July 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
July 1, 2016 – Volume 32, Number 2

This issue was printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. PROCEDURAL WIN IN MARYLAND BALLOT ACCESS CASE
  2. PENNSYLVANIA RULING IMMINENT
  3. PROCEDURAL WIN IN SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS CASE
  4. FOURTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS VIRGINIA’s BALLOT ORDER RULES
  5. ROCKY DE LA FUENTE FILES FOUR BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUITS
  6. ARIZONA GREENS SUE FOR PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT ACCESS
  7. NEW LAWSUITS
  8. CALIFORNIA MINOR PARTY PRIMARIES
  9. BOOK REVIEW: A TITLE IN THE MAKING, PEROT MOVEMENT, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
  10. HIGH COURT WON’T HEAR SAMOA CASE
  11. LAWS ON FILING FOR DECLARED WRITE-IN STATUS
  12. 2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  13. PETITIONING FOR GROUPS NOT ON THE ABOVE CHART
  14. BETTER FOR AMERICA GROUP STARTS TO PETITION FOR PRESIDENT
  15. LIBERTARIAN PARTY GAINS A STATE SENATOR IN NEBRASKA
  16. THREE PARTIES SET DATES FOR NOMINATING FOR PRESIDENT
  17. FLORIDA WILL HOLD FIRST STATEWIDE PRIMARY FOR A PARTY OTHER THAN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC
  18. GEORGE WILL LEAVES REPUBLICANS
  19. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

PROCEDURAL WIN IN MARYLAND BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On June 10, U.S. District Court Judge George L. Russell, an Obama appointee, issued a ruling in the Maryland ballot access case, Dorsey v Lamone, 1:15cv-2170. The case challenges the number if signatures needed for an independent candidate for statewide office, which is 40,603 this year (1% of the registered voters as of January 2016, including inactive voters).

The ruling does not decide the case, but it rejects Maryland’s attempt to get the case dismissed. Judge Russell wrote, "At this stage of the litigation, Dorsey succeeds in stating a plausible claim that Maryland’s ballot access requirements for unaffiliated candidates are unconstitutional. According, the Court will deny the State Board’s Motion to dismiss."

Dorsey is an independent candidate for U.S. Senate this year. His case was filed in July 2015. The state had asked that the case be dismissed on September 4, 2015, so this case had been awaiting a decision for quite a while.

Dorsey argues that it is obvious that the state doesn’t need over 40,000 signatures to keep the ballot uncrowded, because Maryland only requires hew parties to submit 10,000 signatures, and the only parties that have submitted such petitions in the last fifteen years have been the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties.

The next stage will require the introduction of facts. The only relevantfacts needed in the case that are mentioned in the court order are how many independent candidates have successfully complied with the law in recent years. That evidence will show that, at least for statewide independents, only one has qualified in the last 20 years, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012, S. Rob Sobhani.

There is reason to believe that the Maryland State Elections Board will now concede that the disparity in the number of signatures can’t be defended. Assuming that happens, the decision will be very helpful in winning potential lawsuits against the other states that require more signatures for statewide independent candidates than new parties:

  • Arizona requires 35,514 signatures for all statewide independent candidates, but only 20,119 for a new party.
  • Florida requires 119,316 for an independent presidential candidate, but zero signatures for other independent candidates and for new parties.
  • Hawaii requires 4,347 for an independent presidential candidate, but only 707 for new parties.
  • Montana requires 11,823 for an independent candidate for Governor, but only 5,000 for a new party.
  • New Mexico requires 15,388 for any statewide independent, but only 2,565 for a new party.
  • Oklahoma requires 40,047 for an independent presidential candidate, but only 24,745 for a new party.
  • Texas requires 79,939 for an independent presidential candidate, but only 47,086 for a new party.


    PENNSYLVANIA RULING IMMINENT

As this issue goes to print, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel hasn’t said what the Pennsylvania ballot access rules will be this year. The state is asking him to require 5,000 signatures for statewide office, and the three minor parties who filed the case are asking that they be put on the ballot with no petition. The judge says he is working on his order.


PROCEDURAL WIN IN SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier, a Clinton appointee, issued a ruling in the South Dakota ballot access case. Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Krebs, 4:15cv-4111. The issue is the March 29 petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties if they wish to nominate for all partisan offices. The Constitution Party is a co-plaintiff.

The state already lets new parties qualify as late as July 11 if they are content to only run for President and various lesser statewide state offices. But if a party wants to have candidates for Governor, Congress, or state legislature, it must meet the March deadline.

The ruling denies the state’s request to dismiss the case. The state says a March deadline is needed because all parties nominate by primary for Governor, Congress and legislature, and the primary is in June. But the judge wrote, "Defendants have not explained what interest South Dakota has in requiring new political parties to hold a primary election for their gubernatorial candidates." The order also says that 41 states let new parties avoid a primary, and use conventions instead.

The next phase of the lawsuit is a trial. Other states in which it is impossible for a new party to place nominees on the November ballot with the party label (for non-presidential office) unless it participates in a primary are California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington. In addition, Arizona and Utah laws on party labels for independent candidate petitions are unclear, so arguably they belong on that list.


FOURTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS VIRGINIA’s BALLOT ORDER RULES

On June 20, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court that Virginia’s discriminatory listing of candidates on general election ballots is constitutional. Sarvis v Alcorn, 15-1162. Virginia law says the nominees of qualified parties are listed first on the ballot, and the state uses a random procedure to decide whether the Democratic of Republican nominees are on top.

Below them are the nominees of unqualified parties, and below them are independent candidates. Virginia has not had any qualified parties on the ballot, other than the Repubilcan and Democratic Parties, since 1997.

The decision does not mention any of the court decisions that held that the Constitution requires that any candidate have an equal chance to be listed first on the ballot, except it does mention an Oklahoma decision that struck down the law that said Democrats always get the first line on the ballot. Courts that have ruled in favor of equality include the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, the Supreme Courts of California and New Hampshire, and a U.S. District Court in New Mexico.

The decision says the state has an interest in encouraging more voters to vote for the two major parties. It says, "The ballot ordering law may also favor Virginia’s ‘strong interest in the stability of its political system. Maintaining a stable political system is, unquestionably, a compelling state interest.’"

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports this conclusion. The authors of the Constitution would probably be shocked if they knew that, in the future, state governments would pass election laws deliberately designed to prop up old dominant parties and injure all their competitors.

One-third of the states give every candidate an equal chance to be listed first on the ballot.


ROCKY DE LA FUENTE FILES FOUR BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUITS

Rocky De La Fuente is an independent presidential candidate. He is wealthy, so he is able to hire paid petitioners. He has already finished petitioning in six states, and is working in others.

He has also sued four states with very difficult petition requirements for independent presidential candidates: California, Florida, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. He is the first independent presidential candidate in history to sue California, Florida, and North Carolina over the number of signatures each requires. No independent presidential candidate in any of those four states has managed to qualify since 1992, when Ross Perot did so.

De La Fuente had also run for President this year in many Democratic presidential primaries. He has long lived in San Diego, but recently moved to Florida, where he is simultaneously running for U.S. Senate in the August 2016 Democratic primary.


ARIZONA GREENS SUE FOR PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT ACCESS

On June 22, the Green Party filed a lawsuit to place its presidential nominee on the Arizona ballot. The party is ballot-qualified, but the law requires all qualified parties to submit the names of their presidential elector candidates by June 1. The party missed the deadline, but filed the list of electors a few days later. But the Secretary of State said the party cannot place its presidential nominee on the ballot without a lawsuit, so the party sued. The case is Arizona Green Party v Reagan, U.S. District Court, 2:16cv-2027.

The Libertarian Party missed the deadline in Arizona in 1996, but won a state court ruling putting the party’s nominee, Harry Browne, on the ballot.

The judge in the 1996 case said the state has no interest in requiring the electors that early. That case included evidence that whenever the Democratic or Republican Parties miss a deadline like this, the state always overlooks the lateness. The major parties have missed deadlines in Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Texas. Arizona does not require independent presidential candidates to submit their elector candidates until September. The reason Arizona has such an early deadline for party candidates for elector is that before 1992, they ran in primaries. When nomination by primary was ended, the state should have changed the deadline, but did not do so.


NEW LAWSUITS

Georgia: on June 14, an independent candidate for a county partisan office filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the 5% petition requirement violates the Georgia Constitution. Garner v Muscogee County Board of Elections, su16-cv-1720. The plaintiff, Mike Garner, needs 5,226 signatures to get on the ballot for Muscogee County Court Clerk. That is a higher number than the number of votes any candidate running in either major primary for that office received. The case will be heard on July 8.

Nevada: the Green Party will file a lawsuit against the June 2 petition deadline for new parties. The old June 10 Nevada deadline was enjoined in 1992 in Fulani v Lau, and afterwards the deadline was moved to July. But as the years passed, the legislature forgot why it had done that, and moved the deadline to April, and then in 2015 moved it to June. The lawsuit is needed because the Green Party petition, after it was checked, fell 647 signatures short.

New York: on June 13, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against the state’s ban on out-of-state petitioners. Merced v Spano, e.d., 1:16cv-3054. New York is one of three states in which out-of-staters can’t work; the others are Missouri and New Jersey.

New York (2): on June 27, Philip Pidot, a Republican candidate for U.S. House, filed a lawsuit for a new primary in his district. He had petitioned to get on the Republican primary ballot in the 3rd district. He was initially told he didn’t have enough signatures. He went to state court, which said he did have enough signatures, but that it was too late to put him on the ballot. The primary was June 28. On June 27 he asked a federal court to require the state to re-do the primary in his district. Pidot v New York State Bd. of Elections, e.d., 2:16cv-3527.

Virginia: on June 24, a Republican delegate to the national convention filed a lawsuit against a state law that requires delegates to support the candidate (on the first ballot) who won the state’s primary. Donald Trump won that primary and the plaintiff, Carroll Correll, doesn’t want to vote for Trump. Correll v Herring, e.d., 3:16cv-467.


CALIFORNIA MINOR PARTY PRIMARIES

California held presidential primaries for six parties on June 7. Here are the mostly final results for the parties other than Democratic and Republican:

American Independent: Alan Spears 7,834; Arthur Harris 6,970; Robert Ornelas 6,929; J. R. Myers 5,270; Wiley Drake 5,248; James Hedges 4,274; Thomas Hoefling 4.186.

Green: Jill Stein 10,702; Darryl Cherney 1,348; Sedinam Moyowasifsa-Curry 803; William Kreml 574; Kent Mesplay 568.

Libertarian: Gary Johnson 18,525; John McAfee 3,017; Austin Petersen 1,796; Rhett White Feather Smith 1,467; Joy Waymire 888; John Hale 837; Marc Feldman 832; Jack Robinson, Jr. 712; Steve Kerbel 535; Darryl Perry 500; Derrick M. Reid 444; Cecil Ince 401.

Peace & Freedom: Gloria La Riva 2,401; Monica Moorehead 1,450; Lynn S. Kahn 1,009.


BOOK REVIEW: A TITLE IN THE MAKING, PEROT MOVEMENT, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

A Title in the Making, Perot Movement Laid the Foundation to Take Back America, Where Do We Go From Here? by Patricia Muth Amazon prices vary but start at $34.11. 484 pages.

This book is the most extensive history of the Reform Party yet published. It is also the most detailed account of the 1992 Perot independent candidacy, and the most extensive book about the Perot pressure group United We Stand America, which was very active 1993-1994.

Some major biographies of Ross Perot exist, but they were all published before the 1996 election. Muth not only covers that election in detail, she also covers the 1998-2001 years as well. The only other history of the Reform Party that includes 2000, the year the party nominated Pat Buchanan, is Pat Benjamin’s The Perot Legacy, published in 2013, but that book was only 189 pages.

Muth was an active participant in the Perot independent candidacy, United We Stand America, and the Reform Party, but she relies on far more than her own personal memories. She interviewed 130 people.

She certainly loves the Perot movement, but that doesn’t stop her from narrating the embarrassing parts of the Reform Party story. For example, she describes an event at the party’s national meeting in 2000 in Nashville: "Gargan, holding the microphone close to his mouth, screamed as loud as he could while Melanie Carne, a vivacious original Reformer from San Diego, ran up the aisle to the stage, and yanked the microphone plug from the electrical socket. Then, just as fast as she did, Sue Harris de Bauche, of Virginia, darted to the front and tackled Melanie, bringing her to the floor. As they rolled back and forth in front of the stage several people tried to break them up. In what seemed like seconds, eight police officers barged through the ballroom door."

The chapters on the beginning of the Reform Party in September 1995 are riveting, as the new party struggled to qualify in the difficult states with early deadlines. The party managed to register over 100,000 members in California in only 18 days. Its next three petitions, in Ohio, Maine, and Arkansas, were all rejected by state election officials, but the party sued all three states and prevailed.

The account of fighting the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1992 and 1996 is detailed and riveting.

The title refers to Muth’s belief that the country is still wrestling with the issues that animated the Perot movement, trade and debt.


HIGH COURT WON’T HEAR SAMOA CASE

On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Tuaua v U.S., 15-981. The lower court had ruled that the 14th amendment does not require that persons born in American Samoa be considered citizens.


LAWS ON FILING FOR DECLARED WRITE-IN STATUS

The chart below lists the filing deadlines in each state, for write-in candidates. Page four also explains what the law is for write-ins, for the states without write-in filing laws.

The reason this chart has been prepared is that many Bernie Sanders die-hard supporters are determined to cast a write-in vote for him in November. The subject of write-ins for President is probably receiving more press attention this year than in any previous presidential election.

Sanders is extremely unlikely to be willing to file as a declared write-in candidate. But people who are interested in obtaining a tally of how many write-ins he receives are free to find some other individual also named Bernie Sanders, and asking him to file as a declared write-in candidate.

State Text of Deadline Law 2016 Deadline Election Code

Alaska

5 days before general election

November 3

15.25.105

Arizona

40 days before general election

September 29

16-312

Arkansas

60 days before general election

September 9

7-5-205

California

14 days before general election

October 25

Election code 7300

Colorado

110 days before general election

July 21

1-4-1102(1)

Connecticut

14 days before general election

October 25

9-175

Delaware

no later than September 30 (4:30 p.m.)

September 30

Title 15, 3402(c)

D.C.

one day before general election (5 p.m.)

November 7

Elec. Regs. 1508.2

Florida

49days before primary (noon)

July 12

99.061(3)(a)

Georgia

Tues. after 1st Monday in September

September 6

21-2-133

Idaho

28 days before general election

October 11

34-702A

Illinois

61 days before general election

September 8

5/17-16.1

Indiana

126 days before general election (noon)

July 5

3-8-2-2.5 & 3-13-1-15(c)

Kansas

Second Mon. bef. Gen. elec. (noon)

October 31

25-305(c)

Kentucky

4th Friday in October

October 23

117.265(2)

Maine

45 days before general election

September 24

21-A sec. 1, sub sec. 51

Maryland

Wed. before gen. election (5 p.m.)

November 2

Art. 33, sec. 17-5(b)

Mass.

60 days before general election

September 9

Chap. 54, sec. 78A

Michigan

2nd Friday before gen. election (4 p.m.)

September 9

168.737a

Minnesota

7 days before general election

November 1

204B.09

Missouri

Friday before general election (5 p.m.)

November 4

115.453(4)

Montana

15 days before general election (5 p.m.)

October 24

13-10-211

Nebraska

2nd Friday before general election

October 28

32-615

N. Mexico

63 days before general election (5 p.m.)

September 6

1-12-19.1A

New York

third Tuesday before general election

October 18

Elec. Code 6-153

No. Car.

90 days before general election

August 10

163-123(a)

No. Dakota

21 days before general election (4 p.m.)

October 18

16.1-12-02.2

Ohio

40 days before general election

September 29

3513.041

Oregon

11 days before general election

October 28

Tit. 23, 249.007

Tennessee

50 days before general election

September 19

2-7-133(i)

Texas

78 days before general election

August 22

Art. 8.021 & regulation

Utah

60 days before election (5 p.m.)

September 9

20A-9-601

Virginia

10 days before general election

October 29

24.2-644C

Wash.

one day before general election

November 7

29.04.180

W. Va.

49 days before general election

September 20

3-6-4a

Wisconsin

14 days bef. general election (4:30 pm)

October 25

8.185(1)

Wyoming

2 days after the election

November 10

22-5-501

The District of Columbia and 36 states provide that write-in candidates should file a declaration of candidacy if they want their write-ins counted. Oddly, though, D.C., Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington won’t count write-ins even for declared write-in candidates unless the vote-counting equipment suggests a write-in candidate might have been elected.

The filing deadlines for write-in filing varies greatly, ranging from July 5 in Indiana, to November for many states. This chart shows the write-in filing deadlines in each state. States that allow write-ins in the general election, and don’t have write-in filing laws, are legally obliged to count all write-ins: Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont. But most of these 8 states won’t tally them, or will tally some but not others. Mississippi law says write-in space is printed on ballots, but write-ins will not be counted unless one of the ballot-listed candidates dies.

Generally the filing deadlines for president and other office are the same. In the few instances at which they are different, the chart above has thep presidential deadlines. Usually, presidential write-in filing requires the names of a slate of presidential elector candieates. Only one state, South Carolina, has a law that says that although write-ins in general elections are permitted, they are not permitted for president. But election officials in Arkansas and New Mexico say they won’t permit presidential write-ins, even though they have permitted write-ins for president in the past in general elections, and the law does not say they are not permitted for president.


2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES COLLECTED
THREE TYPES OF DEADLINES
FULL PARTY
CAND
LIB’T
GREEN
CONSTI
ROCKY
Pres Party
Pres. Indp.

Ala.

35,413

5,000

*550

*1,000

*600

0

Mar. 1

Aug. 18

Alaska

(reg) 8,399

#3,005

already on

*3,900

already on

700

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Ariz.

20,119

#35,514

already on

*in court

0

0

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

Ark.

10,000

#1,000

already on

already on

already on

finished

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Calif.

(es) (reg) 61,000

178,039

already on

already on

*340

in court

July 11

Aug. 12

Colo.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $1,000

already on

already on

already on

??

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

*2,500

*2,500

0

0

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Del.

(reg) 654

6,526

already on

*622

*316

0

Aug. 20

July 15

D.C.

no procedure

(est.) #4,600

*0

already on

*0

*0

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Florida

be organized

119,316

already on

already on

already on

in court

Sep. 1

July 15

Georgia

51,912

#7,500

already on

*2,000

*2,500

7,000

July 12

July 12

Hawaii

707

#4,347

already on

already on

already on

0

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

Idaho

13,047

1,000

already on

0

already on

finished

Aug. 30

Aug. 24

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

*finished

*finished

*finished

too late

June 27

June 27

Indiana

no procedure

#26,700

already on

*too late

*too late

too late

June 30

June 30

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

*850

1,200

*800

finished

Aug. 19

Aug. 19

Kansas

16,960

5,000

already on

*1,800

0

0

June 1

Aug. 1

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

in court

0

in court

0

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

La.

(reg) 1,000

#pay $500

already on

already on

124

0

Aug. 19

Aug. 19

Maine

(reg) 5,000

#4,000

*need 300

already on

0

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Md.

10,000

40,603

already on

already on

0

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Mass.

(est) (reg) 45,000

#10,000

*6,800

already on

0

0

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Mich.

31,519

30,000

already on

already on

already on

0

July 21

July 21

Minn.

98,770

#2,000

0

0

0

0

Aug. 23

Aug. 23

Miss.

be organized

1,000

already on

already on

already on

0

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already on

*1,800

already on

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Mont.

5,000

#5,000

already on

0

0

0

Aug. 17

Aug. 17

Nebr.

5,395

2,500

already on

500

*1,350

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Nev.

5,431

5,431

already on

*in court

already on

finished

June 3

July 8

N. Hamp.

*14,866

#3,000

0

*480

0

0

Aug. 10

Aug. 10

N.J.

no procedure

#800

*500

*400

*already on

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

N. M.

2,565

15,388

already on

already on

already on

finished

June 30

June 30

N.Y.

no procedure

#15,000

*1,000

already on

0

0

*Aug. 2

*Aug. 2

No. Car.

89,366

89,366

already on

*too late

*too late

in court

May 17

June 9

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

already on

0

0

0

Sep. 5

Sep. 5

Ohio

30,560

5,000

in court

already on

0

1,000

July 6

Aug. 10

Okla.

24,745

40,047

already on

0

0

in court

July 15

July 15

Oregon

22,046

17,893

already on

already on

already on

0

Aug. 30

Aug. 30

Penn.

no procedure

21,775

in court

in court

in court

4,000

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

R.I.

16,203

#1,000

0

0

0

0

Sep. 9

Sep. 9

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

0

May 8

July 15

So. Dak.

6,936

2,775

*already on

0

already on

0

July 11

*Aug. 2

Tenn.

33,816

275

*200

in court

in court

0

Aug. 10

Aug. 18

Texas

47,086

79,939

already on

already on

*too late

too late

May 22

May 9

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

*525

already on

finished

Aug. 15

Aug. 15

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

*375

0

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Virginia

no procedure

#5,000

*1,050

*2,000

*200

0

Aug. 26

Aug. 26

Wash.

no procedure

#1,000

*600

*finished

0

50

July 23

July 23

West Va.

no procedure

#6,705

already on

already on

9,650

0

Aug. 1

Aug. 1

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

already on

already on

already on

0

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Wyo.

3,302

3,302

already on

0

already on

0

June 1

Aug. 30

TOTAL STATES ON
33*
20*
18*
0

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
"CONSTI" = Constitution Party.
"ROCKY" means independent candidate Rocky De La Fuente.
* = change since June 1, 2016 issue.


PETITIONING FOR GROUPS NOT ON THE ABOVE CHART

The petitioning chart above doesn’t have room for all parties that are petitioning for President:

  • Socialist Workers Party: finished in Colorado, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Washington.
  • Party for Socialism & Liberation: finished in Florida, New Mexico, and Vermont.
  • Prohibition Party: finished in Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, and Mississippi.
  • Socialist Party: finished in Illinois.
  • Workers World Party: finished in New Jersey.


    BETTER FOR AMERICA GROUP STARTS TO PETITION FOR PRESIDENT

"Better for America" is a group founded for the purpose of placing a conservative mainstream presidential candidate on the ballot as an independent. The group has already completed a party petition in New Mexico, using the name "Better for America Party." It hopes to announce its presidential nominee very soon. This is the same group that first suggested David French as a candidate. French seriously considered the offer but declined on June 5.


LIBERTARIAN PARTY GAINS A STATE SENATOR IN NEBRASKA

On May 31, Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke announced that she had changed her voter registration from "Republican" to "Libertarian." She lives in Crete, and was last re-elected in 2014. She has not decided if she will run for re-election in 2018. Although the Libertarian Party has had twelve state legislators in the past (including one currently in Nevada), she is the party’s first woman and the first Senator.


THREE PARTIES SET DATES FOR NOMINATING FOR PRESIDENT

The Independent Party of Oregon is choosing its presidential nominee with a mail ballot, paid for by the party. All registered members of the party, and all independents who participated in the party’s government-administered primary in May, will receive a ballot in early July. The candidates are Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and "None of the above." If NOTA wins, the party will have no nominee. Oregon permits two parties to nominate the same candidate.

The Peace & Freedom Party, and the American Independent Party, will both choose a presidential nominee August 13-14 at their state conventions. Both meetings are in Sacramento.


FLORIDA WILL HOLD FIRST STATEWIDE PRIMARY FOR A PARTY OTHER THAN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC

Florida has been holding primaries since 1914, but has never held a statewide primary for any party other than Democratic or Republican. The state does not hold primaries for parties unless are at least two candidates for a particular nomination. Because two Libertarians filed this year for U.S. Senate, there will be a statewide Libertarian primary. The two candidates are Paul Stanton and and Augustus Invictus.

Florida does not hold presidential primaries for parties unless they have registration of 5%. But all qualified parties are entitled to primaries for other office.


GEORGE WILL LEAVES REPUBLICANS

George Will, columnist for the Washington Post, said on June 25 that he had changed his Maryland registration from "Republican" to "independent."


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

July 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition — 9 Comments

  1. According to the Sec of State website in NJ, Johnson, Stein, and Castle have submitted over 1000 signatures already. Stein submitted 1141, Johnson submitted 1544, and Castle submitted 1399 (Castle is wrongly listed under the “Socialist Party” at the top of his page.) The Workers World Party, Socialist Workers Party, and Socialism and Liberation Party also have seemingly qualified.

    This is currently the UNOFFICIAL General Election list:
    http://www.nj.gov/state/elections/2016-results/2016-unofficial-general-candidates-president-0729.pdf

  2. Reading the restrictions for write-in candidates. What a load of garbage! Washington won’t count them unless the vote-counting equipment indicates a win. Thus, THEY DO COUNT them, but just refuse to report. Likewise, in Mississipi, candidates wishing to have their write-ins counted should be good marksmen. We are living in the Bizarro World!

  3. I take it from the NJ list that the Prohibition Party was never able to fix the deficiency on their petitions from months back?

  4. The deadline for NJ presidential submissions is today, the list linked above is an unofficial list. Many petitions are not submitted until the final day allowed.

  5. In the 2016 Petitioning for President, it says “Three Types of Deadlines,” but I only see two columns below that: Pres. Party and Pres. Indp.

    I’m guessing that once again, one of the columns has gotten cut off from being displayed, as has happened with most of the B.A.N. issues this year.

  6. I apologize for my comment above. I just checked the HTML source of the page, and it looks like there were only supposed to be two types of deadlines, not three. There isn’t a third deadline column that appears in the source but not in the page as displayed.

  7. Sorry this Nebraska state Senator Laura Ebke is a pro lifer iam a strong hard core pro choice Libertarian.

Leave a Reply

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