January 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
January 1, 2016 – Volume 31, Number 8

This issue was printed on pink paper.


Table of Contents

  1. MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE REPEALS STRAIGHT-TICKET DEVICE
  2. COURT SEEMS TO CRITICIZE CALIFORNIA BALLOT LABEL LAW
  3. MAINE REJECTS LIBERTARIAN BALLOT ACCESS; PARTY TO SUE
  4. VIRGINIA BALLOT ACCESS BILL
  5. U.S. SUPREME COURT ELECTION LAW RULING
  6. DEBATES LAWSUITS
  7. TEXAS MINOR PARTIES THREATENED
  8. HISTORY OF CHANGES MAKING IT EASIER FOR A PARTY TO REMAIN ON BALLOT
  9. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO GOT ON BALLOTS IN DECEMBER
  10. 2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  11. MINOR PARTIES IN STATE ELECTIONS, NOVEMBER 2015
  12. GREEN PARTY SETS CONVENTION AFTER DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
  13. WORKING FAMILIES PARTY WON PARTISAN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER
  14. PROHIBITION PARTY NOW QUALIFIED IN MISSISSIPPI
  15. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE REPEALS STRAIGHT-TICKET DEVICE

On December 16, the Michigan legislature passed SB 13, which repeals the straight-ticket device. On December 22 the bill was sent to Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican. Because the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the legislature voted for the bill, it is likely the Governor will sign it. Michigan Republicans have been trying to eliminate the device for decades.

A straight-ticket device lets voters vote for all the nominees of one party with a single mark at the top of the ballot. Voters who use it don’t need to look at the rest of the ballot.

Straight-ticket devices are harmful to independent candidates because there is no device for independent candidates. The devices also injure minor party candidates. A candidate may have a great deal of appeal, if only he or she can get the voter to notice the name on the ballot, but the device causes up to 50% of the voters to avoid looking at the ballot.

In 2010, when Wisconsin still had the straight-ticket device, Green Party nominee Ben Manski polled 31.1% of the vote for Assembly, 77th district, in a race against both major parties. An analysis of the election returns showed that Manski actually won the election among the voters who did not use the straight-ticket device. But when straight-ticket voters weighed in, he lost. Wisconsin repealed the device in 2011. Other states that have repealed it in the last 50 years are Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

States that still have it are Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

The Michigan bill was introduced last year on January 20, but nothing happened to it until November 10, when it passed out of Committee and also passed the Senate. On December 9, an amended version passed the House. It then went back to the Senate, and back to the House again, finally passing on December 16. The final vote in the House was 54-52. Six Republicans voted against it because they wanted other election law provisions included in the bill.

The last time the Michigan legislature repealed the device was in 2001. However, supporters of the device then stopped the bill by putting it on the November 2002 ballot as a referendum. The voters rejected the repeal. That can’t happen in 2016 because SB 13 has an appropriation, and bills with appropriations cannot be subject to a referendum.


COURT SEEMS TO CRITICIZE CALIFORNIA BALLOT LABEL LAW

On December 11, U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte issued a procedural order in Soltysik v Padilla, the case filed by the ACLU in October 2015 over ballot labels in California. The lawsuit is on behalf of two Socialist Party registrants, who wish to run for California legislature and want to be identified on the ballot as Socialists.

California law says only members of qualified parties may have their party on the ballot. These plaintiffs must have "Party preference: none" on the ballot. In California, parties do not have nominees (except for President), and the only purpose of the label for candidates for Congress and state office is to give the voters a clue as to the candidates’ politics.

In Washington, the only other state with a system like California’s, all candidates may have any partisan label they wish on the ballot, if it is not obscene, nor longer than 15 letters. The California law is discriminatory, and the Washington example shows the California law is not really needed for any state purpose.

The order in the California case permits the group Californians for an Open Primary to intervene in the case. Californians for an Open Primary is a group created to support California’s top-two system. It is backed by the State Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. The order says, "Because the Socialist Party USA is a nonqualified political party, Plaintiffs are not permitted to reflect their party preference on the ballot but must instead indicate – falsely – that they have no party preference." (emphasis added).

The other group that intervened in court in the past to defend California’s top-two system, the California Independent Voters Project, did not intervene in this case.

The next action in the case will be a status conference on January 25.

Initiative to Change Label Law

Meanwhile, a proposed California Constitutional amendment has been filed with the Attorney General. It would remove party labels from all ballots, for candidates for state office. The proponent of this proposed initiative is represented by a law firm that specializes in election law, the James R. Sutton firm.

Proponents aim to qualify it in time for the November 2016 ballot. There is reason to believe that the initiative has enough support to qualify for the ballot, and that the backers are Republicans.


MAINE REJECTS LIBERTARIAN BALLOT ACCESS; PARTY TO SUE

On December 9, the Maine Secretary of State said that the Libertarian Party is not a qualified party. The law says a new party can qualify by having 5,000 registered members by December 1 of the odd year before an election year. The Libertarian Party submitted 6,700 voter registration cards, but election officials only processed and validated 4,489 by the deadline. Some cards were rejected because a blank wasn’t filled in. When that happens, the procedure is to send them back to the voter and ask for the form to be completed. But, by the time the voter fixes the error, the deadline is passed. Other Libertarian registration cards were submitted by the deadline, but the town clerks didn’t process them by the deadline.

The party is about to file a federal lawsuit, arguing that the December 1 deadline is unconstitutionally early. The case will also attack the law that says the Secretary of State must determine if enough registration cards have been submitted by five days after the deadline. There seems to be no state interest in requiring the checking to be done so fast.

The Reform Party had the same problem in Maine in December 1995. At the time the party needed 21,051 registered members, all of whom had to sign a petition. The Reform Party was told it didn’t have enough, but after it sued, the town clerks said they did have enough after all, and the judge didn’t need to issue an opinion. That case was Citizens to Establish a Maine Reform Party v Diamond. The deadline back then was December 14, 1995.

The Maine Secretary of State has already promised in writing to preserve the existing Libertarian registrations while the lawsuit is underway. Normally in Maine, when a party goes off the ballot, all its members are converted to independents, whether they desire that or not.


VIRGINIA BALLOT ACCESS BILL

Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul (D-Roanoke) has introduced HB 82 into the 2016 session of the Virginia legislature. In Virginia, unlike most states, the legislative session is much longer in even years than in odd years, and bills have a greater chance of passing in even years. The bill changes the definition of "party" from a group that got 10% of the vote for any statewide race at either of the last two elections, to 5%.

Rasoul introduced a similar bill in 2015, but it didn’t pass. If the 2016 bill were to pass, the Libertarian Party would be qualified, because it polled 6.55% for Governor in 2013.


U.S. SUPREME COURT ELECTION LAW RULING

On December 8, the U.S. Supreme Court put out its first election law decision of the current term. Shapiro v McManus, 14-990. This concerns redistricting, but it also concerns court procedure.

Federal law says redistricting cases in federal court are to be heard by a 3-judge U.S. District Court, unless the case is wholly insubstantial. U.S. District Courts don’t like to convene 3-judge cases, because the courts have too much work as it is, and requiring 3 judges takes more resources.

In this case, which challenged Maryland’s U.S. House districts as an unconstitutional gerrymander by Democrats, the U.S. District Court did not convene a 3-judge court because the judge felt it is a weak case. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the case didn’t need a 3-judge court. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disagreed and sent the case back to be heard in a 3-judge court. This decision will generally help plaintiffs in election law cases. Sometimes judges won’t permit evidence in such cases; the Fourth Circuit has been especially bad in recent years about not permitting trials in ballot access cases.


DEBATES LAWSUITS

One of the two federal lawsuits concerning who may be invited into the general election presidential debates has begun to move ahead. Level the Playing Field v FEC, D.C., 1:15cv-1397, now has a briefing schedule. The first brief is due March 6 and the final brief is due June 15. The plaintiffs argues that the FEC is obliged to enforce campaign finance law against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Federal campaign law does not permit corporations to donate to federal campaigns, and the lawsuit argues that the for-profit corporations that fund the Commission are making a campaign contribution to the two major party presidential nominees.


TEXAS MINOR PARTIES THREATENED

The ballot status of the Libertarian and Green Parties in Texas is at risk after November 2016, because this year the Democratic Party is running a full slate of candidates for all the statewide offices. Parties in Texas remain on the ballot by polling 5% for one statewide race, or 2% for Governor. For 2004-2014, no Democrat ran for certain offices, and those were the only offices for which the Libertarians and Greens polled as much as 5%. In 2014, the highest Libertarian percentage for a statewide office with both major parties in the race was 3.39%, and for the Greens, 2.03%.


HISTORY OF CHANGES MAKING IT EASIER FOR A PARTY TO REMAIN ON BALLOT

The chart below lists 43 instances in the last fifty years when a legislature passed a bill to make it easier for a party to remain on the ballot. In all cases except Alaska in 1986 and Tennessee in 2015, the legislatures did this voluntarily, without court involvement. The median vote test for a party to remain on the ballot is 2%, whereas in 1976 it was 5%. This progress can be continued if activists will ask legislators for improvements. Now is the time to talk to legislators about bills.

Year State Old Law New Law

1969

Ohio

10% for President or Governor

7% for President or Governor

1969

Idaho

10% for any statewide race

just run 3 candidates for federal or state office

1971

Ohio

7% for President or Governor

5% for President or Governor

1972

Tenn.

10% for any statewide race

5% for any statewide race

1977

Arkansas

7% for President or Governor

3% for President or Governor

1977

Vermont

1% for any statewide race

have town committees in any ten towns

1978

Delaware

2% for any statewide race

registration of one-twentieth of 1% of state total

1986

Alaska

10% for Governor

3% for Governor

1986

Georgia

20% for President or Governor

approximately 2% for any statewide office

1986

Hawaii

10% for any statewide race

If on for 3 elections in a row, then on for 10 more years

1987

Nevada

5% (of US House vote) for any race

3% (of US House vote) for any race

1987

Texas

2% for Governor

2% for Governor or 5% for any statewide race

1989

Oregon

5% for any statewide race

1% for any statewide race

1990

Mass.

3% for Governor

3% for any statewide race

1991

Montana

5% of winner’s vote, any statewide race

same, at either of last two elections

1991

Virginia

10% for any statewide race

same, at either of last two elections

1991

Wyoming

10% for U.S. House

3% for U.S. House

1992

Arizona

5% for President or Governor

same, or also has registration of 2/3rds of 1%

1993

So. Dak.

10% for Governor

2.5% for Governor

1993

Nevada

3% (of US House vote) for any race

1% (of US House vote) for any race

1994

Rhode Is.

5% for Governor

5% for President or Governor

1997

No. Dak.

5% for Governor

5% for President or Governor

1997

Alaska

3% for Governor

same, or also has registration of 3% of last gub. vote

1998

Colorado

10% for Governor

1% for any statewide race, or 1,000 registrants

1998

Maryland

registration of 10% of state total

1% for President or Governor

1998

Wyoming

3% for U.S. House

2% for U.S. House, Governor, or Secretary of State

1999

Florida

registration of 5% of state total

just be organized

1999

Hawaii

10% vote or was on for last 3 elections

same, or 2% for all state legislative races

1999

Maine

5% for top office at last election

5% for top office at either of the last two elections

1999

D.C.

elected a president since 1950

7,500 votes for any district race

2001

Minnesota

5% for any statewide race

same, at either of last two elections

2001

Oregon

1% for any statewide race

same, or registration of ½ of 1%

2002

Michigan

½ of 1% for top office

½ of 1% for any statewide race

2004

Louisiana

registration of 5% of state total

registration of 1,000 members

2005

No. Dak.

5% for President or Governor

same, or 5% for Secretary of State or Attorney General

2006

No. Caro.

10% for President or Governor

2% for President or Governor

2009

Maine

5% for top office either of last 2 election

have 10,000 registered members who go to polls

2012

Nebraska

5% for any statewide race

same, at either of the last two elections

2012

Utah

2% (of US House vote) for any race

same, at either of the last two elections

2013

Ohio

5% for President or Governor

3% for President or Governor at either of last 2 elections

2014

Oregon

1% for any statewide race

same, at either of the last two elections

2014

California

registration of 1% of last gub. vote

registration of one-third of 1% of state total

2015

Tennessee

5% for any statewide race

same, at either of the last two elections

This chart lists instances in the last 50 years in which a legislature eased the law on how a party remains on the ballot. These changes were brought about by activists asking their legislators to improve the law. Often election officials helped, because it is burdensome on election officials to constantly check the validity of ballot access petitions.

States in which the laws for retention of party status have been made more severe in the last 50 years are: Alabama 1982, from zero to 20%; Indiana 1980, from ½ of 1% to 2% ; New Mexico 2014, from ½ of 1% at either of the last two elections, to ½ of 1%, by ruling of the Secretary of State; New Hampshire 1997, from 3% for Governor, to 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator; Pennsylvania 1986, from 2% of the winning candidate’s vote, to registration of 15%; and Washington 2009, 5% for any statewide race to 5% for President.


PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO GOT ON BALLOTS IN DECEMBER

The last B.A.N. listed all the candidates who got on 2016 presidential primary ballots in Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The chart below shows the same information for candidates who have been put on ballots since that issue came out. Corrections to the previous chart: Rocky De La Fuente is on in the Michigan Democratic primary, and Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham have withdrawn from the South Carolina Republican primary.

DEMOCRATS

AL.

AZ.

ID.

LA.

MASS

N.C.

OH.

OK.

TN.

TX.

VA.

Kennedy King Brown, Alabama

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Steve Burke, New York

~
~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Hillary Clinton, New York

X

X

~

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rocky De La Fuente, California

X

X

~

X

X

X

X

X

~

X

~

Calvis L. Hawes, Texas

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

X

~

Henry Hewes, New York

~

X

~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Keith Judd, Texas

~
~
~

X

~
~
~

X

~

X

~

Star Locke, Texas

~
~
~
~
~
~
~

X

~

X

~

Martin J. O’Malley, Maryland

X

X

~

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Bernie Sanders, Vermont

X

X

~

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Michael Steinberg, Florida

~

X

~

X

~
~
~

X

~
~
~

Willie Wilson, Illinois

~
~
~

X

~
~

X

~
~

X

~

John Wolfe, Tennessee

~
~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

REPUBLICANS

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Jeb Bush, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ben Carson, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Chris Christie, New Jersey

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Tim Cook, North Carolina

~

X

~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Ted Cruz, Texas

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Carly Fiorina, Virginia

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Jim Gilmore, Virginia

~
~
~
~
~

X

~
~

X

~

X

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Elizabeth Gray, Texas

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

X

~

Mike Huckabee, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

John R. Kasich, Ohio

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Peter Messina, Florida

~
~

X

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~

George Pataki, New York

~

X

~
~
~

X

~
~

X

~
~

Rand Paul, Kentucky

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Marco Rubio, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rick Santorum, Virginia

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Donald Trump, New York

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GREENS

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Darryl Cherney, California

~
~
~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~

S. K. C. M. Curry, California

~
~
~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~

William Kreml, South Carolina

~
~
~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~

Kent Mesplay, California

~

X

~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~

Jill Stein, Massachusetts

~

X

~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~

~

CONSTITUTION PARTY

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Scott Copeland, Texas

~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

J. R. Myers, Alaska

~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

Patrick Ockander, Texas

~
~

X

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
THREE TYPES OF 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

*1,000

already on

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

*0

*0

*0

– –

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Del.

(est.) (reg) 650

(est.) 6,500

already on

already on

*331

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

*in court

*in court

July 12

July 12

July 12

Hawaii

707

#4,347

already on

already on

250

Feb. 24

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Idaho

13,047

1,000

already on

*0

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

#26,700

already on

0

0

– –

June 30

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

0

1,200

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

*0

*0

*0

– –

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

*in court

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

*800

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

*400

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

*0

*0

*0

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

*12,000

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

*30,000

*3,000

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

*21,590

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

*5,000

0

*7,000

Mar. 29

Mar. 29

*Aug. 4

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

*0

*0

*0

– –

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

9,650

– –

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
15

#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 Nov. 1, 2015 issue.


MINOR PARTIES IN STATE ELECTIONS, NOVEMBER 2015

Below are the vote totals for the only minor parties that ran any nominees in the regularly-scheduled legislative elections of November 3, 2015:

2015 STATE SENATE ELECTIONS

PARTY

Mississippi

Virginia

Indp. Green

– –

13,486

Libertarian

1,746

527

Reform

1,784

– –

2015 STATE HOUSE ELECTIONS

PARTY

Mississippi

New Jersey

Virginia

Green

– –

6,836

2,367

Indp. Green

– –

– –

8,576

Libertarian

600

616

4,996

The minor party candidate with the best showing in a race with both a Republican and a Democrat was New Jersey Green Party nominee Kenneth Collins, who got 8.62%. The minor party candidate with the best showing in a race with only one major party opponent was also a Green, J. B. "Jeff" Staples of Virginia. He got 30.36%.

Only two states had gubernatorial elections on November 3, 2015. Kentucky had no minor party nominee for Governor. In Mississippi, the only minor party candidate for Governor was Shawn O’Hara, who got 9,845 votes, or 1.37%. The best showing for a minor party nominee in a statewide race was the Reform Party nominee for Mississippi Treasurer, Viola McFarland, She was in a two-person race and got 134,014 votes, 20.76%.


GREEN PARTY SETS CONVENTION AFTER DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

The Green Party has tentatively decided to hold its presidential convention August 6-7. This is later than the Democratic convention, which will be July 25-28. This is the first time the Green Party has held its presidential convention after the Democratic convention.


WORKING FAMILIES PARTY WON PARTISAN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER

The December B.A.N. had a list of minor party nominees who won partisan elections on November 3, 2015. But that list erroneously omitted the Working Families Party nominees who were elected to the Hartford, Connecticut, city council. They are Cynthia Jennings, Wildaliz Bermudez, and Larry Deutsch. Hartford elects council members at-large, and won’t let any party nominate more than six nominees. But the top nine are elected. This system exists so that one party doesn’t win all the seats. In effect, the WFP nominees just had to defeat the Republican nominees, which they did.


PROHIBITION PARTY NOW QUALIFIED IN MISSISSIPPI

The Prohibition Party is now a ballot-qualified party in Mississippi. Its presidential nominee, Jim Hedges, will be the first Prohibition Party nominee on in Mississippi since 1896.

The party has also qualified Hedges in Colorado and Arkansas, and has finished petitioning in New Jersey. However, the New Jersey Department of State says the party must prove that all its candidates for presidential elector are not in prison and are not on parole, and that they are at least 25 years of age. Until the party can produce the proof, the petition won’t be checked.


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 © 2016 Ballot Access News

Comments

January 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition — 3 Comments

  1. I don’t know if this problem is limited to certain computers/monitors, but two of the tables appear to have columns cut off again, which was also a problem in last month’s issue.

    In the table of presidential candidates who got on the primary ballots in December, the last column I see is the one for North Carolina. However, looking at the source code, there are supposed to be five more columns beyond that.

    On the 2016 petitioning for president table, the columns with the deadline dates for each state are listed in the source code, but they aren’t displaying for me. The last column I can see is the one for the Constitution Party.

    The tables are legible as far as they go, and they still make sense, but there is additional information which is supposed to be there but isn’t displaying.

  2. You’re right, Joshua. Thank you. That is why we have gone back to a single column, to fix that problem.

  3. @Richard: I have also viewed this same post on another computer with a wider monitor, and the same columns were cut off there too. I don’t know how to fix this problem.

Leave a Reply

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