November 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
November 1, 2016 – Volume 32, Number 6

This issue was printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. U.S.DISTRICT COURT INVALIDATES ALABAMA 3% PETITION FOR SPECIAL U.S. HOUSE ELECTIONS
  2. SEVENTH CIRCUIT REMOVES ILLINOIS INDEPENDENT U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE
  3. FLORIDA HIGH COURT ORDERS NEW ELECTION BECAUSE CANDIDATE WAS KEPT OFF BALLOT
  4. DEBATES HEARING SET
  5. MOST DE LA FUENTE LAWSUITS STILL PENDING
  6. CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETOES TWO ELECTION LAW BILLS
  7. WEST VIRGINIA DEADLINE WIN
  8. ARKANSAS INITIATIVE OFF BALLOT FOR ODD REASONS
  9. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
  10. CALIFORNIA REPUBLICANS NOMINATE INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR
  11. LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT
  12. BALLOT STATUS FOR PRESIDENT, INCLUDING WRITE-IN STATUS
  13. EVAN McMULLIN CHOOSES VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
  14. NEW YORK REFORM PARTY
  15. DELTA PARTY QUALFIES IN DELAWARE
  16. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

U.S. DISTRICT COURT INVALIDATES ALABAMA 3% PETITION FOR SPECIAL U.S. HOUSE ELECTIONS

On September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that Alabama cannot require a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote for minor party and independent candidates in special U.S. House elections. Hall v Bennett, m.d. 2:13-cv-663. This had been the second-oldest ballot access lawsuit still undecided. The only case that is older is the Tennessee lawsuit over the petition for newly-qualifying parties, filed in 2012, still pending.

The Alabama case arose in 2013 when Alabama called a special election to replace Congressman Jo Bonner, who had resigned August 2. Two independent candidates, James Hall and John Merrill, petitioned. They each needed 5,938 valid signatures. Both petitions failed, because the deadline was September 29, 2013. Both of them sued, arguing that even though they had worked hard, it wasn’t practical for anyone to get that many signatures within a single district in such a short time.

James Hall worked especially hard. He or his wife knocked on 5,000 doors to get signatures. Hall submitted 2,835 signatures.

The decision is 68 pages and is very thorough. This is the first time Alabama has lost a constitutional ballot access case since 1991.

On October 28, the state filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. However, the decision is so strong, it is difficult to imagine how the state can hope to prevail. In the history of government-printed ballots, no independent has ever qualified for a special U.S. House election in Alabama.

Judge Thompson had upheld the 3% petition requirement for regularly-scheduled elections in 2006. He is a Carter appointee.

Thompson’s decision does not mention that in 1982, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in a Georgia case that in special elections, states must relax the deadline or lower the number of signatures. Citizens Party of Georgia v Poythress, 683 F 2d 418 (table cite).


SEVENTH CIRCUIT REMOVES ILLINOIS INDEPENDENT U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE

The lead story in the September 1, 2016 BAN was the decision of a U.S. District Court in Illinois to put an independent candidate for U.S. House on the ballot, even though he had not collected 10,754 signatures.

Unfortunately, on September 9, the Seventh Circuit stayed that decision. The Seventh Circuit did not explain why it did that, but it means that the candidate, David Gill, is off the ballot. The Seventh Circuit order was signed by Judges William Bauer, Richard Posner, and David Hamilton. It says only, "The motion for stay is granted. The district court’s order enjoining defendants from enforcing the Illinois Election Code’s signature requirement against David M. Gill is stayed pending resolution of this appeal. The motion to dismiss is denied."

This does not mean that the case has been lost. The U.S. District Court had based its order on the evidence that in the entire history of the nation, only three petitioning candidates for U.S. House have ever succeeded in overcoming a petition requirement greater than 10,754. The state has produced no evidence to counter that fact. No other U.S. House petition succeeded in Illinois this year.

Gill asked the three judges to reconsider the stay, but on September 20 they declined to do so. Gill also asked for en banc review, but that was denied on October 6. Gill asked U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for relief, but she denied it on September 25, without even referring it to the full court. Gill asked Justice Anthony Kennedy for relief on September 30, but Kennedy denied it on October 4, again without referring the matter to the full Court. The U.S. Supreme Court actions were not surprising, since by then the ballots had already been printed.

The case now returns to U.S. District Court for a decision on whether the 5% requirement, plus the 90 day petitioning period, is too difficult, given the historical record.

Judges Posner and Bauer have records of hostility to ballot access cases. This was Posner’s fourth ballot access decision; he has never voted favorably on ballot access. He voted to uphold Indiana’s petition requirement in 1985; he voted against ballot access for Ralph Nader in Illinois in 2004; he voted to uphold the Illinois 5% petition for U.S. House in 2009, in the Stevo case.

Posner made news in June 2016 when he wrote, "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades studying the Constitution…18th Century guys could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: the Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about."


FLORIDA HIGH COURT ORDERS NEW ELECTION BECAUSE CANDIDATE WAS KEPT OFF BALLOT

On September 15, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a new election for Mayor of Miami Gardens, because James Wright had been unlawfully kept off the ballot in the first election. The new election is November 8. It is rare for a court to ever order a new election on the grounds that a candidate had unfairly been kept off the ballot in the original election. Wright v City of Miami Gardens, SC16-1518.

Wright was off the ballot because the bank bounced his filing fee check. However, the bank had made an error, and should have honored the check. The court struck down the law that says, "Failure to pay the fee shall disqualify the candidate."

The decision says, "Unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on the elective process are a threat to our republican form of government. At their worst, they cloak tyranny in the garb of Democracy. See Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795). The decision then quotes from that work, "The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case."


DEBATES HEARING SET

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan will hear Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission on January 5, 2017, at 10 a.m. in courtroom 2, in the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. This is the lawsuit filed on June 22, 2015, challenging the 15% rule for inclusion in presidential general election debates. This will be the first hearing the case has had. The plaintiffs include Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.


MOST DE LA FUENTE LAWSUITS STILL PENDING

Independent presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente, who is also the Reform Party nominee, has filed more constitutional ballot access lawsuits this year than any candidate or group except for the Libertarian Party. Most of his lawsuits are not resolved and will get decisions in 2017. In all the cases mentioned below, the court denied injunctive relief putting De La Fuente on the ballot, but declaratory judgment has not yet been settled. All of the cases below are pending in U.S. District Courts, except for one of his Georgia cases, which is in the State Supreme Court. Besides the three lawsuits over sore losers and presidential primaries mentioned in the October 1 B.A.N., the lawsuits include:

California: De La Fuente is challenging the requirement that independent presidential candidates this year need 178,039 signatures. No other candidate in California ever needs more than 65 signatures to be on the ballot for partisan office.

Georgia: De La Fuente is challenging the law that requires an independent presidential candidate to submit his or her candidates for presidential elector several weeks before the petition itself is due. He is also challenging the state’s procedures for checking signatures on petitions. That is in the State Supreme Court. The Secretary of State has no guidelines for checking validity, so each county has its own standards, and they vary widely. De La Fuente submitted 14,500 signatures this year; he needed 7,500. He was told that only 20% of his signatures are valid, even though they were collected by experienced professional circulators.

Oklahoma: De La Fuente is challenging the requirement that independent presidential candidates need 40,047 valid signatures. By contrast, new parties need 24,745.

Texas: De La Fuente is challenging the May 9 petition deadline for independent presidential candidate. But the judge has hinted that De La Fuente may not have standing to challenge the deadline, because he ran in the Texas Democratic presidential primary this year.

Virginia: De La Fuente is challenging the law that requires independent presidential elector candidates to file a declaration of candidacy form that includes the full social security number. This form is required before the petition may begin to circulate. De La Fuente could not start his petitioning until late in the season because it was difficult for him to recruit elector candidates who were willing to reveal their SS numbers.

Washington: De La Fuente is challenging the law that requires an independent candidate to give notice in a newspaper, ten days before the petition itself starts to circulate.

De La Fuente had also sued Illinois and North Carolina, but those lawsuits are no longer pending. They were dismissed because De La Fuente was acting as his own attorney in those cases, and he made procedural errors. He had also sued South Dakota over petitioning checking procedures.

His "sore loser" lawsuits in Alabama and Pennsylvania are still in U.S. District Court.


CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETOES TWO ELECTION LAW BILLS

On September 29, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 1288. It would have allowed any city and county to use instant runoff voting for elections for its own officers. Current law only allows charter cities and counties to do that. Brown said instant runoff voting is too confusing.

On October 1, he vetoed SB 1094, which would have required that unpaid volunteers collect at least 5% of the needed signatures for statewide initiatives.


WEST VIRGINIA DEADLINE WIN

The lead story in the October 1 B.A.N. was about a U.S. District Court enjoining the West Virginia deadline for independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy. Judge Robert Chambers had put the candidates on the ballot but had not yet explained his reasoning, except briefly.

On October 21, he issued a full opinion, saying a January deadline "prematurely cuts off such candidate’s opportunity to respond to later developments…the January deadline deprives these candidates from knowing the political climate of the major parties and what issues will come to the forefront during campaigns. It also seriously impairs their abilities to raise support, money, and recognition for their campaigns." The case is Daly v Tennant, s.d., 3:16cv-8981.


ARKANSAS INITIATIVE OFF BALLOT FOR ODD REASONS

On October 27, the State Supreme Court ruled that a statewide initiative for medical marijuana should not have been put on the ballot, because some of the signatures had been gathered by individuals who listed their post office box addresses instead of their residence addresses on some sheets. Also, some of the signatures had been collected by paid circulators whose employer had not given them state booklets on instructions for petitioners.

Finally, some signatures were invalidated because the employer had not done a police records search for some of the circulators, or had put down the wrong date for when the police search had been done. The vote was 5-2. Benca v Martin, cv16-785.

Everyone agreed that the initiative had enough signatures of registered voters. The initiative is on the ballot, but if it gets more "yes" votes than "no" votes, it still won’t take effect. Early voting had already begun when the court decision came down.


MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

Arkansas: on September 29, the state filed a notice of appeal in Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Martin. The U.S. District Court had struck down the law requiring newly-qualifying parties to choose all their nominees (except President) an entire year before the election.

Connecticut: on September 28, a state trial court put State House candidate David Yaccarino on the ballot, even though he had forgotten to sign his declaration of candidacy. He is an incumbent Republican legislator running for re-election.

Michigan: on October 24, a U.S. District Court Judge enjoined a law that makes it illegal for anyone except professionals to take a photograph in a polling place. But on October 28, the Sixth Circuit stayed that decision, by a vote of 2-1. Crookston v Johnson.

New Mexico: on October 24, the State Supreme Court heard Crum v Duran, SISC 36030. The voter-plaintiffs are independents and they argue they have a state constitutional right to vote in partisan primaries. The lower court had upheld the closed primary system.

Ohio: on October 26, the Libertarian Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal against the 2013 ballot access law that is keeping the party off the ballot this year. Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted.

Ohio(2): on October 21, the Libertarian Party filed its brief in the State Court of Appeals. It argues that the 2013 ballot access law violates the State Constitution, which is the only state constitution that requires that the state provide primaries to all recognized political parties. The 2013 law says that newly-qualifying parties do not have a primary.

Pennsylvania: on October 21, the state Republican Party filed a lawsuit against the residency requirement for poll watchers. They cannot work outside their home county. Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, e.d., 16cv-5524.


CALIFORNIA REPUBLICANS NOMINATE INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR

The Republican Party list of presidential elector candidates in California includes a federal official, Arun Bhumitra. He is a member of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee, which is part of the International Trade Administration within the Department of Commerce. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for this position.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution says no one who "holds an office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector."

The California Republican Party did not submit any alternates when it sent in its elector list.


LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT

The chart below shows how many state legislative candidates each party is running in each state. It also shows the number of independent candidates. No candidate is counted twice. If a candidate is the nominee of two parties, he or she is credited to the party of membership.

As is usual, a large percentage of state legislative races have only one candidate on the ballot. Either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party failed to run anyone in 41% of the races.

Common Cause recently published a study about the extreme lack of competition for state legislative seats. The report singles out Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas, for having the most legislative races without a Democrat-Republican race. Unfortunately the report blames gerrymandering for this problem, and doesn’t even mention restrictive ballot access laws.

This is the first election since 2008 in which the Democratic Party has more legislative nominees than the Republican Party.

~

# seats

Rep.

Dem.

Lib’t.

indp.

Green

Consti

other(1)

other(2)

oth(3)

Alas

50

39

37

0

11

0

4

1

0

0

Ariz

90

67

67

0

1

6

0

0

0

0

Ark

117

90

55

11

2

0

0

0

0

0

Cal

100

78

95

5

1

0

0

0

0

0

Colo

83

75

75

15

2

1

0

0

0

0

Ct

187

165

161

2

10

13

0

4

2

1

Del

52

32

44

2

0

4

0

1

0

0

Fla

160

123

110

2

14

0

0

0

0

0

Ga

236

171

110

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Hi

65

35

63

10

1

2

1

0

0

0

Id

105

99

69

3

3

0

3

0

0

0

Ill

158

96

123

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Ind

125

103

102

20

2

0

0

0

0

0

Iowa

125

102

106

18

7

0

0

0

0

0

Kan

165

142

133

7

1

0

0

0

0

0

Ky

119

101

86

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Maine

186

168

176

0

12

1

0

0

0

0

Mass

200

67

179

1

12

2

0

2

1

0

Mich

111

111

111

25

0

9

7

0

0

0

Minn.

201

198

199

5

1

1

0

1

1

1

Mo

181

146

111

21

11

6

1

0

0

0

Mont

125

110

118

6

2

0

0

0

0

0

Nev

53

48

45

10

1

0

3

0

0

0

NH

424

369

392

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

NM

112

68

89

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

NY

213

150

189

3

2

17

0

24

3

3

NoC

170

134

126

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

NoD

75

69

64

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Ohio

115

107

93

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

Okla

126

117

102

12

12

0

0

0

0

0

Ore

76

63

67

21

3

3

0

6

2

0

Pa

228

174

171

4

7

3

1

0

0

0

R I

113

39

108

3

29

0

0

0

0

0

So C

170

128

84

3

0

1

3

1

1

0

So D

105

94

88

0

7

0

0

0

0

0

Tenn

115

97

74

0

18

0

0

0

0

0

Tex

166

122

100

34

1

7

0

0

0

0

Utah

90

83

64

7

0

0

2

3

0

0

Vt

180

112

137

2

25

0

0

22

1

2

Wash

124

96

105

8

3

1

0

0

0

0

W Va

118

116

111

7

1

6

1

1

0

0

Wis

115

82

91

3

8

0

0

1

0

0

Wyo

75

69

60

0

4

0

2

0

0

0

TOTAL

5904

4655

4690

285

225

84

28

67

11

9

Parties in the "other(1)" column: Ak, Alaskan Independence; Ct & Del, Independent Pty; ; Mass, United Independent; Mn, Independence; NH, Restore the Center; NY, Conservative; Or, Independent Pty; SC, American; Ut, Independent American; Vt, Progressive; Wa; WV, Socialist Equality; Wi, Veterans.

Parties in the "other(2)" column are: Ct, Working Families; Mass, Pirate; Mn, Legal Marijuana Now; NY, Women’s Equality; Or, Progressive; SC Independence; Vt, Marijuana.

Parties in the "other(3)" column: NY, one each for Working Familes, Reform, Independence; Vt Liberty Union.


BALLOT STATUS FOR PRESIDENT, INCLUDING WRITE-IN STATUS

The chart below lists each presidential candidate who is on the ballot in at least three states, and tells where such candidates are on the ballot, and where they have write-in status. Write-in filing is shown as "w-in." In states that have write-in space on the ballot for president, but which have no procedure for a write-in candidate to file, the chart shows "(w-in)."

~

Castle

Fuente

McMull

LaRiva

Kennedy

Kotlikof

Mooreh

Soltysik

Hoefling

Hedges

Ala

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

Alas

ON

ON

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Ariz

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Ark

ON

~

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

ON

Cal

~

~

w-in

ON

~

w-in

~

~

~

~

Colo

ON

ON

ON

ON

ON

ON

~

ON

ON

ON

Ct

w-in

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Del

w-in

~

w-in

w-in

~

~

~

~

w-in

~

D.C.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Fla

ON

ON

~

~

~

w-in

~

~

~

~

Ga

w-in

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Hi

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Id

ON

ON

ON

~

~

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

w-in

Ill

w-in

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Ind

w-in

w-in

~

~

~

w-in

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

Iowa

ON

ON

ON

ON

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

Kan

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

~

~

~

~

w-in

~

Ky

w-in

ON

ON

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

La

ON

~

ON

ON

ON

ON

~

~

ON

~

Maine

w-in

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

~

~

Md

w-in

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

~

w-in

w-in

w-in

Mass

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

w-in

~

~

~

Mich

ON

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

w-in

ON

w-in

~

Minn

ON

ON

ON

~

ON

w-in

~

w-in

w-in

~

Miss

ON

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

ON

Mo

ON

w-in

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Mont

w-in

ON

w-in

~

~

w-in

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

Neb

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

~

~

~

~

w-in

~

Nev

ON

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

N H

(w-in)

ON

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

N Jer

ON

ON

(w-in)

ON

ON

(w-in)

ON

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

N Mex

ON

ON

ON

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

N York

w-in

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

~

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

No C

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

No D

ON

ON

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

~

~

~

Ohio

w-in

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

~

Okla

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Ore

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

Penn

ON

w-in

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

R I

(w-in)

ON

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

So C

ON

~

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

So D

ON

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Tenn

w-in

ON

w-in

~

ON

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Tex

w-in

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

Utah

OH

ON

ON

~

ON

w-in

ON

w-in

w-in

~

Vt

(w-in)

ON

(w-in)

ON

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

Va

w-in

w-in

ON

~

~

w-in

~

~

w-in

~

Wash

ON

w-in

w-in

ON

ON

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

~

W Va

ON

w-in

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

w-in

~

w-in

w-in

Wis

ON

ON

w-in

~

~

w-in

ON

w-in

w-in

~

Wyo

ON

ON

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

(w-in)

Above are all presidential candidates who are on in at least three states, except for Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein. All of them are on all ballots, except that Stein is not on in Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. She has write-in status in Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina.

For space reasons, the chart omits the three presidential candidates who are on the ballot in all jurisdictions, and also omits Jill Stein, because Stein is on the ballot in all but six states, and her details are in the note underneath the chart.

The chart also had room to include some presidential candidates who are on the ballot in only two states. But there wasn’t room for all of those candidates. The other candidates who are on in at least two states are:

Lynn Kahn: on in Arkansas and Iowa, and filed for write-in status in Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Washington, and West Virginia.

Chris Keniston: on in Colorado and Louisiana, and filed for write-in status in Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Mike Smith: on in Colorado and Tennessee, and filed for write-ins in Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

Dan Vacek: on in Iowa and Minnesota. He did not file for write-in status anywhere.

Thirteen candidates are on in a single state: Frank Atwood, Scott Copeland, Richard Duncan, Rocky Giordani, Princess Jacob, Kyle Kopitke, Bradford Lyttle, Joseph Maldonado, Michael Maturen, Ryan Scott, Rod Silva, Peter Skewes, and Jerry White.


EVAN McMULLIN CHOOSES VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

On October 6, independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin chose Mindy Finn to be his vice-presidential running mate. If McMullin carries Utah (which polls say is possible), his electors will vote for Finn for vice-president, even though Nathan Johnson is listed on the ballot for vice-president in Utah and in all states in which McMullin is on the ballot. Both McMullin and Finn live in Washington, D.C. If the McMullin-Finn ticket won in the District of Columbia, one of them would move out of the city before the electoral college meets on December 19. The Twelfth Amendment does not permit electors to vote for someone from the same jurisdiction as that elector for both president and vice-president.


NEW YORK REFORM PARTY

The New York Reform Party, which is ballot-qualified, has an internal dispute over its state officers which is pending in state court. For president, one faction wanted to nominate Donald Trump but the other faction wanted no nominee, so the State Board of Elections did not certify any presidential nominee.

The party’s nominee for U.S. House in New York’s 22nd district, Martin Babinec, has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is the first time the national Chamber has ever endorsed a congressional candidate who is not a major party nominee. He has spent over $1,000,000 in his campaign. A poll taken at the end of September showed him at 24%. His Republican opponent, Claudia Tenney, had 35%; the Democrat, Kim Myers, had 30%; undecided 11%.


DELTA PARTY QUALFIES IN DELAWARE

Rocky De La Fuente’s party, the American Delta Party, has qualified for the Delaware ballot, but not in time to be on this year. It is qualified for 2018.


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

November 2016 Ballot Access News Print Edition — 2 Comments

  1. Richard: In the “Ballot Status for President, Including Write-In Status” table, I saw from the page source that you had a column for James Hedges. But I can’t read it on the web site as displayed, because that column gets cut off.

    The problem of columns getting cut off in tables has been happening for much of the year here. It didn’t use to be a problem, though. There’s obviously something going wrong with how tables interact with the web design.

  2. Joshus K, its not ideal but one work around to see the whole table is to select the entire table and copy-paste it into a word document; you’ll be able to see everything

Leave a Reply

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