<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ballot Access News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ballot-access.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ballot-access.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Webpage for Green Parties of the World</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/webpage-for-green-parties-of-the-world/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/webpage-for-green-parties-of-the-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This webpage has links to all the Green Parties established around the world.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.cittadino.jor.br/green.htm">This</a> webpage has links to all the Green Parties established around the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/webpage-for-green-parties-of-the-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Minnesota Secretary of State Posts New U.S. Senate Totals</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/minnesota-secretary-of-state-posts-new-us-senate-totals/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/minnesota-secretary-of-state-posts-new-us-senate-totals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 5, the Minnesota Secretary of State posted new totals for Al Franken and Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate.  No new totals were calculated for the other candidates.
Compared to the original tally, Al Franken gained 1,056 votes, and Norm Coleman gained 616.  These new votes were sufficient to reverse the outcome.  [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On January 5, the Minnesota Secretary of State posted new totals for Al Franken and Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate.  No new totals were calculated for the other candidates.</p>
<p>Compared to the original tally, Al Franken gained 1,056 votes, and Norm Coleman gained 616.  These new votes were sufficient to reverse the outcome.  Whereas Norm Coleman had won by 215 votes in the original tally, the new numbers have Al Franken winning by 225 votes.  Coleman does not accept the results and is contesting the recount results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/minnesota-secretary-of-state-posts-new-us-senate-totals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Corrects Clerical Error in Presidential Returns</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/texas-corrects-clerical-error-in-presidential-returns/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/texas-corrects-clerical-error-in-presidential-returns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4645</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Texas Secretary of State has corrected some clerical errors that had crept into the official November 2008 presidential returns, for the declared write-in candidates.
As a result, Chuck Baldwin gained 343 votes, Ralph Nader gained 226 votes, Cynthia McKinney gained 160 votes, and Jonathan Allan gained one vote.
Also, Brian Moore lost 778 votes, Alan Keyes [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Texas Secretary of State has corrected some clerical errors that had crept into the official November 2008 presidential returns, for the declared write-in candidates.</p>
<p>As a result, Chuck Baldwin gained 343 votes, Ralph Nader gained 226 votes, Cynthia McKinney gained 160 votes, and Jonathan Allan gained one vote.</p>
<p>Also, Brian Moore lost 778 votes, Alan Keyes lost 12 votes, and Thaddeus Hill lost 662 votes.  The new totals should be posted soon on the nationwide presidential vote chart.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/texas-corrects-clerical-error-in-presidential-returns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Constitutional Lawsuits over Timing of Florida Presidential Primary are Still Alive</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/two-constitutional-lawsuits-over-timing-of-florida-presidential-primary-are-still-alive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/two-constitutional-lawsuits-over-timing-of-florida-presidential-primary-are-still-alive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2008 controversy over Florida&#8217;s January date for presidential primaries is still active in two distinct federal constitutional lawsuits.
Ausman v Browning attacks the Florida state law, setting the primary at a date that violates national Democratic Party rules.  The lawsuit argues that the state is depriving both Democrats and Republicans from having a voice [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 2008 controversy over Florida&#8217;s January date for presidential primaries is still active in two distinct federal constitutional lawsuits.</p>
<p>Ausman v Browning attacks the Florida state law, setting the primary at a date that violates national Democratic Party rules.  The lawsuit argues that the state is depriving both Democrats and Republicans from having a voice in their own party&#8217;s national conventions, by setting the primary date so early.  It is pending in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee (Ausman v Browning, 4:07-cv-519).  It had a status conference on December 19, 2008.</p>
<p>Another case, DiMaio v Democratic National Committee, has a hearing on January 8 in the 11th circuit.  This case attacks the Democratic Party&#8217;s national rule, saying that South Carolina and New Hampshire are permitted to have presidential primaries that count, in January; whereas other states may not.  Because the Democratic Party has already said publicly that South Carolina was permitted to have an early presidential primary because the party wanted a state with a large African American population to go second (after New Hampshire), the lawsuit argues that the party&#8217;s rules are being determined by racial considerations, and that parties may not do this.  The case depends on decision from the U.S. Supreme Court from the 1940&#8217;s that outlawed party rules that discriminated against African Americans.  See <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427193801">this</a> article about the DiMaio case.  Thanks to Ed Still for the link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/05/two-constitutional-lawsuits-over-timing-of-florida-presidential-primary-are-still-alive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Montana Ballot Access Case has Conference</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/montana-ballot-access-case-has-conference/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/montana-ballot-access-case-has-conference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Montana ballot access case, Kelly v Johnson, has a conference before the federal judge who is handling the case on January 9.  The lawsuit challenges Montana&#8217;s March petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Montana ballot access case, Kelly v Johnson, has a conference before the federal judge who is handling the case on January 9.  The lawsuit challenges Montana&#8217;s March petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/montana-ballot-access-case-has-conference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Supreme Court Puts Brewer v Nader on January 16 Conference</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/us-supreme-court-puts-brewer-v-nader-on-january-16-conference/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/us-supreme-court-puts-brewer-v-nader-on-january-16-conference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Brewer v Nader at its January 16, 2009 conference.  This is the case in which the Arizona Secretary of State hopes to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal, over out-of-state petitioners, and whether an early June petition deadline is unconstitutional, at least [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Brewer v Nader at its January 16, 2009 conference.  This is the case in which the Arizona Secretary of State hopes to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal, over out-of-state petitioners, and whether an early June petition deadline is unconstitutional, at least as applied to independent presidential candidates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/us-supreme-court-puts-brewer-v-nader-on-january-16-conference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Philadelphia Inquirer Publishes Letter on Nader Fees</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/philadelphia-inquirer-publishes-letter-on-nader-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/philadelphia-inquirer-publishes-letter-on-nader-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The January 4 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer has this letter on the action of Pennsylvania courts requiring Ralph Nader to pay costs to the people who challenged his 2004 petition.  Greg Kafoury, who wrote the letter, is an attorney who has supported Nader.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The January 4 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer has <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20090104_Letters__Letters.html">this</a> letter on the action of Pennsylvania courts requiring Ralph Nader to pay costs to the people who challenged his 2004 petition.  Greg Kafoury, who wrote the letter, is an attorney who has supported Nader.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/04/philadelphia-inquirer-publishes-letter-on-nader-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Burlington&#8217;s Progressive Mayor Seeks Re-Election</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/burlingtons-progressive-mayor-seeks-re-election/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/burlingtons-progressive-mayor-seeks-re-election/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Burlington, the largest city in Vermont, uses partisan elections for its own city officers.  The Mayoral election will be March 3, 2009.  Incumbent Bob Kiss, of the Progressive Party, plans to run for re-election.  See this article, published December 1 by WPTZ, but posted to the Progressive Party&#8217;s webpage.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Burlington, the largest city in Vermont, uses partisan elections for its own city officers.  The Mayoral election will be March 3, 2009.  Incumbent Bob Kiss, of the Progressive Party, plans to run for re-election.  See <a href="http://www.progressiveparty.org/?page=5&#038;articlemode=showspecific&#038;showarticle=265">this</a> article, published December 1 by WPTZ, but posted to the Progressive Party&#8217;s webpage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/burlingtons-progressive-mayor-seeks-re-election/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Conservatives Still Run More Candidates Than any Other Minor Party</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/new-york-conservative-party-still-runs-more-candidates-for-state-office-than-any-other-party/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/new-york-conservative-party-still-runs-more-candidates-for-state-office-than-any-other-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Conservative Party of New York has been the minor party that runs candidates in the largest share of its state&#8217;s legislative seats, compared to any other minor party.  This has been true continuously starting in 1970.  The Conservatives hit their peak (for number of legislative nominees) in 1982, when the party had [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Conservative Party of New York has been the minor party that runs candidates in the largest share of its state&#8217;s legislative seats, compared to any other minor party.  This has been true continuously starting in 1970.  The Conservatives hit their peak (for number of legislative nominees) in 1982, when the party had nominees on the ballot in over 92% of New York state&#8217;s legislative races (195 nominees out of 211 races).</p>
<p>However, there are signs that the Conservative machine is flagging slightly.  In 2008, it had nominees in only 149 legislative races (out of 212 races).  That was the lowest number it had run since 1964.  Meanwhile, the Working Families Party of New York is gaining.  In 2008 it ran nominees in 142 legislative races, its best showing so far.</p>
<p>Of course, since these two New York parties mostly cross-endorse Republican or Democratic nominees, the two New York minor parties have an easier time with candidate recruitment than most minor parties do.  Still, it is always a sizeable amount of work to place that many nominees on each party&#8217;s primary ballot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/new-york-conservative-party-still-runs-more-candidates-for-state-office-than-any-other-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some Nebraska Legislators Wish to Eliminate Choosing One Elector Per Congressional District</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/some-nebraska-legislators-wish-to-eliminate-choosing-one-elector-per-congressional-district/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/some-nebraska-legislators-wish-to-eliminate-choosing-one-elector-per-congressional-district/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to this article, published January 2 in the World-Herald, 17 of Nebraska&#8217;s 49 State Senators desire to bring back the winner-take-all system for choosing Nebraska&#8217;s electoral votes.  13 Senators want to keep the existing system.  The other 19 Senators did not express a preference.
Nebraska has let each U.S. House district choose its [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to <a href="http://www.ashland-gazette.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20233631&#038;BRD=2712&#038;PAG=461&#038;dept_id=556239&#038;rfi=6">this</a> article, published January 2 in the World-Herald, 17 of Nebraska&#8217;s 49 State Senators desire to bring back the winner-take-all system for choosing Nebraska&#8217;s electoral votes.  13 Senators want to keep the existing system.  The other 19 Senators did not express a preference.</p>
<p>Nebraska has let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector, starting in 1992.  In 2008, for the first time, one Nebraska district voted differently than the other districts, so that Barack Obama got one electoral vote, and John McCain got four.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/03/some-nebraska-legislators-wish-to-eliminate-choosing-one-elector-per-congressional-district/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.270 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page served by WP-Super-Cache -->
