in attendance also heard from two political science professors, J. Andrew Sinclair and Kimberly Nalder. They both said that the top-two system injures minor parties.

The audience also heard another speaker say that California voter turnout between November 2010 and November 2014 declined more than any other state’s turnout, and that a plausible reason is that in the November 2010 voters had a choice of six parties for all the statewide offices, but in November 2014 Californians were the only voters in the U.S. who were forced to vote for a Republican or a Democrat for all the statewide offices, or they couldn’t vote at all.

The same speaker also said that Washington state has been using top-two longer than California, and Washington state’s legislature is not harmonious and needed three special sessions to pass a budget in 2013 and three special sessions to pass a budget in 2015, and a fourth special session may be needed to amend that budget.

In related news, on August 28 Fairvote filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to hear the California minor party lawsuit Rubin v Padilla, 15-135. The brief is co-signed by the Center for Competitive Elections, and does not take a position in favor of either side, but points out to the U.S. Supreme Court that it is possible to have an election system that permits independent voters to vote in primaries, without necessarily having a top-two system. The amicus also points out that the Court hasn’t heard a ballot access case since 1992. The amicus also points out that the California Secretary of State’s own webpage rebuts the lower court assertion that independents couldn’t vote in California primaries before Proposition 14 passed.


PENNSYLVANIA WILL APPEAL BALLOT ACCESS DECISION

On August 21, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General said she will appeal the June 24 U.S. District Court decision that struck down the system by which minor parties who submit petitions without enough valid signatures can be assessed up to $110,000 in court costs. Both the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Lancaster New Era had earlier urged the state not to appeal the decision. The case is Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes.

However, the Pennsylvania Senate State Government Committee will hear SB 495 on Tuesday, September 22, at 9 a.m. This bill would completely revise state ballot access laws for minor parties and independents. Most bills in Pennsylvania never get a committee hearing. When Pennsylvania legislative committees do grant hearings, they are often lengthy, sometimes lasting all day.

In the meantime, on August 18, a Pennsylvania state trial court removed the Green Party nominee for Philadelphia Commissioner from the November 3 ballot, using the same judicial process for checking signatures that had been declared unconstitutional in federal court on July 24. The candidate, Glenn C. Davis, is appealing that decision.


U.S. DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDS ARKANSAS MARCH 3 DEADLINE

On August 25, U.S. District Court Judge James Moody upheld the March 3 independent candidate petition deadline that was in effect in Arkansas in 2014. Moore v Martin, 4:14cv-65. The same deadline will be in effect in 2018 also (if the law is not changed), but for 2016 the independent deadline is November 2015.

The decision says early deadlines are only unconstitutional when combined with a high number of signatures. The plaintiff needed 10,000 signatures. The decision is wrong, because in Anderson v Celebrezze the Supreme Court said early deadlines are unconstitutional regardless of the number of signatures. In Anderson, Ohio had a March 20 deadline combined with 5,000 signatures, which was only one-tenth of 1% of the number of voters. Moore will ask for reconsideration.


PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

On August 28, Level the Playing Field filed a new Complaint in U.S. District Court concerning general election presidential debates, and dismissed its original June 22 Complaint. The new case, like the old one, is Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The original case complained that the FEC had ignored Level the Playing Field’s 2014 request for a new rule on general election presidential debates. But, the FEC acted on that request on July 16, denying it by a vote of 4-2.

The new Complaint alleges that the existing rule on presidential debates violates federal campaign law. The co-plaintiffs with Level the Playing Field are Peter Ackerman, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party.

On July 31, Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is seeking the Republican nomination, was speaking in Keene, New Hampshire. Darryl Perry, who is seeking the Libertarian nomination, was able to ask Kasich if Kasich felt more than two presidential candidates should be included in the general election debates. Kasich said, "I don’t know; I haven’t thought about it." Then he asked Perry who the third candidate might be. Perry mentioned the Green and Libertarian Parties. Kasich then started to say that when he was running for re-election for Governor of Ohio in 2014, and he had a Green Party opponent, he had had some discussions about including the Green in the general election gubernatorial debates. But then his sentence trailed off, and he said, "I don’t know. I’ll see how serious they are." Actually in 2014, the Democratic nominee for Ohio Governor had agreed to let the Green Party nominee, Anita Rios, in the debate, but Kasich had said "no."

Anyone who lives in Iowa or New Hampshire may speak to major party presidential candidates during this season. If you live there, please try to ask other candidates the question.


PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

On July 28, the South Carolina Republican Party said the deadline for candidates to file in the party’s presidential primary will be September 30, and the filing fee is $40,000.

South Carolina law lets parties set their own presidential primary filing deadlines, even though the government pays for them. However, the deadline must not be later than 90 days before the primary. The Republican deadline is 143 days before the February 20, 2016 primary, which seems excessively early.

The $40,000 fee is almost certainly unconstitutional, because there is no alternate route for candidates who can’t afford it. Half of the fee goes to the government and the Republican Party keeps the other half.

Democrats still haven’t set their filing deadline. The Democrats do not keep any of the filing fee, and are willing to reimburse candidates they approve of $10,000 toward the government’s share (the government share is $20,000).

A 3-judge district court in Vermont ruled in Wright v Thomas in 1976 that the U.S. Supreme Court precedents against mandatory filing fees for candidates who can’t afford them do apply to presidential primaries. That filing fee was only $1,000. The decision is not reported and was case 76-31, decided on February 21, 1976.

The August 1, 2015 BAN chart on filing deadlines for presidential primaries was printed before the South Carolina news was known, so the South Carolina deadlines in that issue are in error.

In other news about presidential primaries, the Washington Secretary of State has set a May 24 primary date; the North Carolina legislature still hasn’t settled that state’s primary date; and Kentucky Republicans will use a caucus instead of a primary to choose delegates to the national convention.


SOUTH DAKOTA ACCIDENTALLY REPEALED DEADLINE

BAN learned recently that in 2012, the South Dakota legislature accidentally repealed the independent presidential candidate petition deadline that had been passed in 2001 to conform to a court ruling. In 2000 a U.S. District Court had ruled in Nader v Hazeltine, 110 F.Supp.2d 1201, that June is too early. The deadline, for presidential independents only, was then set in August. But when the legislature passed a bill in 2012 moving the non-presidential independent deadline from June to April, it inadvertently erased the presidential deadline. Therefore presidential candidates now have an April deadline, which is obviously unconstitutional, since even June had been held to be too early.


CHART ON PAGE 3

The chart on page three lists 34 jurisdictions which have interpreted their "sore loser" law not to apply to presidential primaries.

For the other 17 states, below the chart is an explanation of why sore loser laws can’t be enforced in presidential elections in them as well, with the exception of Texas and South Dakota.

Michigan’s sore lower law does not pertain to independent candidates for any office. It is true that in 2012, Michigan enforced its sore loser law against Gary Johnson, who had appeared on the Republican presidential primary ballot and then was barred from being the Libertarian nominee. Michigan argued that Johnson was free to petition as an independent.

Ohio has had a sore loser since before the 1970’s, but Ohio let Lyndon LaRouche on the ballot as an independent in 1984, 1988, and 1992, even though he had also been in the Democratic presidential primary in Ohio in all three years.


HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS THAT SORE LOSER LAWS DON’T APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

State
Candidate
Year
Pres. Pri. Vote
Nov. Label
Nov. Vote

Ala.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

6,542

independent

641

Ark.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

14,656

Justice, Integrity, Agriculture

830

Cal.

Roseanne Barr

2012

Green

7,399

Peace and Freedom

53,824

Ct.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

40,354

Anderson Coalition

171,807

D.C.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

2,025

independent

16,131

Fla.

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

1,195

Libertarian

44,726

Ga.

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

740

Libertarian

45,324

Ida

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

13,130

independent

27,058

Ill.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

415,193

independent

346,754

Ind.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

56,342

independent

111,639

Ky.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

4,791

Anderson Coalition

31,127

La.

Ron Paul

2008

Rep.

8,590

Louisiana Taxpayers

9,368

Md.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

16,244

independent

119,537

Ma.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

122,987

Anderson Coalition

382,539

Mich.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

48,947

Anderson Coalition

275,223

Minn

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

532

Indep. Economic Recovery

622

Miss

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

392

Libertarian

6,676

Mo.

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

536

Libertarian

43,151

Mt..

Ron Paul

2008

Rep.

20,606

Constitution

10,638

Neb.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

11,879

independent

44,854

N.H.

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

181

Libertarian

8,212

N.J.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

7,799

Six Million Jobs

2,095

N.M.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

7,171

independent

29,459

N.C.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

8,542

Independent Party

52,800

N.D.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

7,003

independent

642

Ohio

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

17,412

(no label)

2,772

Ore.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

32,118

independent

112,389

Pa.

John Anderson

1980

Rep.

26,890

Anderson Coalition

292,921

R.I.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

300

independent

494

S.C.

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

211

Libertarian

16,321

Tenn.

Gary Johnson

2012

Rep.

572

independent

18,623

Vt.

Herb Lewin

1988

Lib Union

66

Peace and Freedom

164

Wa.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

1,060

independent

855

Wis.

Lyndon LaRouche

1992

Dem.

3,120

Indp. for Economic Recovery

633

In the 34 jurisdictions listed above, the sore loser laws have been construed not to apply to presidential primaries. The chart above lists the candidates who set the most recent precedent, except in the case of Michigan. Michigan’s sore lower law does not pertain to independent candidates for any office. It is true that in 2012, Michigan enforced its sore loser law against Gary Johnson, who had appeared on the Republican presidential primary ballot and then was barred from being the Libertarian nominee. Michigan argued that Johnson was free to petition as an independent.

Among the other 17 states, there no presidential primaries in 2016 in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (9 states).

Among the other 8 states, there is no sore loser law in Arizona, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. As to Virginia, the sore loser law says "If the candidate is defeated in the primary, his name is not to be printed on the ballots for that office in the succeeding general election (24.2-520)." This does not pertain to presidential primaries, because if it did, Michael Dukakis could not have had his name on the Virginia November 1988 ballot, because he placed third in the Virginia Democratic presidential primary ballot in 1988. This leaves only South Dakota and Texas as states in which the sore loser law does apply to presidential primaries.

Ohio has had a sore loser since before the 1970’s, but Ohio let Lyndon LaRouche on the ballot as an in-dependent in 1984, 1988, and 1992, even though he had also been in the Democratic presidential primary in Ohio in all three years.


2015 PARTY REVENUE FROM STATE INCOME TAX "CHECK-OFF"

State

Demo.

Rep.

Lib’t.

Constitn

Green

Wk Fam

Ind. Prty

other

Alabama

5,885

7,097

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Arizona

8,137

4,096

444

– –

220

– –

– –

174

Iowa

38,399

30,959

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Kentucky

71,866

78,412

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Minn.

34,006

16,681

931

– –

– –

– –

3,400

734

N. Mex.

4,402

2,216

368

0

6

– –

– –

230

Ohio

46,982

46,982

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Oregon

15,754

4,305

882

219

1,551

1,353

1,168

459

Rhode I.

13,821

5,569

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

2,082

Utah

32,628

46,300

4,638

2,236

– –

– –

– –

2,652

Virginia

8,343

3,779

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

TOTAL

280,223

246,396

7,263

2,455

1,777

1,353

4,568

6,331

The states above let income-tax payers send a contribution to the party of their choice. The chart above lists the amounts received by each party. Ohio does not let taxpayers decide which party to help, and only lets taxpayers help parties that polled 20% in the last election. The other states let the taxpayer decide which party to help. Entries in the "Other" column are: Minnesota, Grassroots; New Mexico, Independent American; Oregon $1,268 Working Families and $504 Progressive; Rhode Island, Moderate. "Indp. Party" means Independent Party in Oregon and Independence Party in Minnesota. The chart below shows the national revenue totals for each party, for each of the last 15 years. (Ref/AE is Reform and Americans Elect.)

TOTALS FOR THE ENTIRE NATION THROUGH HISTORY, 2000-2014

YEAR

Democrat

Republican

Green

Lib’t.

Ref/AE

Constit.

Other

2000

941,463

822,671

31,864

13,024

5,054

19,209

71,824

2001

680,608

611,065

12,184

8,173

755

2,295

46,232

2002

928,716

892,438

84,120

7,289

749

2,886

97,559

2003

1,181,312

1,126,585

20,665

7,859

46

51

9,975

2004

828,136

786,190

16,309

8,446

324

1,409

8,822

2005

750,461

714,238

18,100

5,546

34

2,442

25,887

2006

915,945

806,193

50,434

7,282

– –

5,847

45,355

2007

1,050,593

850,580

15,716

5,839

– –

3,503

15,627

2008

1,520,746

1,127,478

8,324

5,034

– –

5,938

5,219

2009

978,325

718,165

7,642

45,889

– –

4,520

4,970

2010

830,562

616,027

5,257

11,115

– –

3,617

5,630

2011

850,490

603,022

6,560

53,133

– –

4,367

11,766

2012

1,883,507

1,245,403

7,862

101,253

– –

2,458

8,733

2013

740,897

545,527

4,041

22,438

11,516

2,816

21,430

2014

369,153

324,042

1,836

7,418

817

3,041

3,175

2015

280,223

246,396

1,777

7,263

174

2,455

12,078


2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES OR REGIS. OBTAINED
DEADLINES
FULL PARTY
CAND
LIB’T
GREEN
CONSTI
Full Party
Pres Party
Pres. Indp.

Ala.

35,413

5,000

0

0

0

Mar. 1

Mar. 1

Aug. 18

Alaska

(est) (reg) 8,400

#3,005

already on

*400

finished

May 2

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Ariz.

20,119

(est) #36,000

already on

already on

0

March 3

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

Ark.

10,000

#1,000

already on

*already on

*already on

Sep 2 ‘15

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Calif.

(es) (reg) 61,000

178,039

already on

already on

355

Jan. 4

July 11

Aug. 12

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $1,000

already on

already on

already on

Jan. 8

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

– –

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

already on

366

Aug. 20

Aug. 20

July 15

D.C.

no procedure

(est.) #4,600

can’t start

already on

can’t start

– –

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Florida

be organized

119,316

already on

already on

already on

April 15

Sep. 1

July 15

Georgia

51,912

#49,336

already on

can’t start

can’t start

July 12

July 12

July 12

Hawaii

707

#4,347

already on

already on

*100

Feb. 24

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Idaho

13,047

1,000

already on

can’t start

already on

Aug. 30

Aug. 30

Aug. 24

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

– –

June 27

June 27

Indiana

no procedure

#26,654

already on

0

0

– –

June 30

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

0

*1,000

0

– –

Aug. 19

Aug. 19

Kansas

16,960

5,000

already on

0

0

June 1

June 1

Aug. 1

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

– –

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

La.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

185

May 21

Aug. 19

Aug. 19

Maine

(reg) 5,000

#4,000

*2,000

already on

0

Dec 1 2015

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Md.

10,000

(est.) 38,000

already on

already on

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Mass.

(est) (reg) 45,000

#10,000

10,920

already on

96

Feb. 2

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Mich.

31,519

30,000

already on

already on

already on

July 21

July 21

July 21

Minn.

98,770

#2,000

0

0

0

May 2

Aug. 23

Aug. 23

Miss.

be organized

1,000

already on

already on

already on

Feb. 1

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already on

500

already on

July 25

July 25

July 25

Mont.

5,000

#5,000

already on

0

0

Mar. 17

Aug. 17

Aug. 17

Nebr.

5,395

2,500

already on

*300

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Nev.

5,431

5,431

already on

*500

already on

June 3

June 3

July 8

N. Hamp.

14,556

#3,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

– –

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

N. M.

2,565

15,388

already on

already on

already on

June 30

June 30

June 30

N.Y.

no procedure

#15,000

can’t start

already on

can’t start

– –

Aug. 23

Aug. 23

No. Car.

89,366

89,366

already on

5,442

0

May 17

May 17

June 9

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

already on

0

4,000

Apr. 16

Sep. 5

Sep. 5

Ohio

30,560

5,000

in court

already on

0

July 6

July 6

Aug. 10

Okla.

*24,745

40,047

*1,800

*400

0

March 1

July 15

July 15

Oregon

22,046

17,893

already on

already on

already on

Aug. 30

Aug. 30

Aug. 30

Penn.

no procedure

(es) #25,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

– –

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

R.I.

16,203

#1,000

0

0

0

Aug. 1

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

May 8

May 8

July 15

So. Dak.

6,936

*2,775

*800

0

*2,500

*Mar. 29

*Mar. 29

*April 26

Tenn.

33,816

275

0

in court

in court

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Aug. 18

Texas

47,086

79,939

already on

already on

can’t start

May 16

May 16

May 9

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

200

already on

Feb. 15

Aug. 15

Aug. 15

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

0

0

Dec 31 ‘15

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Virginia

no procedure

#5,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

– –

Aug. 26

Aug. 26

Wash.

no procedure

#1,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

– –

July 23

July 23

West Va.

no procedure

#6,705

already on

already on

*5,500

– –

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

already on

already on

already on

April 1

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Wyo.

3,302

3,302

already on

can’t start

already on

June 1

June 1

Aug. 30

TOTAL STATES ON
31
22*
14*

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
"CONSTI" = Constitution Party.
The number of signatures for new parties is in court in Tennessee; for independents, in New Mexico.
* = change since July 1, 2015 issue.


THREE MINOR PARTIES CHOOSE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES

On July 31, the Prohibition Party chose James Hedges for President and Bill Bayes for Vice-President. The nomination was made in a two-hour conference call. All dues-paying members of the party were permitted to participate. Hedges lives in Big Cove Tannery, Pennsylvania, and has been the publisher of the party’s newsletter for many years. Bayes lives in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

On July 26, the executive board of the American Freedom Party chose Robert Whitaker for President. There is no Vice-Presidential nominee yet. Whitaker lives in Columbia, South Carolina.

On August 15, the Veterans Party, which was formed in December 2013, chose Chris Keniston of Texas for President, and Deacon Taylor for Vice-President. The meeting was in Keystone, South Dakota, and included 20 delegates who were there in person, and 35 others who were on a video conference.


GREENS SET LATE CONVENTION

The Green Party presidential convention will be August 4-7 in Houston, Texas. This is the latest date the party has ever chosen for its presidential convention, and is the first time the party has met later than the two major party conventions. The late date gives the party’s presidential candidates more time to raise primary season matching funds.


FORMER CONGRESSMAN SEEMS LIKELY TO SEEK CONSTITUTION NOMINATION

Several news sources have reported that former Indiana congressman John Hostettler intends to seek the Constitution Party presidential nomination. He represented southwest Indiana 1994-2006 as a Republican. In 2008 he had endorsed the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee, Chuck Baldwin.


CANADA HOLDS 4-PARTY DEBATE

Canada will have a parliamentary election October 19. On August 6, Maclean’s Magazine sponsored a debate. The leaders of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, and Green Parties participated. They are the only parties who will run in a majority of the nation’s districts.

There are technically no members of Parliament just now because the session is over. However, on August 16, an individual who was a member of Parliament just before it dissolved said he is leaving the New Democratic Party and becoming a Green, so in a sense one can say that the Green Party now has three members of Parliament. The new member is Jose Nunez-Melo, of Quebec.

A poll released on August 15 showed that the New Democratic Party is leading. The New Democratic Party has never named the Prime Minister of Canada. If it does form the next Canadian government, that will be more evidence that new parties can rise to power, even in systems without proportional representation, if the ballot access laws and the debate rules are fair and equal.


OREGON INDEPENDENT PARTY QUALIFIES FOR ITS OWN PRIMARY

The Independent Party of Oregon, which has been a qualified party since 2007, now has enough registered members to qualify for a government-administered primary. Oregon law says any party with 5% of the registration qualifies. The Independent Party will be the first Oregon party, other than the Republican and Democratic Parties, to have a government-administered primary since 1914, when the Progressive Party had one.

Ironically, the Independent Party now has less ability to nominate the nominee of another party. No one can get on a primary ballot who is not a member of that party; but convention parties can nominate anyone they wish.


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!


Go back to the index.


Copyright © 2015 Ballot Access News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *