September 2017 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
September 1, 2017 – Volume 33, Number 4

This issue was printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. U.S. DISTRICT COURT INVALIDATES UTAH PETITION DEADLINE FOR NEW PARTIES IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS
  2. CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE TO REPEAL TOP-TWO
  3. ILLINOIS INDIRECTLY EASES BALLOT ACCESS
  4. ONE OF THE DEBATES LAWSUITS LOSES
  5. PENNSYLVANIA SORE LOSER LAW UPHELD FOR PRESIDENT
  6. CALIFORNIA BILLS
  7. U.S. SUPREME COURT APPEARS INTERESTED IN POLITICAL CLOTHING AT THE POLLS CASE
  8. IOWA LIBERTARIAN WITHSTANDS ENERGETIC CHALLENGE
  9. NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE
  10. INDIA
  11. BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS LOSE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC PARTY
  12. FIFTH CIRCUIT INVALIDATES TEXAS ELECTION LAW
  13. ERRATA
  14. “DISOBEDIENT” ELECTOR LEGAL NEWS
  15. 2018: US HOUSE SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR NEW PARTIES, FULL SLATE
  16. LAST TIME MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WON A CONSTITUTIONAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT
  17. GREEN PARTY ON STATEWIDE 2017 PENNSYLVANIA BALLOT
  18. MEETING MAY LAUNCH NEW PARTY
  19. DICK GREGORY DIES
  20. GREEN PARTY GAINS A COUNCILMEMBER
  21. SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS
  22. REFORM PARTY HAS A CONTESTED PRIMARY FOR MAYOR OF NEW YORK
  23. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

U.S. DISTRICT COURT INVALIDATES UTAH PETITION DEADLINE FOR NEW PARTIES IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS

FIRST BALLOT ACCESS CASE UTAH HAS LOST SINCE 1984

On August 2, U.S. District Court Judge David Nuffer, an Obama appointee, struck down Utah’s petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties to get on the ballot for a special election. Utah doesn’t have a statutory deadline for new parties in special elections, but the state elections office had administratively created a deadline six months before the election. The decision says that is too early, especially as applied to a newly formed party. The case had been filed by the United Utah Party, which didn’t even exist until May 2017. It is a centrist party which can now run Jim Bennett in the special U.S. House election on November 7, 2017. United Utah Party v Cox, 2:17cv-655.

Bennett is the son, and also the grandson, of two previous U.S. Senators from Utah, Wallace Bennett and Bob Bennett. Both were Republicans.

Utah had not lost a constitutional ballot access case since 1984, when independent presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche won against the April petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, LaRouche v Monson, 599 F.Supp. 521.

Earlier this year, the Utah legislature moved the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties to get on the ballot in regular elections from February of the election year, to November of the year before the election. Although all Utah legislators were in receipt of an e-mail from me, explaining that such a bill would be held unconstitutional if it were ever challenged, the bill (SB 13) passed almost unanimously. It will be interesting to see if the 2018 session of the legislature changes that deadline.

This is the first constitutional ballot access case than any minor party or independent candidate has won anywhere in the nation since April 8, when the Montana requirements for an independent candidate to get on the ballot in a special congressional election were struck down.

Utah had argued that Jim Bennett should have petitioned as an independent candidate; the deadline for that petition is later. But the decision says the independent option would "fall short of protecting Plaintiffs’ right to association in the special election…The Supreme Court held that ‘we can hardly accept as reasonable an alternative that requires candidates and voters to abandon their party affiliations. This is no less true for a new political party. Plaintiffs have a protectable constitutional right to associate as a party under the UUP banner."

In Utah, candidates who use the independent petition can’t choose any ballot label other than "independent." Before 2009 Utah let such candidates choose any label that didn’t mimic the name of a qualified party, but in 2009 Utah ended that policy.

Utah had also argued that if the United Utah Party won the lawsuit, that would increase election administrative costs, but the decision says, "Courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that cost is a sufficient state interest in election cases."

Utah had argued that letting the United Utah Party on the ballot would promote factionalism, but the decision says, "UUP is countering factionalism and giving voters a consolidated voice distinct from the established parties."


CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE TO REPEAL TOP-TWO

On August 11, a California Republican activist, Thomas E. Palzer, filed a proposed constitutional initiative with the California Attorney General that would repeal the top-two system. It would return California to the semi-closed primary used between 2001 and 2010.

The Attorney General now has 65 days to prepare a title and a summary for the petition. Only then can the petition start to circulate. It needs 585,407 signatures, and they must be gathered within six months, which works out to April 2018.

Palzer has been working on this project for over a year, and he didn’t file the initiative until he felt confident that he can raise enough money to get the needed signatures.

The Sacramento Bee publicized the initiative on August 22. It quoted the state chair of the Democratic Party, Eric Bauman, "Progressives have been forced to spend nearly $200 million in contests featuring two Democrats. This is a system that silences the Democratic base and completely excludes third parties from even competing in the fall…the fact that this initiative was filed by Republicans underscores how flawed the top-two system really is."

California’s top-two has never permitted any minor party member to qualify for the general election ballot, except in instances when only one major party member was running.

Palzer can be reached at PO Box 2413, Rancho Cucamonga Ca 91729, tompalzer1 at gmail.com. The web page is stoptop2.com.


ILLINOIS INDIRECTLY EASES BALLOT ACCESS

On August 28, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1933. It provides that every adult citizen known to exist will automatically be registered. After such individuals are registered, they will be informed and given a chance to retract the registration. This system is known as "Automatic Voter Registration".

Although this bill has no direct impact on Illinois’ severe petition requirements, it will have a beneficial indirect impact. In the future, the validity of petitions will be higher, because a larger proportion of residents will be registered voters.


ONE OF THE DEBATES LAWSUITS LOSES

On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit, issued an eleven-page opinion in Gary Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, 16-7107. It rejected the argument by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein that the Commission on Presidential Debates has been in violation of federal anti-trust laws. The majority opinion, by Judge Janet Rogers Brown, a Bush Jr. appointee, says the plaintiffs don’t have standing. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, wrote separately to say that they do have standing, but that they lose on redressibility.


PENNSYLVANIA SORE LOSER LAW UPHELD FOR PRESIDENT

On August 21, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones, a Bush Jr. appointee, upheld the action of the state elections office to remove Rocky De La Fuente from the November 2016 ballot. No one challenged De La Fuente’s petition, and he had enough valid signatures. But the state itself removed him (which is unusual in Pennsylvania) because he had run in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. De La Fuente v Cortes, m.d., 1:16cv-1696.

Judge Jones ignored two points that De La Fuente had made: (1) the true candidates in November are the presidential elector candidates, not the presidential candidate; (2) that no state’s presidential primary nominates anyone for president.

The decision says that the Supreme Court upheld sore loser laws in Storer v Brown, a 1974 case that concerned office other than president. Judge Jones mentioned U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the 1995 Supreme Court ruling that said states can’t add to qualifications to run for federal office. But he said the issue in that case was different.

The principle set forth in U.S. Term Limits was that states can’t bar someone from running for federal office because of that candidate’s prior political behavior. In that case, the past behavior was having been elected to Congress in three previous elections. The same principle applies to De La Fuente. Pennsylvania kept him off the ballot because of his prior behavior: seeking the Democratic nomination. Therefore Judge Jones should have known that U.S. Term Limits does control this case.

The judge also said that in U.S. Term Limits, the Arkansas law in that case "placed an outright ban on candidates who had already served three terms." That is not true. The Arkansas law permitted them to be write-in candidates.

There was no Pennsylvania precedent on whether presidential primaries are covered by the sore loser law. In 1980, John B. Anderson ran in twenty Republican presidential primaries, and he was not kept off the November ballot in any state. But it happens that in 1980, Anderson failed to get on the Pennsylvania Republican primary ballot, so no precedent was set. Other candidates who ran in presidential primaries, and then were able to be on the November ballot as independents or minor party nominees (such as Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon LaRouche, and David Duke), also didn’t do that in Pennsylvania. De La Fuente will appeal to the Third Circuit.


CALIFORNIA BILLS

During August, several California election law bills of dubious constitutionality advanced:

SB 149, to bar presidential candidates from any presidential primary ballot unless they make public their income tax returns, passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 23 and is expected to pass the Assembly in a few days.

SB 117, which makes it more difficult for recall petitions to succeed, was signed into law on August 24. It lets signers remove their names from the petition after the petition has been submitted and verified. It takes effect immediately and is intended to thwart a recall against State Senator Josh Newman. The recall petition has already been checked and it has enough valid signatures, but the Secretary of State won’t certify the election because of the bill. Supporters of the recall filed a lawsuit on August 24 to invalidate it, or at least to get a ruling that it can’t take effect immediately. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Padilla, state appeals court, 3rd district, CO85381.


U.S. SUPREME COURT APPEARS INTERESTED IN POLITICAL CLOTHING AT THE POLLS CASE

On August 4, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Minnesota to file a response in Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky, 16-1435. This is the case over Minnesota’s law that bans any clothing or badges at the polls, if such clothing or badge has any political content. One of the plaintiffs was ejected from the polls because he had a shirt on that mentioned the Tea Party. But the Tea Party was not on the Minnesota ballot.

The lower courts had upheld the law. Generally if the U.S. Supreme Court asks for a response from the side that won earlier in the lower court, that means the Supreme Court is interested in the case. The response is due September 5.


IOWA LIBERTARIAN WITHSTANDS ENERGETIC CHALLENGE

As noted on page six, Iowa held a special legislative election on August 8, at which a Libertarian ran. That Libertarian, Joshua Miller, was the subject of a vigorous attempt to remove him from the ballot, but he survived it. The Libertarian Party is ballot-qualified, so it was permitted to nominate by convention. A Republican activist, Marshan Roth, attended the convention and secretly video-taped it. Then he filed a challenge. He said that there was no motion to nominate Miller, so the nomination was void.

But on July 20, a state panel determined that the nomination was valid, because there was a call for any nominations other than Miller (there were none), and then there was a secret ballot. The objector also claimed that the attendees to the convention were not chosen by precinct caucuses, but that objection was also overridden, because such caucuses are held early in even-numbered years, and the Libertarian Party wasn’t qualified in early 2016.


NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE

As previously reported, both houses of the North Carolina legislature have passed SB 656, the bill to greatly improve ballot access. However the versions in each house differ, so the bill isn’t through the process. Legislators now indicate they will take up the bill in October 2017. The legislature went into recess on August 30 after having passed new redistricting plans for the legislature.


INDIA

On August 21, the committee in the Parliament of India that handles election law sent out a questionaire to all political parties, asking for opinions as to whether India should switch from "winner-take-all" elections, to proportional representation.


BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS LOSE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC PARTY

On August 25, U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, issued a 28-page opinion dismissing Wilding v Democratic National Committee, s.d. Florida, 0:16cv-61511. This is the case filed last year by Bernie Sanders supporters who had donated to the Democratic Party. They presented evidence that the national party had not been neutral between Hillary Clinton and Sanders. The judge dismissed the case on standing grounds, and technical grounds involving class actions. He also wrote, "Not one of the plaintiff donors alleges that they ever read the DNC’s charter (which said the party would be neutral) or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations." It is likely the plaintiffs will appeal.


FIFTH CIRCUIT INVALIDATES TEXAS ELECTION LAW

On August 16, the Fifth Circuit agreed with a U.S. District Court that Texas cannot require interpreters at the polls to be registered voters in the same county. The case had been filed by a voter who only spoke Chinese. She wanted her 16-year-old grandson to interpret for her, but he was not permitted to do that because he was not old enough to vote. Organization for Chinese Americans v State, 16-51126.


ERRATA

When the August 1 BAN table on amount of donations for political parties from state income tax returns was published, the 2017 data wasn’t yet available for Rhode Island and Virginia, so that chart used the 2016 data from those two states as place-holders. The actual 2017 amounts for Rhode Island are: Democratic $9,160; Republican $3,166; Moderate $440. For Virginia: Democratic $10,900; Republican $3,473.


"DISOBEDIENT" ELECTOR LEGAL NEWS

Three lawsuits, filed in 2016, are still pending over whether presidential electors have a right to vote for anyone who meets the constitutional qualifications to be president. The California lawsuit had an oral argument on August 17 in which the state tried to persuade the judge that the case is moot. But U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila seemed skeptical of the state’s argument. That case is Koller v Brown.

The Colorado disobedient electors who had filed a similar lawsuit last year dismissed that case on August 2, and immediately re-filed a new similar lawsuit. It alleges that they will try to be presidential electors again in 2020. The new case is Baca v Williams, in U.S. District Court.

The third lawsuit, in Minnesota, is pending in the Eighth Circuit. The U.S. District Court had dismissed the case on the grounds that it is moot. Abdurrahman v Dayton.


2018: US HOUSE SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR NEW PARTIES, FULL SLATE

This chart shows the extreme difference between ballot access barriers for U.S. House. It shows the number of signatures needed in each state for a new party to place a full slate of U.S. House candidates on the ballot, with the party label. Some states have several methods for doing this; the chart lists the easier method. % = number of signatures divided by 2016 presidential vote.

State

No. of Sigs

%

Elec. Code Citation

Formula for No. of Sigs.

Florida

0

0

Title 9, sec. 99.0955

file list of party officers, pay filing fees

Miss.

0

0

23-15-1051

file list of party officers

Wash.

0

0

29A.24.091

pay filing fees

Vermont

20

.00+

Title 17, sec. 2313,2318

have town committees in ten towns

Del

reg. (est.) 675

.15

Title 15, sec. 3002

have registered members, one-tenth of 1% of total reg.

Hawaii

750

.17

Title 2, sec. 12-6

one-tenth of 1% of no. of registered voters

R.I.

1,000

.22

17-14-7

500 signatures per candidate

Colo.

1,000

.04

1-4-801

have 1,000 registered members

La.

1,000

.05

Title 18, sec. 441

have 1,000 registered members

N.J.

1,200

.03

19:13-5

100 signatures per candidate

Iowa

1,500

.10

Title 4, sec. 45.1

375 signatures per candidate

Utah

2,000

.18

20A-8-103

party petition of 2,000 signatures

Kentucky

2,400

.12

Title 10, sec. 118.315(2)

400 signatures per candidate

N.H.

3,000

.40

Title 4, sec. 655:42

1,500 signatures per candidate

Alaska

3,213

1.01

15.25.160

1% of 2016 vote cast

Maine

4,000

.53

Title 21, sec. 494.5

2,000 signatures per candidate

Montana

5,000

1.01

13-10-601

party petition of 5,000 signatures

Wyoming

5,036

1.97

22-4-402(d)

2% of 2016 vote for U.S. House

Nebr.

5,395

.64

32-716

1% of 2014 gub. vote

W. Va.

6,864

.96

3-5-23

1% of 2016 vote for that office

So.Dak.

6,936

1.87

12-5-1

2.5% of 2014 gubernatorial vote

No. Dak.

7,000

2.03

16.1-11-30

party petition of 7,000 signatures

N.Mex.

7,695

.96

1-7-2.A (pty pet + cand. pet.)

Party petition of one-half of 1% + nominee petitions

Minn.

8,000

.27

204B.08

1,000 signatures per candidate

Wisc.

8,000

.28

Title 2, sec. 8.20(4)

1,000 signatures per candidate

Ark.

10,000

.88

7-7-205

party petition of 10,000 signatures

Md.

10,000

.36

4-102(b)(2), 5-302(g)

party petition of 10,000 signatures

Mo.

10,000

.36

Title 9, sec. 115.315

party petition of 10,000 signatures

So. C.

10,000

.48

7-11-70

party petition of 10,000 signatures

Nevada

10,785

.96

Title 24, sec. 293.1715

1% of 2016 U.S. House vote

Virginia

11,000

.28

24.2-506

1,000 signatures per candidate

Idaho

13,809

2.00

34-501

2% of 2016 vote for president

Conn.

15,752

.96

9-453(d)

1% of 2016 vote for that office

Kansas

16,960

1.43

25-302a

2% of 2014 gub. vote

Mass.

18,000

.53

Chap. 53, sec. 6

2,000 signatures per candidate

Ariz.

20,119

.78

16-801(A)

1.33% of 2014 gub. vote

Oregon

22,046

1.10

249.735

1.5% of 2014 gub. vote

Okla.

24,745

1.70

Title 26, sec. 1-109

3% of 2014 gub. vote

Indiana

26,700

.98

3-8-6-3

2% of 2014 vote for Secretary of State

Mich.

31,519

.66

168.685(1)

1% of 2014 gub. vote

Tenn.

33,816

1.35

2-104(27)(b)

2.5% of 2014 gub. vote

Ala.

35,413

1.67

17-6-22

3% of 2014 gub. vote

Texas

47,086

.52

Elec. code 181.006

1% of 2014 gub. vote

Ohio

54,965

1.00

3517.01

1% of 2016 pres. vote

Calif.

reg. (est) 60,000

.42

Elec. code 5100(b)

.33% of no. of registered voters as of Jan. 2018

Penn.

75,211

1.23

Title 25, sec. 2911

2% of winner’s vote 2016 for that office

No. C.

94,221

1.99

163-96

2% of 2016 gub. vote

N.Y.

94,500

1.21

Chap. 17, sec. 6-142

3,500 signatures per candidate

Illinois

262,089

4.73

10 ILCS 5/10-2

5% of 2016 vote for that office

Georgia

272,153

6.61

21-2-170

5% of no. of registered voters as of Oct. 2016


LAST TIME MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WON A CONSTITUTIONAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

This chart shows, for each state, the last time a minor party or independent candidate won a constitutional ballot access lawsuit. The entries for Alabama and Illinois mention decisions of U.S. District Courts. In both situations, the states have appealed and asked Appeals Courts to reverse those wins. Also, the Arkansas entry was won in the Eighth Circuit, and the state is trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse it.

STATE
YEAR
CASE NAME AND HOLDING

Ala.

2016

Hall v Bennett: 3% petition in special elections for U.S. House is too difficult

Alas.

1990

Sykes v McAlpine: August 1 is too early for independent candidates to get on ballot

Ariz.

2016

Az. Green Pty v Reagan: June is too early for parties to file presidential elector candidates

Ark.

2017

Moore v Martin: March deadline for non-presidential independents is probably too early

Calif.

2012

Justice Committee v Bowen: January deadline for a new party is too early

Colo.

2000

Campbell v Davidson: state can’t require a candidate for Congress to be a registered voter

Conn.

2016

Libt Party of Ct v Merrill: out-of-state circulators can’t be banned

Del.

1993

Warren v Harper: state can’t require petition signers to list social security number

D.C.

2013

Libt Pty v Danzansky: district can’t ban out-of-state circulators

Fla.

1992

Fulani v Krivanek: state can’t charge to check signatures of minor political party

Ga.

2017

Green Party v Kemp: 1% of registered voters petition is too difficult for president

Hi.

2013

Justice Party v Nago: February is too early for new party to get on ballot for president

Ida.

2010

Daien v Ysursa: state can’t require more signatures for indp pres candidate than for other indps

Ill.

2016

Libertarian Party v State Bd Elec: state can’t require new parties to run a full slate

Ind.

1990

Paul v Election Bd: state must print write-in space on ballot and count write-ins

Iowa

1992

Oviatt v Baxter: can’t require more signatures for office in part of state than for statewide office

Kan.

2002

Natural Law Party v Thornburgh: must let party have two words in its name

Ky.

1991

Libertarian Party v Ehrler: February deadline for new party candidate petitions is too early

La.

1979

Socialist Workers Party v Hardy: oath that candidate is not a subversive person is unconstitutional

Me.

2016

Libt Pty v Dunlap: December of year before election is too early for new party to get on ballot

Md.

2016

Dorsey v Lamone: states can’t require more signatures for statewide indp than new party

Mass.

1985

Serrette v Connolly: May deadline for independent candidates is too early

Mich.

1984

Goldman-Frankie v Austin: state must have procedures for indp. candidates for state office

Minn.

2004

Candidacy of Independence v Kiffmeyer: state can’t require minimum number of votes in primary

Miss.

– – –

never

Mo.

2016

Constitution Party v St. Louis Co.: must have procedures for new parties to run for county office

Mt.

2017

Breck v Stapleton: 5% petition (of winner’s vote) is too difficult in special US House elections

Neb.

1984

Libertarian Party v Beermann: petition for new party can’t say signers pledge to support that party

Nev.

1992

Fulani v Lau: June petition deadline for new parties, independent candidates, is too early

N.H.

– – –

never

N.J.

2007

Green Party v State: out-of-district circulators must be allowed to petition

N.M.

2013

Constitution Party v Duran: April is too early for new party to get on ballot

N.Y.

2013

Credico v Bd Elections: unqualified parties can engage in disaggregated fusion

No.C.

2004

DeLaney v Bartlett: can’t require more signatures for a statewide indp. than for a new party

No.D.

1980

McLain v Meier: 15,000 signatures is too many for a new political party

Ohio

2014

Libt Pty v Husted: state can’t add new ballot access barriers and have it take effect immediately

Okla.

1984

Libertarian Party v Elec. Bd: 90 day period is too short for new party petition

Ore.

2002

Freedom Soc. Party v Bradbury: party can use its own name even if similar to another party name

Pa.

2016

Constitution Party v Cortes: challenge system combined with big court costs is unconstitutional

R.I.

2011

Block v Mollis: party petition must be allowed to circulate in odd years

So.C.

2006

Working Families Party v Elec. Comm: new parties can’t be required to hold meetings in March

So.D.

2000

Nader 2000 Primary Comm. v Hazeltine: June petition deadline too early for indp. pres. candidates

Tenn.

2012

Green Pty v Hargett: April is too early for new party to get on ballot

Tex.

1996

Texas Indp. Pty v Kirk: indp. petition need not carry each voter’s voter affidavit number

Utah

2017

United Utah Party v Cox: petition deadline of 6 months before spec. elec. is too early

Vt.

2013

Anderson v State: state must allow photocopies of petitions to be submitted to town clerks

Va.

2013

Libt Pty v Judd: state must allow out-of-state circulators

Wash.

2004

Libt Pty v Reed: 1% vote test in primary invalid when party has more than one candidate

W.V.

2016

Daly v Tennant: January is too early for independent candidates to file declaration of candidacy

Wis.

2003

Frami v Ponto: out-of-state circulators must be allowed to petition

Wy.

1997

Spiegel v State: May is too early for new party to get on ballot


GREEN PARTY ON STATEWIDE 2017 PENNSYLVANIA BALLOT

The Green Party is on the Pennsylvania ballot for a partisan statewide judicial office, at the November 7, 2017 election. The candidate, Jules Mermelstein, is running for Superior Court Judge. The party needed 2,500 signatures for that office. No other minor party or independent qualified for any of the 2017 statewide partisan races.


MEETING MAY LAUNCH NEW PARTY

Many supporters of Bernie Sanders, along with Socialist Alternative, are holding a national meeting at American University in Washington, D.C., September 8-10. They will discuss forming a new party. See convergence2017.org.


DICK GREGORY DIES

On August 20, Dick Gregory died. He had been the Freedom and Peace Party presidential nominee in 1968. He had been on the ballot in Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, and had polled 47,133 votes, placing fifth, behind Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, and Henning Blomen. Gregory outpolled Eldridge Cleaver, nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party. Gregory was the last surviving presidential candidate from the November 1968 election. He died in Washington, D.C., at the age of 84.


GREEN PARTY GAINS A COUNCILMEMBER

On March 23, 2017, Emeryville (California) Mayor Scott Donohue changed his registration from Democratic to Green. He was elected to the city council in 2014 and is serving a four-year term. The council chooses the Mayor, and it chose Donohue in late 2016.


SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS

During August, several minor parties participated in special legislative elections in three states.

Iowa: August 8, State House 82: Democratic 4,062; Republican 3,356; Libertarian 72; Constitution 60.

Rhode Island: August 22, State Senate 13: Democratic 2,217; Republican 1,309; independent 74; Green 18.

Washington: August 1, State Senate 48: total for two Democrats 18,337; Libertarian 5,469, placed second.

Washington: August 1, State House48-1: Democratic 17,888; Libertarian 5,222.

The two Washington elections were top-two primaries. Even though, in each race, someone got over 50%, the same candidates must run again in November 2017.


REFORM PARTY HAS A CONTESTED PRIMARY FOR MAYOR OF NEW YORK

New York city elects a Mayor on November 7, 2017. Although the state has eight qualified parties, all of which nominate by primary, only the Democratic Party and the Reform Party have contested primaries for that office. The Reform Party primary ballot lists only one name, Sal Albanese. But because some Reform Party voters filed a petition to provide that write-ins be counted for that office, election officials will tally all write-ins in that Reform Party primary. The Reform Party has fewer than 1,000 registered members in New York city. However, the party is allowing independent voters to vote in its primary. The primary is September 12.

Rocky De La Fuente had petitioned for a place on the Republican primary ballot for Mayor, but he was told that he didn’t have enough valid signatures, even though his petitioners had gone door-to-door, seeking out registered Republicans, and even though his campaign had validated his petition before it was submitted.


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 © 2017 Ballot Access News

Leave a Reply

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