NORTH CAROLINA REPEALS STRAIGHT-TICKET DEVICE

On July 25, the North Carolina legislature passed HB 589, an omnibus election law bill which makes many election law changes. One part of the bill repeals the straight-ticket device. Governor Pat McCrory is expected to sign the bill.

The North Carolina straight-ticket device, like the device in all states, injures minor party and independent candidates. However, the North Carolina straight-ticket device also injures voters who vote for the major parties. North Carolina is the only straight-ticket state in which the device does not include President. Although the ballots warn voters that they should vote for President before using the straight-ticket device, there are invariably some voters who don’t notice that warning. They use the straight-ticket device and do not vote separately for President. Thus, they inadvertently fail to vote for anyone for President.

The North Carolina Republican Party has long sought to eliminate the device. In 1982, the Republicans lost the U.S. House race in the Eleventh District by only 1,325 votes. After the election, the Republican nominee, William Hendon, sued in federal court to overturn the device as it existed back then. At the time, the law said that if a voter used the straight-ticket device to vote for one party, but then cast a vote for one particular office for a different party, the straight-ticket vote overrode the vote for the individual candidate. The Fourth Circuit invalidated that aspect of the device. The case was Hendon v North Carolina Board of Elections.

The legislature, then controlled by Democrats, then amended the law to say that when a voter used the device for one party, but cast a vote for another party for one particular race, then the voter was deemed not to have voted in that one particular race at all. That was also held unconstitutional.

Finally, the law was amended again so that the vote cast for the candidate would override the straight-ticket device, for that one race.

The straight-ticket device has also injured voters in legislative races. North Carolina has legislative districts in which voters elect several legislators. Sometimes a voter uses the straight-ticket device for one party but votes separately for just one legislative candidate of another party. If that happens in a multi-member district, the law provides that the device does not cast a vote for any candidate in the legislative race. So, again, as in the Presidential race, the device probably tricks some voters into not using their full voting power.

There is some empirical evidence that straight-ticket devices injure minor party and independent candidates. In 2010, the Wisconsin Green Party had a very strong campaign for State Assembly in Madison. The candidate, Ben Manski, polled 31.1% in a three-candidate race and did not win. However, after the election, he analyzed the election returns and determined that among those ballots in which the voter did not use the straight-ticket device, he did win.

Also, in 2012, the Democratic Speaker of the Rhode Island House, Gordon Fox, was in a two-candidate race with an independent candidate, Mark Binder. Binder received 41.96% of the vote. Research after the election showed that among those ballots in which the voter did not use the straight-ticket device, the independent candidate won.

The number of states with a straight-ticket device has been declining for the last thirty years. Assuming Governor McCrory signs the bill, only twelve states will still have the device: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

States that have eliminated it in the last thirty years are Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wisconsin (Wisconsin eliminated it in 2012). Michigan temporarily repealed it but then restored it.

HB 589, discussed above, does far more than remove the straight-ticket device. It has provisions that injure voters. The bill: (1) shrinks the early voting period from 17 to 10 days; (2) makes it impossible for voters to register at a poll station during the early voting period; (3) repeals the provision that lets 16- and 17-year olds pre-register; (4) eliminates the mandate for high school registration drives; (5) repeals out-of-precinct voting (6) bans paying voter registration workers; (7) requires government-photo ID to vote at the polls, and student ID cards can’t be used.

The bill also eliminates public funding for non-partisan judicial elections. And in a move that seems aimed at the Libertarian Party, it eliminates the state income tax check-off, which has allowed taxpayers to send a small donation to the party of the taxpayer’s choice. Last year the Libertarian Party received almost $100,000 from this program.

Other parts of the bill improve ballot access. The bill makes it slightly easier to get on a primary ballot, if the candidate chooses not to pay a filing fee and instead submits a petition in lieu of the fee. Also, the bill makes it easier for candidates to enter a presidential primary. Current law requires 10,000 signatures unless the candidate qualifies for federal matching funds. The bill deletes the reference to matching funds, and says any candidate discussed in the media may appear on a presidential primary ballot with no petition.

On July 3, the Ninth Circuit refused to invalidate California’s ban on the ballot label "independent" for independent candidates. Chamness v Bowen, 11-56303. However, the decision is based mostly on the fact that the plaintiffs didn’t submit much evidence that independent candidates are injured by not being permitted to use "independent" on the ballot. Also, the decision says that if a member of a non-qualified party challenges the same law, that theoretical lawsuit might win.

California requires all candidates who are not members of a qualified party to appear on the ballot as "no party preference." The only candidate-plaintiff in this lawsuit, Michael Chamness, said in his complaint that he wanted the label "independent." In later briefs he suggested that he really wants the label "Coffee Party", but the decision does not refer to what he said about that, and treats him as a genuine independent.

The decision does not mention two contrary decisions that said independents do have a right to that label, and which did not require any evidence. The Supreme Courts of both Massachusetts and Minnesota had ruled that "independent" is such an important term for independent candidates, that it cannot be denied; in neither case did the plaintiff present any evidence. Those courts felt the harm of denying "independent" was self-evident and didn’t need evidence.

The decision erroneously refers to California November elections as "run-offs." This shows the author of the decision, U.S. District Court Judge James Carr (who was visiting the Ninth Circuit from Ohio) is not familiar with the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision Foster v Love, a 1997 Louisiana case that said federal law provides that in congressional elections, the November election is the election itself, and run-offs must be held in December.

The decision says that it is rational for California to bar use of "independent", because otherwise, voters might be confused between independent candidates and American Independent Party candidates. The decision does not acknowledge that California still permits the "independent" label for independent presidential candidates. Nor does it mention that California permits the Americans Elect Party and the American Independent Party to both be on the ballot simultaneously.

California presented no evidence that voters are confused by having both "independent" and "American Independent Party" on the ballot, and California had both types of candidate on the ballot continuously 1968-2010.

Evidence

The charts on pages four and five list every independent candidate for federal and state office in 2012, in the entire nation. Page four lists the independent candidates who had "independent" on the ballot. Page five lists the independent candidates who did not have "independent", but who instead had synonyms, such as "Unenrolled", "Nomination by Petition", or "Unaffiliated."

The chart shows that the average candidate who had "independent" polled 33.23%, but the average candidate who had some synonym for "independent" only polled 30.21%. Also, the median showing for those with "independent" was 31.94%, but the median for those without that word was only 28.79%.

These charts are confined only to independent candidates who were in two-candidate races in November, so as to make it possible to compare results from all states with the California system, in which only two candidates are permitted on the ballot in November. Also, legislative elections in which the voters elect more than a single member from the district were excluded. Again, this was for the purpose of making a clear comparison with California, which does not have multi-member legislative districts.

Finally, the handful of legislative races in which the only candidates on the November ballot were two independents were excluded. Such races existed in South Carolina and Vermont. They were excluded because when the only option on the ballot is an independent, those results cannot reveal anything about the comparative advantages of the term "independent" versus another term.

Other evidence also exists that depriving candidates of "independent" is hurtful. The editor of this newsletter interviewed most of California’s 2012 independent candidates last year. Approximately 80% of the candidates said that their campaigns were injured by not having "independent" on the ballot next to their names. Generally they campaigned as independent candidates; their campaign literature identified them as independent candidates; their web pages used "independent." Their campaigns did not refer to them as individuals with "no party preference."

On July 1, California Assemblyman Richard Pan withdrew his AB 1038, which would have made it illegal to pay registration drive workers on a per-registration card basis. The legislature had passed a similar bill in 2011 and in 2012, but both times, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it. Probably the bill was withdrawn because the Governor indicated he would veto it yet again.

The Peace & Freedom Party is currently carrying on a voter registration drive, in which it pays workers a certain amount of money for each new registrant into the party. This drive is essential if the party is to remain ballot-qualified. Due to the top-two law passed by the voters in 2010 (Proposition 14), parties can no longer remain on the ballot by virtue of polling 2% of the vote for any statewide race in a midterm year. The Peace & Freedom registration effort would be illegal if the Pan bill had passed.

Earlier this year, the Arkansas legislature passed HB 2036, which moves the petition deadline for a newly-qualifying party to January, and which moves the deadline for a non-presidential independent candidate to March. This action is very surprising, because on five different occasions, federal courts in Arkansas have declared similar early petition deadlines to be unconstitutional.

In 1977 a U.S. District Court invalidated the old deadline for a new party to submit its petition. The opinion says the law is unclear as to whether the deadline was in March or in April, but the decision says that in any event, it is too early. That decision was American Party of Arkansas v Jernigan, 424 F.Supp.943. The legislature moved the deadline to May, but in 1987, moved it to January. That deadline was thrown out in 1996 in Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v Priest, 970 F.Supp. 690. The legislature then lowered the number of signatures but did not move the deadline. In 2006 the deadline was again held unconstitutional, in Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 445 F.Supp.2d 1056. The legislature then moved the deadline to July. The 2011 legislature moved it to April, and now it is back in January.

The independent non-presidential deadline was held unconstitutional in 1976 in Lendall v Jernigan, unreported decision of a 3-judge court which was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977. The legislature moved it to May, but in 1987 moved it back to March. That was held unconstitutional in 1988 in Lendall v McKuen, unreported.

On June 29, the Alabama Secretary of State ruled that independent candidates in the upcoming special election, U.S. House, district one, may begin to circulate their petitions now, even though the Governor has not yet set the date of the election.

District of Columbia: on July 10, the city council passed bill B20-0245, which permanently repeals the ban on out-of-district petitioners. Last year the Council had repealed the restriction, but last year’s bill only repealed it temporarily.

Massachusetts: Representative Dan Winslow, who introduced two ballot access improvement bills months ago, is trying to persuade the House Rules Committee to schedule the bills for a hearing. One bill eases the definition of "political party" and the other cuts the number of signatures for candidates (both primary and general) in half.

Meanwhile, another bill, HB 639, suggested by the Secretary of State, requires a group that wants to qualify for party status by obtaining registered members to have 500 sponsors, instead of just 50, before it can get its registrations tallied. A group becomes a qualified party by persuading approximately 43,000 voters to join the party.

Ohio: SB 47 was signed into law several months ago. This newsletter had reported that it repeals the state ban on out-of-state circulators. Unfortunately, the bill was amended before it passed, so it only repeals the ban on out-of-state circulators who are working on an independent presidential petition. The bill provides that out-of-state circulators cannot work on a petition to qualify a new party, or an initiative.

South Dakota: in 2012, the legislature passed HB 1182, which moves the non-presidential independent candidate petition deadline from June to March. Previous bills to make this change had been defeated after the former Secretary of State, Chris Nelson, warned that such a change would probably be held unconstitutional. But Nelson is no longer Secretary of State, and the current Secretary of State, Jason Gant, did not follow Nelson’s lead. This news should have been reported last year, but it was only just discovered.

E Party, Volume One, Starting in the Middle, by Steven Nemerovski, 333 pages, paperback, 2010.

This novel describes a scenario under which a billionaire decides to launch a new political party. He and some very talented and creative associates want to build a force that will effectively help solve social, economic and environmental problems that the Democratic and Republican Parties are not solving. The group decides to create the party in one state only, Illinois, for the time being. In the real world, Illinois is fairly famous for having the worst budgetary crisis of any state, and for being effectively a one-party state (the Democratic Party has controlled both houses of the legislature since 1997).

The author is an attorney who once was Parliamentarian to the Illinois House, and also once special counsel to the Speaker. He is very familiar with Illinois politics, Illinois election law, and what it takes to create political change in that state. The party, on its first attempt, elects enough state legislators to hold the balance of power in both houses of the legislature.

This sounds unrealistic, but the book is worthwhile because it describes events that really could happen. One key to the party’s success is its candidate recruitment strategy. Of course, another key, sad to say, is that the party has almost unlimited financial support at the beginning.

The most fascinating part of the book is what happens after the first election, in which the party’s small legislative caucus manages to alter policy. Both major parties are determined to prevent the new party, which is called the E Party, from making further growth, and the political warfare is underhanded, unethical, almost criminal. Although the first twenty-eight pages of the book get off to a slow start, describing the billionaire founder’s life history, after that point the book is so exciting it is difficult to stop reading.

STATE	CANDIDATE	OFFICE	OPPONENT’S LABEL	VOTE %
Arizona	Tom Rawles	State Senate 1	Republican	28.77%
Arkansas	Peter Cyphers	State Rep. 6	Republican	17.61%
Arkansas	Dennis Knapp	State Rep. 64	Republican	39.31%
Arkansas	Mark Moore	State Rep. 95	Republican	38.58%
Arkansas	Anton Such	State Rep. 99	Republican	22.14%
Connecticut	Joseph P. Nolan	State Rep. 74	Republican	18.84%
Florida	Nancy Argenziano	State Rep. 34	Republican	42.03%
Florida	Kerry Babb	State Rep. 78	Republican	32.66%
Georgia	Rusty Kidd	State Rep. 145	Democratic	53.79%
Idaho	Bill Chisholm	State Senate 23	Republican	31.22%
Illinois	Dee Beaubien	State Rep. 52	Republican	40.73%
Kentucky	Bill Barron	State Rep. 13	Democratic	49.20%
Maine	James Arundel	State Senate 4	Democratic	46.51%
Maine	Richard Yarmouth	State Senate 11	Republican	52.88%
Maine	Martin Windham	State Senate 12	Republican	39.36%
Maine	Kelly Newburgh	State Rep. 39	Republican	43.80%
Maine	Jeffrey Evangelos	State Rep. 49	Republican	55.26%
Maine	James J. Campbell	State Rep. 138	Republican	55.63%
Massachusetts	Lincoln A. Blackie	State Rep., Hampden 6	Democratic	36.31%
Massachusetts	Norman W. Oliver	State Rep., Hampden 11	Democratic	23.05%
Missouri	Jim Nash	State Rep. 2	Republican	22.01%
Missouri	Jack (Skip) Johnson	State Rep. 153	Republican	20.41%
Montana	Kim Miller	State Rep. 71	Republican	42.83%
New Mexico	Joseph J. Carraro	State Senate 10	Republican	45.71%
New Mexico	Robert Schiller	State Senate 14	Democratic	28.78%
Oklahoma	Tommy W. Nicholson	State Senate 27	Republican	18.40%
Oklahoma	Richard Prawdzienski	State Senate 41	Republican	20.60%
Oregon	Tracy Olsen	State Senate 23	Dem,Rep,Work Fam.	19.35%
Pennsylvania	Ronald Gazze	State Senate 39	Rep, Dem	13.04%
Pennsylvania	Dante Picciano	State Rep. 124	Republican	21.51%
Rhode Island	Catherine E. Graziano	State Senate 7	Democratic	27.06%
Rhode Island	Beth M. Croll	State Senate 8	Democratic	24.53%
Rhode Island	Robert P. Venturini	State Senate 15	Democratic	22.33%
Rhode Island	Francisco L. Gonzalez	State Rep. 1	Democratic	20.10%
Rhode Island	Mark Binder	State Rep. 4	Democratic	41.96%
Rhode Island	Daniel J. Grzych	State Rep. 5	Democratic	25.26%
Rhode Island	Peter J. Bonk	State Rep. 38	Democratic	30.00%
Rhode Island	Karin N. Gorman	State Rep. 43	Democratic	35.04%
Rhode Island	Kenneth J. Amoriggi	State Rep. 54	Democratic	44.09%
Rhode Island	David Sullivan	State Rep. 63	Democratic	30.05%
Rhode Island	John A. Perkins, Jr.	State Rep. 70	Democratic	28.14%
South Dakota	Kathy Miles	State Sen. 15	Democratic	45.23%
South Dakota	Matt McGrath	State Sen. 33	Republican	42.59%
Tennessee	Kent Williams	State Rep. 4	Republican	53.71%
Tennessee	W. Rodger Cooksey	State Rep. 26	Republican	24.85%
Tennessee	Virgil Kidwell	State Rep. 36	Republican	21.05%
Tennessee	Daniel Lewis	State Rep. 52	Democratic	24.37%
Tennessee	John Crandall	State Rep. 71	Republican	23.26%
Vermont	Tim Ryan	State Rep., Addison 2	Democratic	38.65%
Vermont	Amos Bell	State Rep., Essex-Caledonia	Rep, Dem	44.07%
Vermont	Estella Leach	State Rep., Rutland-Bennington	Democratic	45.18%
Washington	Larry Carter	State Senate 24	Democratic	34.56%
Washington	Tim Sutinen	State Rep. 19-2	Democratic	42.11%
Wisconsin	David D. King	State Senate 4	Democratic	13.15%
Wisconsin	Anthony R. Edwards	State Assembly 17	Democratic	14.97%
Wyoming	Bill Winney	State Rep. 22	Republican	44.46%

Above are all the November 2012 candidates for federal and state office who were in two-candidate races in single-member districts, and who had the ballot label "Independent". The column on the far right tells what percentage of the vote they received. The fourth column shows the opponent’s label.

STATE	CANDIDATE	BALLOT LABEL	OFFICE	OPPONENT’S LABEL	VOTE %
Alaska	Ron Devon	Non-Affiliated	State Senate N	Republican	40.70%
Calif.	Marilyn M. Singleton	No Party Preference	U.S. House 13	Democratic	13.22%
Calif.	Terry Phillips	No Party Preference	U.S. House 23	Republican	26.78%
Calif.	David R. Hernandez	No Party Preference	U.S. House 29	Democratic	25.95%
Calif.	Bill Bloomfield	No Party Preference	U.S. House 33	Democratic	46.04%
Calif.	Chad Walsh	No Party Preference	State Assembly 28	Democratic	38.00%
Florida	Jim Klauder	Non-Partisan	U.S. House 4	Republican	23.85%
Florida	Randall Terry	Non-Partisan	U.S. House 20	Democratic	12.10%
Florida	Richard Harrison	Non-Partisan	State Senate 1	Republican	25.59%
Florida	John Iler	Non-Partisan	State Senate 11	Republican	28.44%
Florida	Travis W. Pitts	Non-Partisan	State Rep. 5	Republican	27.11%
Florida	Rebecca "Sue" Sharp	Non-Partisan	State Rep. 17	Republican	27.51%
Florida	Christina Spencer-Kephart	Non-Partisan	State Rep. 25	Republican	38.71%
Florida	Carol Castagnero	Non-Partisan	State Rep. 39	Republican	35.20%
Florida	Lillian Lima	Non-Partisan	State Rep. 40	Republican	36.20%
Florida	Pam Brown	Non-Partisan	State Rep. 80	Republican	34.44%
Iowa	Ruth Eileen Smith	Nomination by Petition	State Rep. 27	Republican	32.58%
Iowa	N. John Boehm	Nomination by Petition	State Rep. 37	Republican	24.58%
Iowa	Craig Clark	Nomination by Petition	State Rep. 52	Democratic	28.60%
Iowa	Chad Folken	Nomination by Petition	State Rep. 62	Democratic	12.80%
Iowa	Carolyn Grimes	Nomination by Petition	State Rep. 98	Democratic	23.74%
Maine	David Slagger	Non-Party	State Rep. 22	Republican	26.23%
Maine	Joseph E. Brooks	Unenrolled	State Rep. 42	Republican	50.74%
Mass.	Jose L. Santiago	Unenrolled	State Rep., Essex 16	Democratic	15.57%
Mass.	Kevin M. Cuff	Unenrolled	State Rep., Essex 17	Democratic	36.49%
Mass.	Robert J. Underwood	Unenrolled	State Rep., Hampden 9	Democratic	15.23%
Mass.	James F. O’Donnell, Jr.	Unenrolled	State Rep., Middlesex 22	Republican	39.20%
No. Car.	Shane Murphy	Unaffiliated	State Rep. 38	Democratic	12.32%
Ohio	Pete Schlegel	(no label at all)	State Rep. 82	Republican	40.96%
So. Car.	Rex Rice	Petition	State Senate 2	Republican	35.41%
So. Car.	Tommie Reece	Petition	State Senate 6	Republican	30.39%
So. Car.	Kerry Wood	Petition	State Senate 11	Democratic	28.79%
So. Car.	Joe Thompson	Petition	State Senate 15	Republican	25.53%
So. Car.	Tom Young	Petition	State Senate 24	Republican	6.23%
So. Car.	Ed Rumsey	Petition	State Rep. 2	Republican	26.47%
So. Car.	Ed Harris	Petition	State Rep. 3	Republican	46.50%
So. Car.	Ted W. Luckadoo	Petition	State Rep. 8	Republican	47.11%
So. Car.	Robert Merritt	Petition	State Rep. 13	Republican	20.86%
So. Car.	Raye Felder	Petition	State Rep. 26	Libertarian	52.94%
So. Car.	Gaye Holt	Petition	State Rep. 34	Republican	36.34%
So. Car.	Jim McMillan	Petition	State Rep. 36	Republican	33.17%
So. Car.	Phil Perry	Petition	State Rep. 39	Republican	48.91%
So. Car.	Jane Vaughters	Petition	State Rep. 81	Republican	34.76%
So. Car.	Tom Winslow	Petition	State Rep. 103	Democratic	22.81%
So. Car.	Carol Tempel	Petition	State Rep. 115	Republican	31.98%
Wash.	Mark T. Davies	No Party Preference	State Rep. 1-2	Democratic	38.86%
Wash.	Craig Durgan	No Party Preference	State Rep. 24-1	Democratic	35.76%
Wash.	Tamra Smilanich	Nonpartisan Party	State Rep. 37-2	Democratic	12.43%
Wash.	Brandon Robinson	No Party Preference	State Rep. 40-1	Democratic	26.38%

Above are all the November 2012 candidates for federal and state office who were in two-candidate races in single-member districts, and who had a ballot label that suggested they were independents, and yet that label was not "independent". In some cases this is because state law bars the the term "independent." In other cases, the candidate was free to choose "independent" as a ballot label, but in these states, if the candidate doesn’t choose a label, the state automatically uses another term, such as "Unenrolled."

The average candidate on this page polled 30.21% of the vote. By contrast, the average candidate on page four (those who did have "independent") polled 33.23%. See page two for more about these charts.

On July 1, the Sixth Circuit refused to rehear Libertarian Party of Michigan v Ruth Johnson, 12-2153. The issue is whether Michigan’s "sore loser" law applies to presidential primaries. The Libertarian Party plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case. In the entire history of the nation, no minor party presidential candidate had ever before been kept off a November ballot on the grounds that he or she had run in a presidential primary, and candidates have run in major party presidential primaries and then as minor party nominees in 1912, 1924, 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2008, and 2012. Gary Johnson ran in eight Republican presidential primaries in 2012, and only Michigan kept his name off the November ballot on the grounds that he was a "sore loser."

The 1787 Party is a new centrist political party being established by Emily Mathews. The party’s web page is now up. See www.1787forAmerica.org.

COFOE, the Coalition for Free and Open Elections, held its annual meeting in New York on July 14. COFOE was established in 1985 and is a loose coalition of some of the nation’s minor parties. Its purpose is to improve election laws for minor parties and independent candidates.

COFOE’s Board passed a resolution, asking the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives to improve future editions of the publication, "Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of (year)." The 2012 booklet, which has already been published, is a very useful compilation of election returns for President and Congress. Similar books have been published by the Clerk since 1920. Unfortunately, the book’s Table of presidential election returns give the impression that the various minor party presidential candidates polled fewer votes than they actually did.

The 2012 Presidential vote table shows columns for the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Socialism and Liberation, Reform, Socialist, Socialist Workers Parties, as well as a column for "other parties" and a column for independent presidential candidates.

The Democratic column includes President Obama’s vote from Minnesota and North Dakota, even though the name of the Minnesota Democratic Party, as listed on the ballot, is "Democratic-Farmer-Labor" and the party’s name on the North Dakota ballot is "Democratic-Nonpartisan League."

However, the Green Party column does not include any vote entry for Maine, Massachusetts, or Oregon. Just as the Democratic Party’s name in two states is somewhat different than it is in the rest of the nation, the Green Party’s name in those three states is also different than it is in the remainder of the country. In Maine, the party is on the ballot as "Green Independent Party"; in Massachusetts as "Green-Rainbow"; in Oregon as "Pacific Green." The Clerk put the presidential vote of the Green Party for those three states in the "other parties" column instead of the Green Party column.

As a result, the total at the bottom of the Green column is 401,164, when actually the Green nominee, Jill Stein, polled 469,581. The COFOE letter asks the Clerk to apply the same policy used for the Democrats to all parties.

On June 25, Kentucky held a special election to fill House seat district 56. The results: Democrat James Kay 44.0%, Republican Lyon Crews 34.4%; independent John-Mark Hack 21.6%. When this seat had been up in 2012, the results had been: Democratic 53.3%, Republican 46.7%.

On July 25, the North Dakota submitted over 8,000 signatures to qualify for party status in the 2014 election. This is the first instance this year at which any party in any state has completed the process to gain ballot access for 2014.

---

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!