February 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
February 1, 2016 – Volume 31, Number 9

This issue was printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. U.S. DISTRICT COURT ENJOINS CONNECTICUT BAN ON OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATORS
  2. MICHIGAN ENDS STRAIGHT-TICKET
  3. PROCEDURAL WIN IN SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS CASE
  4. BALLOT ACCESS BILLS
  5. 72% OF ARIZONA LEGISLATORS BACK POPULAR VOTE PLAN
  6. MAINE LIBERTARIAN PARTY SUES
  7. ARIZONA TOP-TWO INITIATIVE STARTS TO CIRCULATE, BUT HAS LEGAL FLAWS
  8. ALASKA DEMOCRATS WANT TO LET INDEPENDENTS BE THEIR NOMINEES
  9. AMERICA VOTES 2014 IS NOW IN PRINT
  10. ELECTION LAW BILLS OF INTEREST
  11. BOOK REVIEW: PRIMARY POLITICS
  12. U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES THREE BALLOT ACCESS CASES
  13. U.S. DISTRICT COURT DENIES RELIEF IN PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY BALLOT ACCESS CASE
  14. 1914 VOTE FOR U.S. HOUSE
  15. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO GOT ON BALLOTS IN JANUARY
  16. MIKE BLOOMBERG PONDERS INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY
  17. GARY JOHNSON DECLARES FOR THE LIBERTARIAN NOMINATION
  18. LIBERTARIAN PARTY GAINS A NEVADA STATE LEGISLATOR
  19. REFORM PARTY CONVENTION
  20. CHART ON 2016 PETITIONING
  21. JILL STEIN LIKELY TO RECEIVE PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS IN FEBRUARY
  22. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

U.S. DISTRICT COURT ENJOINS CONNECTICUT BAN ON OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATORS

On January 27, U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall, a Clinton appointee, enjoined the Connecticut law that bans out-of-state circulators. Libertarian Party of Connecticut v Merrill, 15-cv-1851.

The opinion says, "The Party is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of a facial challenge to the statutes at issue." Technically, the law has not yet been declared unconstitutional, but the injunction could not have been granted if the judge didn’t believe the law is void.

The Libertarian Party was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU had been negotiating with the state for months before the lawsuit was finally filed on December 22, 2015. The ACLU had been trying to persuade the state to admit the law was unconstitutional, to avoid the necessity for filing a lawsuit. In the end, the state decided to try to defend its law. But, as a result of the injunction, it is likely the state will agree that the law is unconstitutional, and further proceedings may not be needed.

New Jersey and New York are now the only states that still ban out-of-state circulators for minor party or independent candidate petitions. Also South Dakota permits out-of-state circulators for petitions to create a new party, but bans them for petitions to place independent candidates on the ballot, and for petitions to put minor party candidates on that party’s own primary ballot.


MICHIGAN ENDS STRAIGHT-TICKET

On January 5, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed SB 13, eliminating the straight-ticket device. The legislature had passed the bill on December 16.


PROCEDURAL WIN IN SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On January 26, U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier issued a procedural ruling in Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Krebs, 4:15cv-4111. This is the case that challenges South Dakota’s March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties.

The order says the Libertarian and Constitution Parties do have standing. It also gives them permission to amend their Complaint, which had been filed on June 15, 2015. Without an amended Complaint, the lawsuit would have been over. When the case was filed, the petition deadline was March 1. Afterwards, a referendum petition against the law that set that deadline was found to have enough signatures, which meant the new law wouldn’t go into effect (at least until after the voters vote on it, in November 2016). So the deadline for the 2016 election is March 29, not March 1. The parties have now amended their Complaint to attack the March 29 deadline as well.


BALLOT ACCESS BILLS

Bills in Oklahoma and Tennessee have been introduced to improve ballot access for minor parties. In Oklahoma, SB 896 by Senator Kyle Loveless (R-Oklahoma City) would lower the vote test for a party to remain on the ballot from 10%, to 2.5%. In Tennessee, SB 2528 and HB 2457 would lower the petition to create a new party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5%. The authors are Senator Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet) and Representative John Windle (D-Livingston).


72% OF ARIZONA LEGISLATORS BACK POPULAR VOTE PLAN

Bills to pass the National Popular Vote Plan in Arizona are being co-sponsored by 72% of the legislators. The bills are HB 2456, which has 45 co-sponsors out of 60 House members; and SB 1218, which has 20 co-sponsors out of 30 Senators.

It seems likely the bills will pass. That will be the first time the Plan has passed in a state in which both houses of the legislature have Republican majorities. So far the plan has passed in states that have 165 electoral votes. It will go into effect when that total reaches 270. The Plan says that the participating states agree that whichever presidential candidate receives the most popular votes will win all the electoral votes from those states. Thus, it would be impossible for anyone to be elected President who had fewer popular votes than another candidate.


MAINE LIBERTARIAN PARTY SUES

As noted in the last B.A.N., on December 9 the Maine Secretary of State said that the Libertarian Party registration drive had failed to obtain at least 5,000 registered members by the December 1, 2015 deadline, so the party is not qualified for 2016 and loses all its registrants.

On January 4, the party filed a federal lawsuit, Libertarian Party of Maine v Dunlap, 2:16cv-2. The lawsuit argues that the December 1 deadline is far too early to be constitutional. It also argues that it violates due process for the Secretary to have rejected almost one-third of all the registration forms, because of tiny flaws in each form.


ARIZONA TOP-TWO INITIATIVE STARTS TO CIRCULATE, BUT HAS LEGAL FLAWS

On January 21, the Arizona proponents of a top-two system unveiled the language of their new initiative, and began circulating the petition to get it on the ballot. It is due in July 2016. A top-two system provides that all candidates run on a single primary ballot. Then, only the two candidates who get the most votes can run in November.

Last year the proponents had said they would write their initiative to leave party labels off ballots (for every office except President), but they changed their mind, and will keep party labels on the ballot. However, the wrote it so that the only party labels that could appear on the ballot would be the names of qualified parties. They believe that their initiative, as written, would require candidates who are registered into unqualified parties to have "PND" on the ballot. That stands for "party not determined." A spokesperson for the sponsors said this was done to stop "bogus" party labels from being printed on the ballot.

The plain language of the initiative does not do what its backers desire, however. It says, "The affiliation listed on the ballot must match the affiliation listed on the candidate’s voter registration." The proponents did not realize that Arizona voters are allowed to register into unqualified parties.

Another problem is that the initiative prints the names of qualified parties on the ballot, next to the names of candidates who are members of those parties, without a qualifier.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Washington State Grange v Washington State Republican Party in 2008 that top-two systems violate freedom of association if the ballot causes voters to believe that the party label means that the party approves of that candidate, or that the party nominated the candidate.

That is why the two states with top-two systems, California and Washington, provide that the labels have a qualifier to demonstrate that there is no true link between the party and the candidate. That is why Washington state ballot labels say "Prefers Republican Party", and why California ballots say, "Party preference: Republican." But the Arizona initiative simply provides that the party name go on the ballot, with no other word.

If the initiative gets on the ballot and passes, the legislature would be free to provide for a qualifying term, such as "prefers". However, it is believed that a majority of legislators do not favor this top-two initiative, and therefore they would be unlikely to repair the problem.


ALASKA DEMOCRATS WANT TO LET INDEPENDENTS BE THEIR NOMINEES

The Alaska Democratic Party has asked the State Division of Elections to let registered independents seek a Democratic Party nomination. The law says only party members may be nominated. The party says it has a right to nominate non-members if it wishes, and if the state says "No", the party will probably sue.

In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashijan v Republican Party of Connecticut that parties have a right to nominate non-members.


AMERICA VOTES 2014 IS NOW IN PRINT

Congressional Quarterly Press, a division of SAGE Publications, has just published America Votes 31 by Rhodes Cook. It has election returns for 2013 and 2014 elections for all federal office and Governor. It includes the vote for U.S. Senate and Governor by county, for each state. It includes primary elections. There is no better reference book for elecction returns. The series has been published for 60 years, with a volume appearing every two years.


ELECTION LAW BILLS OF INTEREST

Arizona: Senator Martin Quezada and Representative Richard Andrade, both Democrats, have introduced SB 1027, to let independent voters vote in presidential primaries. Independents can already vote in non-presidential primaries.

D.C.: Councilmembers Jack Evans and Anita Bonds have introduced B21-576, which would let political parties that have presidential primaries provide that no petitions are needed to get on the presidential primary ballot. Current law requires 1,000 signatures, or 1% of party membership, whichever is less.

Missouri: Representative Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) has introduced HB 1771, which would legalize fusion if both parties adopt rules permitting fusion. Fusion is the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same person. The bill includes new parties (which nominate by convention) as well as established parties.

Nebraska: Senator John Murante (R-Gretna) has introduced LB 879, which increases the number of signatures for an independent presidential candidate from 2,500 to 10% of the number of registered voters in the state, which would be 115,885. The number of signatures for other statewide independents would rise from 4,000 to 115.885 as well. It is not known why he introduced this bill.

New Hampshire: four Representatives have introduced HB 1521, to allow approval voting. In approval voting, voters may vote for as many candidates as they wish, even if only one person is being elected.

New Mexico: Representatives Moe Maestas and Stephanie Richard, both Democrats, have introduced HJR12, to let independents vote in partisan primaries.

South Dakota: nine Republican legislators have introduced SB 95, to let candidates get on primary ballots without a petition, if they pay a fee of 1% of the annual salary.


BOOK REVIEW: PRIMARY POLITICS

Primary Politics, 2nd edition, by Elaine C. Kamarck, Brookings Institution Press, 2016, 220 pages.

Although the author is an academic and a scholar, she is also a veteran of many years holding a high position in the national Democratic Party, and in various Democratic presidential campaigns. The strength of her book is that she was on the inside of the upper reaches of the Democratic Party during many of the years in which the that party was trying to reshape the presidential primary system. The book could be considered a history of the countless national Democratic commissions from 1970 to the present.

She is also well-informed about the Republican Party’s attempts to reshape the presidential primary system. As she points out, however, it is the Democrats who have put the most work into altering presidential primaries.

Between 1968 and today, the methods used by the two major parties to nominate presidential candidates has changed completely. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic nominee even though his name did not appear on the presidential primary ballot in any state. Now, it is unthinkable that the major parties would ever nominate someone for president who hadn’t run in virtually all the primaries.

Kamarck explains in an entertaining way how the order of presidential primaries has a very large impact on which candidate wins a nomination. She describes how Presidents, Vice-Presidents running for President, and other powerful actors have understood this and have exerted a great deal of effort to manipulate the order in which states vote. These individuals include Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama. It is plausible that Kamarck is the first author to tell the complete story.

The book also explains in detail how Iowa and New Hampshire have been able to continue to be the first two states to choose convention delegates. It talks about the shift away from major contenders applying for primary season matching funds.

The book describes the decline of winner-take-all primaries in the Democratic Party, and the partial shift away in the Republican Party. It talks about the necessity for major party presidential candidates to recruit and file complete slates of candidates for Delegate. It describes the 1984 Democratic race, in which Gary Hart might have been the nominee if only he had done a better job of getting candidates for Delegate. It talks about how the rules were changed to give presidential candidates far more power to pick their own delegates than in the past.

The book has a great deal of information about the complicated rules that translate primary votes into delegate apportionment. The history of the changes in formulas, especially for Democrats, is actually very funny.

The book’s subtitle, "Everything you Need to Know about How America Nominates its Presidential Candidates" is not accurate. The book contains nothing about how Democratic and Republican candidates for President get themselves on primary ballots. Also, nothing in the book covers presidential candidates who run outside the two major parties.


U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES THREE BALLOT ACCESS CASES

Arizona: on January 11, the Court refused to hear the lawsuit filed by the Libertarian and Green Parties against voter registration forms that only include the two largest parties with a checkbox for each. If a voter wants to register into any other party, whether it is qualified or not, the voter must write-in the name of that party. Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, 15-598.

Michigan: on January 25, the Court refused to hear Erard v Johnson, 15M76. The plaintiff, an activist in the Socialist Party, challenged the law that requires approximately twice as many signatures for a new party to get on the ballot than the number of votes needed for an old party to remain on. The clerk of the court felt that the case had been filed a day too late, and the Court did not countermand the clerk.

Ohio: on January 14, the Court refused a request from the Libertarian Party for injunctive relief in Libertarian Party v Husted, 15A725. The party argued that the 2013 ballot access law violates the Ohio Constitution, and that the federal courts do have authority to decide that issue (the lower courts had said the issue belongs in state court). Five days later, the party then filed a new lawsuit in state court. Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 16-cv-554.


U.S. DISTRICT COURT DENIES RELIEF IN PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On January 27, U.S. District Court Judge Yvette Kane denied injunctive relief in Benezet Consulting v Cortes, m.d., 1:16cv-74. The case had been filed by a petitioning firm that wants to collect signatures for presidential primary candidates in Pennsylvania. The petitioning period started on January 26 and is only three weeks long. The plaintiff wanted relief from the three laws declared unconstitutional last year for general election petitions in Pennsylvania (the ban on out-of-state petitioning, notarization of forms, and whether voters can sign for more than one candidate).

But the judge said the Benezet case was filed too late, so no injunction was issued. It had been filed on January 14. The constitutionality of the three laws, as applied to primary petitions, will be settled later.


1914 VOTE FOR U.S. HOUSE

The chart below shows the vote by state, by party, for U.S. House of Representatives, in 1914. This chart is included to rebut the idea that, given the Constitutional structure of the United States, a multi-party system is impossible. In 1914 the ballot access laws were far more lenient than they are today. As a result, the nation had five thriving political parties in 1914, each one of which won a congressional election that year. The partisan lineup of the U.S. House following the 1914 election was: 230 Democrats, 198 Republicans, 6 Progressives, 1 Socialist, 1 Prohibitionist, and 1 independent.

The chart, and that tally, include the results from Alaska and Hawaii. They elected a non-voting Delegate to the House. That is why the total number of seats is 437.

The 1914 election was not unique. The 1916 election also saw wins for each of those five parties.

STATE

REPUBLICAN

DEMOCRATIC

PROGRESSIVE

SOCIALIST

PROHIBITION

Alab.

12,832

64,141

3,742

1,143

0

Alas.

6,283

3,416

0

1,090

0

Ariz.

7,586

33,306

0

3,773

0

Ark.

4,087

32,509

1,781

0

0

Cal.

380,493

158,476

141,571

68,215

71,589

Colo.

99,900

118,211

16,985

6,965

0

Conn.

89,000

78,110

6,734

5,718

1,616

Del

22,922

20,681

1,653

463

0

Fla.

0

23,951

0

0

0

Ga.

0

80,537

640

0

0

Hi.

8,590

2,609

610

0

0

Ida.

45,365

39,736

8,295

8,093

1,329

Ill.

417,978

391,454

119,159

42,841

7,644

Ind.

233,140

275,891

90,040

19,507

11,703

Iowa

212,865

162,982

19,605

8,153

4,602

Kan.

188,056

195,830

74,401

14,001

11,345

Ky.

123,518

173,374

15,018

4,231

150

La.

0

40,545

8,876

1,344

0

Me.

60,264

60,649

17,883

1,830

257

Md.

95,586

111,410

3,188

2,421

3,518

Mass.

222,850

189,197

30,118

5,524

Mich.

218,445

149,762

47,700

10,177

3,624

Minn.

181,482

87,305

24,737

29,296

0

Miss.

0

35,830

0

1,125

0

Mo.

240,897

318,587

22,747

17,149

602

Mont.

26,161

37,011

6,694

12,278

0

Nebr.

110,839

112,309

3,141

5,044

2,294

Nev.

8,915

8,031

0

4,294

0

N.H

42,450

35,241

2,380

1,054

0

N.J.

179,930

173,183

14,584

14,581

4,993

N.M.

23,812

19,805

1,695

1,101

0

N.Y.

619,150

551,666

79,125

61,415

29,013

No.C.

79,842

122,129

341

352

0

No.D.

50,792

26,684

0

6,163

0

Ohio

480,482

484,348

50,911

49,905

1,779

Okla.

75,784

112,161

4,236

52,940

515

Ore.

102,107

67,349

8,521

9,596

32,150

Pa.

529,530

313,726

193,106

43,932

27,561

R.I.

39,001

35,190

1,321

1,666

575

So.C.

30

33,077

0

71

0

So.D.

52,844

37,842

1,501

2,688

1,850

Tenn.

47,932

149,248

7,753

3,530

0

Tex.

10,605

177,303

1,581

24,276

0

Utah

54,940

51,927

1,130

6,673

0

Vt.

36,980

13,685

9,545

1,073

0

Va.

22,969

53,751

210

2,497

0

Wa.

128,001

96,652

66,666

32,512

10,230

W.V.

110,520

106,042

8,818

11,944

1,931

Wis.

159,370

115,501

0

28,763

5,247

Wyo.

21,362

17,246

1,308

1,693

0

TOT.

5,871,614

5,793,581

1,119,440

632,010

236,117


PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO GOT ON BALLOTS IN JANUARY

The January 2016 Ballot Access News listed all the candidates who got on 2016 presidential primary ballots in Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The December 2015 issue had the same information for Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The January issue showed that Willie Wilson and Martin O’Malley were on the ballot in the Ohio Democratic primary, but after that issue came out, it was determined that neither one of them had enough valid signatures, so they are off in Ohio.

The chart below shows the same information for nine more states, for candidates who have been put on ballots since the January issue came out. Also this chart repeats the North Carolina data from last time, because it was incomplete in the January issue. This page lists candidates in Illinois and Indiana who have filed petitions, but it is not certain that all those who filed petitions will be on the ballot, because the petition review period is still underway in those two states.

DEMOCRATS

GA.

ILL.

IND.

KY.

MISS

MO.

N.C.

P.RICO

VT.

WI.

Jon Adams,

X X X X X

X

X X X X

Hillary Clinton, New York

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Larry Cohen, Illinois

X

X

X X X X X X X X

Rocky De La Fuente, California

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Henry Hewes, New York

X X X X X

X

X X X X

Keith Judd, Texas

X X X X X

X

X X 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 X X X X X X X

Mark Stewart, New Hampshire

X

X

X X X X X X X X

Willie Wilson, Illinois

X X X X X

X

X X X X

John Wolfe, Tennessee

X X X X X

X

X X X X
X

REPUBLICANS

X X X X X X X X X X

Jeb Bush, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ben Carson, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Chris Christie, New Jersey

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ted Cruz, Texas

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Carly Fiorina, Virginia

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Jim Gilmore, Virginia

X X X X X X

X

X X

X

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X

Mike Huckabee, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

John R. Kasich, Ohio

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Jim Lynch,

X X X X X

X

X X X X

George Pataki, New York

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X X

Rand Paul, Kentucky

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Marco Rubio, Florida

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rick Santorum, Virginia

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

LIBERTARIANS

X X X X X X X X X X

Marc Allen Feldman, Ohio

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

John David Hale, Kentucky

X X X X X X

X

X X X

Cecil Ince, Misssouri

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

Gary Johnson, New Mexico

X X X X X X

X

X X X

Steve Kerbel, Colorado

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

Darryl Perry, New Hampshire

X X X X X X

X

X X X

Austin Petersen, Missouri

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

Derrick Reid, California

X X X X X X

X

X X X

Jack Robinson, South Carolina

X X X X X X

X

X X X

Rhett Smith, Texas

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

Barbara Joy Waymire, California

X X X X X X

X

X X X

MIKE BLOOMBERG PONDERS INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY

On January 23, the news leaked out that former New York city Mayor Mike Bloomberg is thinking about running for President as an independent candidate. He seems likely to decide in March. All of the deadlines for someone to get on the ballot (using the later method, new party or independent) are in the period June-September, except that the Texas deadlines are in May. Probably Bloomberg could postpone his decision to April, except for the Texas deadline problem. It is possible the Texas deadline is unconstitutional. Courts have invalidated five June deadlines (Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, and South Dakota), so it doesn’t seem rational for Texas to stick with May.


GARY JOHNSON DECLARES FOR THE LIBERTARIAN NOMINATION

On January 6, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson said he will seek the Libertarian presidential nomination. His announcement came too late for him to qualify for the Missouri Libertarian presidential primary.


LIBERTARIAN PARTY GAINS A NEVADA STATE LEGISLATOR

On January 8, Nevada Assemblymember John Moore announced that he has switched his registration from "Republican" to "Libertarian." He had been elected to his first term in 2014, although in 2012 he had run for the same seat as a Democrat, but he did not win the Democratic primary. He intends to seek re-election as a Libertarian this year.


REFORM PARTY CONVENTION

The Reform Party will hold its presidential convention July 29-31 in Babylon, New York. That date is immediately after the two major party conventions.


CHART ON PAGE FOUR

The chart on page four shows the vote by state, by party, for U.S. House of Representatives, in 1914. This chart is included to rebut the idea that, given the Constitutional structure of the United States, a multi-party system is impossible. In 1914 the ballot access laws were far more lenient than they are today. As a result, the nation had five thriving political parties in 1914, each one of which won a congressional election that year. The partisan lineup of the U.S. House following the 1914 election was: 230 Democrats, 198 Republicans, 6 Progressives, 1 Socialist, 1 Prohibitionist, and 1 independent.

The chart, and that tally, include the results from Alaska and Hawaii. They elected a non-voting Delegate to the House. That is why the total number of seats is 437.

The 1914 election was not unique. The 1916 election also saw wins for each of those five parties.


CHART ON 2016 PETITIONING

The usual chart that shows the progress of 2016 petition drives will return in the March issue. During January, the only significant headway for any petition was the Oklahoma Libertarian petition drive, which is now finished.


JILL STEIN LIKELY TO RECEIVE PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS IN FEBRUARY

Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party nomination, seems likely to qualify for primary season matching funds. She has forwarded documentation to the Federal Election Commission that she has received over $5,000 from each of 21 states. She only needs 20 states. The first check is likely to be issued in February, and the money can be used for general election petitioning for the Green Party. She also received matching funds in 2012, but not until August 2012, too late to do much petitioning.


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

February 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition — 1 Comment

Leave a Reply

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