MAINE VOTERS PASS INITIATIVE TO USE INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING FOR CONGRESS AND ALL STATE OFFICE

On November 8, Maine voters passed Question Five, the initiative to use instant runoff voting for congress and all state office. This is the first time any state will have implemented IRV for federal or state office. People who support IRV have been working for 20 years to win a state, and have finally succeeded.

The system does not disturb the Maine nomination process for political parties. It applies to primaries and to general elections alike. Parties will still have nominees, determined by their primaries. It is just that those primaries will use IRV. The general elections will also use it.

The margin was 52% – 48%. The ballot said, "Do you want to allow voters to rank their choices of candidates in elections for U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative, and to have ballots counted at the state level in multiple rounds in which last-place candidates are eliminated until a candidate wins by majority?"

Past Attempts in Other States

New Mexico: vigorous attempts had been made to pass IRV in the 1990’s. In 1998 New Mexico Senator Cisco McSorley, a Democrat, introduced SJR 8, a constitutional amendment to use IRV for all statewide state office. It failed in the State Senate Rules Committee on a tie vote. But in 1999, SJR 12, with the same provisions, passed the State Senate, but it didn’t pass the House.

Vermont: in 1998, Representative Terry Bouricius, a Progressive, introduced H 665, but it didn’t pass. Over the years similar bills were introduced. Finally in 2008, S270 passed, to use IRV in all congressional elections. But Republican Governor James Douglas vetoed the bill.

Alaska: in 2002, the Alaska Republicn Party sponsored Question One, an initiative to implement IRV for all federal and state office except Governor. It was on the ballot in the August 27, 2002 primary, but it lost 36.1% to 63.9%.

In all four states, the impetus for IRV came from the fact that there were strong minor parties, or strong independent candidates, so that the winner of important elections took office even though a large majority of the voters had voted against them. In New Mexico the strong third force was the Green Party, which had polled over 10% for Governor in 1994. In Vermont it was the Progressive Party. In Alaska it was the Alaskan Independence Party, and in Maine it was strong Green Party gubernatorial nominees and, later, even stronger independent candidates.

On November 8, South Dakota voters rejected Constitutional Amendment V, which would have changed elections for Congress and all state and county partisan office to non-partisan elections. Every candidate would have run in the June primary, and then only the top-two candidates could run in November. Party labels for these offices would be removed from the ballot. The margin was 44.5%-55.5%. It carried only three counties.

Supporters of top-two poured resources into South Dakota in support of the measure. The group Open Primaries, formerly the New Alliance Party, contributed $1,356,720, which was 78% of the total raised for the initiative.

According to a news story in the Argus Leader of October 26, Open Primaries is funded by billionaires Laura and John Arnold, of Houston, Texas. The Arnolds also spent lavishly in 2014 for a top-two initiative in Oregon.

The money was used to get the initiative on the ballot, and for advertising on TV, direct mail, and telephone calls to voters.

Californians who support top-two also intervened in South Dakota. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote an op-ed in favor of the measure, which was in the RapidCity Journal of June 12. California billionaire Bill Bloomfield contributed $12,500.

Ironically, all that spending may have helped defeat the measure. Just before election day there was much publicity about all the out-of-state money supporting the measure. The spending for the measure vastly dwarfed spending on any of the other nine statewide measures on the ballot.

The "no" side raised $300,745. The dollar amounts in this article include in-kind contributions. Almost half of that money came from the state Republican Party, which opposed the measure. The state Democratic Party was neutral, but the two most recent Democratic U.S. Senators from South Dakota supported the measure. The state League of Women Voters also supported it.

Ballot measures to limit the November ballot to only two candidates have passed twice: Washington in 2004 and California in 2010. They have been defeated five times: California 2004, Oregon 2008 and 2014, Arizona 2012, and South Dakota 2016.

On November 8, South Dakota voters soundly rejected the ballot access bill that the Republican-majority legislature had passed last year. The bill made many restrictive changes to ballot access laws for all kinds of candidates.

The voters weighed in because opponents of the 2015 law had gathered signatures to force a referendum on the law. Most of the signatures were collected by Democratic Party activists and labor activists.

The vote was 28.9% – 71.1%. The law, which will not go into effect, set an earlier petition deadline for petitions to qualify a party; earlier petition deadlines for candidates running in a primary; and said only registered independents could sign a petition for an independent candidate.

On November 8, Colorado voters passed Initiative 108 by 53.3% -46.7%. It changes primaries from closed to semi-closed. Under the old system, only registered party members could vote in party primaries. Under the new law, registered independents can choose any party primary ballot and vote in that primary.

Colorado voters also passed Initiative 107, by 64.1% – 35.9%. It sets up presidential primaries for large qualified parties. In the recent past, Colorado has not had presidential primaries, and has used caucuses.

Finally, Colorado voters passed Amendment 71, which changes the State Constitution and makes it more difficult for initiatives that amend the Constitution to get on the ballot, and to pass. They will now need signatures from every state senate district in the state, and if they get on the ballot, they won’t pass unless they get a 55% "yes" vote. The margin was 55.7% – 44.3%.

On November 8, voters in Benton County, Oregon, voted to use instant runoff voting to elect countywide partisan executive posts. The vote was 54.3% – 45.7%.

On November 21, a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruled that Wisconsin’s Assembly district boundaries are so stacked against Democrats, and in favor of Republicans, that the plan is an unconstitutional gerrymander. Whitford v Gill, w.d., 3:15cv-421. The plaintiffs are Democratic voters who had filed the case in 2015. The state is certain to appeal, and that appeal is directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. So far the U.S. Supreme Court has never found any plan to be so unfair to one party, relative to another party, that the plan is unconstitutional.

During November, two of Rocky De La Fuente’s ballot access cases survived attempts by states to get them dismissed.

South Carolina: on November 9, U.S. District Court Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the South Carolina Democratic Party has not yet persuaded her that she should dismiss De La Fuente v South Carolina Democratic Party, 3:16cv-322. The issue is the party rule that won’t let anyone onto its presidential primary ballot, even if the candidate pays the filing fee, unless the candidate is discussed in news media. De La Fuente charges that in this new era for "media", that phrase is hopelessly vague.

Virginia: on November 18, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady, a Bush Jr. appointee, refused to dismiss De La Fuente v Alcorn, e.d., 1:16cv-1201. The issue is whether the state really needs to require all candidates for presidential elector (for an independent candidate or the nominee of an unqualified party) to reveal their social security numbers before the petition can begin to circulate. De La Fuente can now present evidence that this requirement prevented him from getting an early start on his independent petition.

The chart below shows the number of registered voters in each party, in each state, as of October 2016. All figures are for active voters only.

Parties in the "other" column are: Alaska: Alaskan Independence 17,382; Veterans 1,150. California: American Independent; Colorado: Unity; Delaware: Independent Party 5,316, American Delta 835; Florida: Independent Party 262,599; Independence 44,194; America’s Party 768; Ecology 314; Socialism & Liberation 241; Kentucky: Socialist Workers; Louisiana: Conservative 844; Socialist 72; Prohibition 2. Massachusetts: United Independent 30,368; Socialist 466; Prohibition 13. New Jersey: Conservative 3,497; Socialist 1,271; Natural Law 1,086. New Mexico: Independent American 4,661; Better for America 121; Socialism & Liberation 64; American Delta 12. New York: Independence 501,738; Conservative 162,682; Women’s Equality 2,278. Oregon: Independent Party 119,277; Progressive 1,793; Americans Elect 78. Rhode Island: Moderate. Utah: Independent American 19,297.

~	Dem.	Rep.	Ind. misc	Lib’t.	Green	Consti.	Wk Fam	Reform	other
Alaska	78,560	143,852	278,318	7,557	1,709	351	?	?	18,532
Arizona	1,091,323	1,239,614	1,219,277	31,358	6,894	?	?	?	– –
Arkansas	80,517	80,886	1,598,249	322	?	?	?	?	– –
Calif.	8,720,417	5,048,398	4,825,157	139,805	94,647	330	?	?	507,377
Colorado	1,040,948	1,031,512	1,140,909	37,880	11,355	9,718	?	?	790
Conn.	790,188	452,243	831,652	2,561	1,827	?	323	11	– –
Delaware	320,852	189,399	156,108	1,519	822	311	435	66	5,316
Dt. Col.	363,642	29,862	80,050	918	3,621	?	?	?	– –
Florida	4,877,749	4,550,311	3,089,929	28,287	6,605	1,265	?	1,511	308,116
Idaho	86,493	392,530	326,340	5,229	?	2,626	?	?	– –
Iowa	629,081	662,167	694,005	8,366	2,671	0	0	0	– –
Kansas	403,973	754,230	466,821	13,586	0	0	0	0	0
Kentucky	1,693,778	1,338,054	264,488	7,456	1,695	457	?	83	107
Louis’na	1,344,741	898,448	760,249	14,088	2,528	210	0	1,344	918
Maine	324,820	267,586	358,963	5,388	40,096	?	?	?	– –
Maryland	2,170,800	1,026,633	720,927	19,343	9,009	?	?	?	– –
Mass.	1,549,828	484,508	2,454,276	8,846	6,367	169	39	133	30,847
Nebraska	369,538	581,088	246,493	10,935	?	?	?	?	– –
Nevada	577,679	488,861	317,262	13,381	4,306	63,330	?	?	– –
N. Hamp.	271,455	295,687	351,984	?	?	?	?	?	– –
N. Jersey	2,073,739	1,211,392	2,515,925	5,391	3,049	2,611	?	371	5,854
N. Mex.	599,813	399,930	274,919	5,714	3,891	359	?	?	4,858
N. York	6,179,734	2,839,704	2,720,139	7,128	28,913	?	50,039	900	666,698
No. Car.	2,725,054	2,079,619	2,059,579	32,097	?	?	?	?	– –
Okla.	856,717	983,932	313,191	3,599	?	?	?	11	– –
Oregon	987,449	715,623	700,390	18,995	10,234	3,663	10,681	?	121,148
Pennsyl.	4,217,187	3,302,106	1,140,690	48,966	13,530	1,419	?	?	– –
Rhode Is.	319,729	92,709	367,628	?	?	?	?	?	2,817
So. Dak.	170,690	252,111	119,488	1,620	?	500	?	?	– –
Utah	155,905	662,535	514,572	11,025	916	4,513	?	?	19,297
W. Va.	572,467	396,600	265,916	4,679	1,875	177	?	?	– –
Wyo.	45,959	160,202	26,210	1,496	?	474	?	?	– –
TOTAL	45,690,825	33,052,332	31,200,104	497,535	256,560	92,483	61,517	5,294	1,662,329
Percent	40.60%	29.37%	27.72%	.44%	.23%	.08%	.05%	.00+%	1.50%

Totals October 2014 were: Democratic 42,755,625 (41.17%), Republican 30,938,676 (29.79%), independent & miscellaneous 27,688,850 (26.67%), Libertarian 399,302 (.38%), Green 253,267 (.24%), Constitution 78,434 (.08%), Reform 22,880 (.02%), Working Families 58,757 (.06%), other parties 1,666,473 (1.60%).

Totals October 2012 were: Dem. 43,512,746 (41.85%), Rep. 31,298,863 (30.10%), indp. & misc. 26,808,810 (25.79%), Libertarian 330,811 (.32%), Green 250,682 (.24%), Constitution 77,918 (.07%), Reform 22,880 (.02%), Americans Elect 6,408 (.01%), other parties 1,659,537 (1.60%).

Totals October 2008 were: Dem. 43,933,901 (43.62%), Rep. 30,944,590 (30.72%), indp. & misc. 24,157,259 (23.98%), AIP/Constitution 438,222 (.44%), Green 255,019 (.25%), Libertarian 240,328 (.24%), Reform 32,961 (.03%), other parties 675,980 (.67%).

Totals October 2004 were: Dem. 37,301,951 (42.19%), Rep. 28,988,593 (32.79%), indp. & misc. 20,471,250 (23.15%), Constitution 320,019 (.36%), Green 298,701 (.34%), Libertarian 235,521 (.27%), Reform 63,729 (.07%), Natural Law 39,670 (.04%), other parties 695,639 (.79%).

Totals October 2000 were: Dem. 38,529,264 (43.84%), Rep. 28,813,511 (32.78%), indp. & misc. 18,999,126 (21.62%), Constitution 348,977 (.40%), Libertarian 224,713 (.26%), Green 193,332 (.22%), Reform 99,408 (.11%), Natural Law 61,405 (.07%), other parties 620,668 (.71%). The October 2016 totals above include Arkansas for the first time. Arkansas was not included in the earlier tallies.

The chart below shows the vote for president by state, for the top eight candidates. These are far from final, and a future edition will include complete final returns.

~	Clinton	Trump	Johnson	Stein	McMullin	Castle	La Riva	De La Fuente
Alabama	725,704	1,314,431	44,211	9,341	?	?	?	?
Alaska	108,220	153,369	17,394	5,289	?	3,568	?	1,148
Arizona	1,161,167	1,252,401	106,327	34,345	?	?	?	?
Arkansas	379,004	682,798	29,662	9,422	13,188	0	0	0
Calif.	7,457,744	3,949,301	406,680	223,948	?	?	53,528	?
Colorado	1,331,675	1,196,662	143,069	38,073	28,765	11,632	526	1,246
Conn.	897,524	673,196	48,671	22,841	2,091	144	41	12
Del.	235,603	185,127	14,757	6,103	?	?	?	?
D.C.	282,830	12,723	4,906	4,258	?	?	?	?
Florida	4,504,975	4,617,886	207,043	64,399	?	16,453	?	9,108
Georgia	1,877,911	2,089,062	125,293	?	?	?	?	?
Hawaii	266,891	128,847	15,954	12,737	0	4,508	0	0
Idaho	190,383	410,269	28,369	8,506	46,536	4,411	?	1,374
Illinois	2,977,498	2,118,179	204,491	74,112	?	?	?	?
Indiana	1,036,632	1,556,310	134,142	4,004	?	?	?	10
Iowa	652,820	800,467	59,106	11,459	12,331	1,142	323	450
Kansas	414,788	656,009	53,648	22,698	?	?	?	?
Kentucky	628,834	1,202,942	53,749	13,913	22,780	?	?	1,128
Louisiana	780,154	1,178,638	37,978	14,031	8,547	3,129	446	?
Maine	354,873	334,838	37,764	14,075	?	?	?	?
Maryland	1,601,237	924,937	76,400	34,062	4,029	243	16	6
Mass.	1,964,768	1,083,069	136,784	46,910	?	?	?	?
Michigan	2,267,798	2,279,221	173,023	50,690	?	16,925	?	?
Minn.	1,367,705	1,322,949	112,972	36,986	53,075	9,456	?	1,430
Miss.	462,001	678,457	13,789	3,580	?	3,878	?	596
Missouri	1,054,889	1,585,753	96,404	25,086	1,372	12,966	?	10
Montana	177,709	279,238	28,036	7,969	?	?	?	1,570
Nebraska	278,176	490,675	38,264	8,533	?	?	?	?
Nevada	539,260	512,045	37,382	0	0	5,267	0	2,552
N. Hamp.	348,526	345,790	30,694	6,444	1,064	?	?	675
N. Jersey	2,021,756	1,535,513	68,695	35,949	?	5,830	1,613	1,765
N. Mex.	380,923	316,134	73,712	9,740	5,722	1,491	1,176	467
N. York	4,149,500	2,639,994	162,273	100,110	?	?	?	?
No. Car.	2,169,496	2,345,235	128,469	3,827	?	?	?	?
No. Dak.	93,758	216,794	21,434	3,780	?	1,833	?	364
Ohio	2,317,001	2,771,984	168,599	44,310	11,915	1,796	?	?
Okla.	420,375	949,136	83,481	0	0	0	0	0
Oregon	991,272	774,011	92,847	49,242	?	?	?	?
Penn.	2,844,229	2,901,352	142,464	48,887	?	20,917	?	?
R.I.	252,278	180,502	14,744	6,216	?	?	?	671
S.Car.	855,373	1,155,389	49,204	13,034	21,016	5,765	0	0
S.Dak.	117,442	227,701	20,845	0	0	4,059	0	0
Tenn.	869,189	1,521,162	70,286	15,954	?	?	?	4,072
Texas	3,868,291	4,683,352	282,655	71,327	22,697	2,789	?	?
Utah	302,510	494,862	37,896	9,081	233,266	7,626	?	830
Vermont	178,573	95,369	10,083	6,759	657	63	327	1,063
Virginia	1,981,473	1,769,443	118,274	27,638	54,054	?	?	?
Wash.	1,708,852	1,198,334	156,677	56,517	?	17,141	3,368	?
W.Va.	187,457	486,198	22,798	8,000	?	3,773	?	?
Wisc.	1,382,947	1,407,028	106,470	31,016	1,013	12,178	?	1,550
Wyoming	55,973	174,419	13,287	2,515	?	2,042	?	709
TOTAL	63,475,967	61,859,501	4,362,155	1,357,756	544,118	190,947	61,364	32,806

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB’T	GREEN	CONSTI	WK FAM	Party	Indep.
Ala.	35,413	35,413	0	0	0	0	June 5	June 5
Alaska	(reg) 8,925	(est) #3,000	already on	(reg) 1,709	351	0	June 1	Aug. 21
Ariz.	23,041	(est) #40,000	already on	already on	0	0	March 1	May 30
Ark.	10,000	10,000	0	0	0	0	January 2	in court
Calif.	(es) (reg) 65,000	65 + fee	already on	already on	330	0	January 2	March 9
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Jan. 10	July 12
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	already on	already on	0	already on	– – –	Aug. 8
Del.	(est.) (reg) 680	(est.) 6,800	already on	already on	*311	435	Aug. 21	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	#3,000	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 8
Florida	0	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	0	Sep. 1	July 15
Georgia	54,306	#51,912	already on	can’t start	can’t start	0	July 10	July 10
Hawaii	750	25	already on	already on	0	0	Feb. 22	June 5
Idaho	(est) 14,000	1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Aug. 30	March 9
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	June 25
Indiana	no procedure	#34,195	already on	0	0	0	– – –	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	already on	0	0	0	– – –	Aug. 17
Kansas	16,776	5,000	already on	0	0	0	June 1	Aug. 6
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 14
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay fee	already on	already on	210	0	May 17	Aug. 17
Maine	unsettled	#4,000	already on	already on	0	0	unsettled	June 1
Md.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 6	Aug. 6
Mass.	(est) (reg) 45,500	#10,000	already on	(reg) 5,709	169	39	Feb. 6	July 31
Mich.	32,261	30,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 19	July 19
Minn.	(est) 150,000	#2,000	0	0	0	0	May 1	June 5
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	March 1	March 1
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 30	July 30
Mont.	5,000	#10,685	already on	0	0	0	March 15	May 29
Nebr.	4,880	(es) 121,000	already on	300	0	0	Aug. 1	Sept. 3
Nev.	(est) 11,000	250	already on	(reg) 4,306	already on	0	June 3	June 3
N. Hamp.	(est) 21,800	#3,000	already on	0	0	0	Aug. 7	Aug. 7
N.J.	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	– – –	June 5
N. M.	2,565	15,390	already on	already on	0	0	June 28	June 28
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	already on	– – –	unsettled
No. Car.	(est) 94,000	(est) 94,000	already on	6,000	0	0	May 16	June 14
No. Dak.	7,000	1,000	already on	0	0	0	April 15	Sep. 3
Ohio	(est) 53,000	5,000	in court	already on	0	0	July 3	May 7
Okla.	24,745	pay fee	already on	0	0	0	March 1	April 13
Oregon	22,046	18,279	already on	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 28	Aug. 28
Penn.	no procedure	5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 1
R.I.	16,203	#1,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 1	July 10
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	May 6	July 16
So. Dak.	6,936	2,775	already on	0	already on	0	in court	April 24
Tenn.	33,816	25	2,000	in court	in court	0	Aug. 16	April 5
Texas	47,086	47,086	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	May 19	June 28
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Feb. 15	March 15
Vermont	be organized	#500	already on	0	0	already on	Jan. 1	Aug. 7
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	June 12
Wash.	no procedure	#pay fee	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	May 18
West Va.	no procedure	#6,516	already on	already on	0	0	– – –	Aug. 1
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	0	May 1	June 1
Wyo.	5,036	5,036	already on	can’t start	already on	can’t start	June 1	Aug. 27
TOTAL STATES ON			38	21	13	5	~

#partisan label permitted (other than "independent").
"WK FAM" = Working Familes Party.
(reg.) = registered members

On November 8, the Progressive Party elected its nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Vermont, David Zuckerman. This is the first time since 1936 that a party, other than the Democratic or Republican Parties, has won a statewide state office other than Governor. In 1936, both the Progressive Party of Wisconsin, and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, elected most of the statewide state executive offices, but no third party has since won any such office, until the Vermont Progressive instance of 2016.

The percentages are: Zuckerman 52.18%; Republican nominee Randy Brock 45.52%; Liberty Union nominee Boots Wardinski 2.30%. The Democratic Party did not run anyone and cross-nominated Zuckerman.

Guam is the only overseas possession of the United States that votes for President in November. Some of the other possessions have presidential primaries, but none of the others vote for President in November. Guam has no electoral votes, so the popular vote has no effect on the outcome. Any minor party or independent presidential candidate can get on the November ballot merely by request. This year, the only candidate who did that is Emidio Soltysik, the Socialist Party nominee. He received 1,352 votes. Hillary Clinton won with 22,972; Donald Trump received 7,747.

Progressive Party: elected two State Senators and seven Representatives to the Vermont legislature. This is the largest number of legislators the party has ever elected. All are members of the party; some of them also had the Democratic nomination, but the ballot clearly showed that they were Progressives.

Green Party: elected five candidates in Michigan and one in Connecticut. The most significant win was Tom Mair’s election to the Grand Traverse County, Michigan County Board. He defeated his only opponent, the Republican incumbent, 3,168 to 2,769. The other partisan wins were instances when the Greens essentially couldn’t lose because they were running in races with no more candidates than there were seats to be filled. They were: (1) Korie Blyveis, Town Clerk, Newberg Township, Cass County, Michigan: (2) Shauna McNally and Stuart Collis, both elected to the Park Commission, Ypsilanti Township, Washtenaw County, Michigan; (3) Jesse Torres, Park Commission, Holly Township, Oakland County, Michigan; John Amarilios, Registrar of Voters, New Canaan, Connecticut.

Libertarian Party: won three elections: (1) Mitch Rushing was elected to the Jefferson County, Kentucky, County Commission. This is a countywide position with little power. Rushing’s only opponent was an independent candidate who was removed from the ballot because his petition was defective; (2) Susan Bell was re-elected as Town Judge in Hagerstown, Indiana; (3) Elizabeth Corder was elected to the Ypsilanti Township Park Commission, the same office to which two Greens were elected. The voters were permitted to elect seven members, but only four Democrats ran, and no Republicans ran, so it was easy for both minor parties to also elect someone.

On October 27, a New York Supreme Court Judge in Albany County ruled that the legal officers of the Reform Party are those elected in the party’s September 2016 primary, and that Curtis Sliwa is the state chair. This is a defeat for the faction of the party that wanted the party to only cross-endorse Republican Party nominees. The decision is Merrell v Sliwa, case 5829-16. The pro-Republican faction has filed a notice of appeal.