NEW MEXICO EASES INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE PETITION

On March 12, the New Mexico legislature passed 407, which lowers the number of signatures for independent candidates. The old law required 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. The new law lowers this for presidential independents to one-half of 1%. It lowers it for other office to 2%. The Governor is expected to sign it.

The old law for all 2020 statewide offices was 20,898 signatures. The new law is 3,483 for president, and 13,932 for other statewide office.

Now, the only states with an independent petition for statewide office greater than 2% of the last vote are Alabama and Montana. Alabama is 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, and Montana is 5% of the winner’s vote for that same office.

New Mexico now has the easiest independent petition requirements it has ever had. New Mexico had no procedures for independent candidates until 1977, when a U.S. District Court ordered New Mexico to create such procedures. The case was McCarthy v Evans. The 1977 session of the legislature passed a bill for independent petitions that was 5% of the last vote cast. It was lowered to 3% in 1991.

HB 407 was an omnibus election law bill, over 500 pages long, with many other election law changes, none of them deemed newsworthy by New Mexico’s newspapers. The Secretary of State, Maggie Toulouse Oliver, was helpful in getting the reduction of independent petitions into the bill.

Independent presidential candidates in New Mexico almost never used the old 3% petition, because it was so hard. Instead they usually formed a new party and became the nominee of their own new party, because petitions for a new party have been, and continue to be, only one-half of 1%.

On March 28, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against two new Arkansas laws. One of those new laws, SB 163, signed on February 19, increased the number of signatures from 10,000 to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote (26,746 signatures). The other new law, SB 445, signed on March 25, moved the petition deadline from January of the election year to September of the year before. Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, 4:19cv-214.

Arkansas has already had its 3% petition struck down twice in the past. First in 1996, when the Reform Party sued. In response, the legislature moved the January petition deadline to May. It also expanded the petitioning period to five months, but it did not amend the 3%.

In 2006, the Green Party sued over the 3% petition. Finally in 2007 the legislature reduced the petition to 10,000 signatures. During the years when the petition was 3% (1977-2007), no party ever got on the ballot without suing. In the years in which the requirement was 10,000, Arkansas did not have a crowded ballot. The only parties that completed the 10,000 petition were Green, Libertarian, and Americans Elect.

The new lawsuit will also challenge the petition deadline of September of the year before the election. Arkansas has already had its petition deadline for new parties declared unconstitutional twice. In 1977 the American Party defeated the April petition deadline in court, and in 1996 the Reform Party defeated the January deadline. It is difficult to imagine how Arkansas will defend a deadline of September of the odd year before an election.

On March 19, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed HB 114. It moves the declaration of candidacy for an independent candidate for state office from April 1, to the last Tuesday in January. The bill makes a similar change for the nominees of qualified minor parties, those which nominate by convention instead of primary.

Furthermore, the law takes effect immediately. Kentucky elects all its statewide state officers, including Governor, in 2019. The Libertarian Party is a qualified minor party in Kentucky, and the fact that the new law takes effect immediately means that the Libertarian candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor missed the January deadline. They intend to sue.

In 2016, a U.S. District Court in West Virginia struck down a law requiring the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, to file a declaration of candidacy in January. In 1990 the Fourth Circuit struck down a similar law in South Carolina. And even if the Kentucky deadline is constitutional, it violates due process to change the deadline retroactively. The Kentucky deadline applies to state and local office, not federal office.

On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court said it won’t hear Utah Republican Party v Cox, 18-450. The party had challenged the law that lets people petition onto the party’s primary ballot. The party prefers that only candidates with substantial support at a party meeting run in its primaries.

On March 12, Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan) introduced HB 1681, a bill to set a federal standard for ballot access for congressional candidates. It says that states cannot require more signatures for an independent candidate, or the nominee of an unqualified party, than are needed in that state for a major party member to get on a primary ballot.

This is the first federal ballot access bill since the 2003-2004 session of Congress. Article One of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws governing congressional elections. Congress has passed many federal laws regulating congressional elections, but has never passed any law on ballot access.

Past ballot access bills in Congress:

• 1985: HR 2320 by John Conyers
• 1987: HR 1582 by John Conyers
• 1989: HR 1582 by John Conyers
• 1993: HR 1755 by Tim Penny
• 1997: HR 2466 by Ron Paul
• 1999: HR 2026 by Ron Paul
• 2001: HR 2268 by Ron Paul
• 2003: HR 1941 by Ron Paul

Conyers was a Michigan Democrat; Penny was a Minnesota Democrat; Paul was a Texas Republican. The highest number of co-sponsors these ballot access bills had was 40, in 1990. Utah was the only state in which a majority of the members co-sponsored the bill.

The previous ballot access bills were far better than the Amash bill. The Amash bill would not offer any protection against state laws that require high filing fees. It would not offer any relief for states that make it extremely hard for congressional candidates to get on a primary ballot. It would not offer any protection against the top-two systems that keep almost all non-major party congressional candidates off the November ballot in California and Washington. Nor would it offer any protection against very early petition deadlines. For example, North Carolina requires independent candidates to submit a petition by February.

Furthermore, the Amash bill is unworkable because over half the states do not require any petition for a candidate to get on a primary ballot, so his bill would leave those states with no ability to require any petition for the general election.

The earlier ballot access laws had an extensive preamble, explaining the need for the bill; the Amash bill has no such preamble.

The earlier ballot access laws required states to let candidates for U.S. House if they submitted a petition of one-half of 1% of the last vote cast in that district. The petition deadline could not be earlier than August. No filing fee was permitted. For U.S. Senate and President, the number of signatures was one-tenth of 1% of the last vote cast, but in no event less than 1,000 signatures. Not all of the early ballot access bills were exactly the same, and the last Ron Paul bill only dealt with U.S. House, not President or U.S. Senate.

The closest any of the previous ballot access bills came to passing was in 1998, when the House voted on the measure, as an amendment to another election law bill. However, the ballot access provision only got 62 votes, out of 435 U.S. House members.

Alaska: Representative Ivy Sponholz (D-Anchorage) has introduced HB 90. It lowers the number of registrants for a group to be a qualified party from 3% of the last vote cast, to 5,000. If it passed, the Libertarian Party would be back on the ballot.

Texas: Representative Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park) has introduced HB 4439. It lowers the statewide independent petition and the petition for a newly-qualifying party to exactly 10,000 signatures. It would let any registered voter sign. Currently the independent presidential petition is 79,939 signatures; the new party petition is 83,435. Primary voters cannot sign. The bill moves the petition deadlines from May to August.

During March, the legislatures of three states passed the National Popular Vote Plan bill: Colorado, Delaware, and New Mexico. The Colorado bill has already been signed, and it is expected that Democratic Governors in the other two states will soon sign their bills. That will give the plan 189 electoral votes. It can’t go into effect until states with 270 votes have joined.

The jurisdictions that have joined, in order of joining, are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, D.C., Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Colorado.

The plan could gain more states by using the initiative. States that have the statewide initiative, and which have not yet joined, are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. __ (2015), says that states can use the initiative process to write election laws.

Washington: on March 14, Governor Jay Inslee signed SB 5273, which moves the primary from May to March.

Arkansas: on March 25, Governor Asa Hutchinson signed SB 445, which moves the primary for all office from May to March. However, the bill only affects presidential election years, not midterm years.

Utah: on March 14, the legislature passed SB 242, which sets the presidential primary in March. The old law authorized a presidential primary but did not set a date.

Arizona SB 1154 is close to passing. It has passed the State Senate and all House Committees. It moves the non-presidential primary from late August to early August. It also moves the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties from February of the election year, to November of the year before the election. The Governor hasn’t signed it yet, but he probably will because the bill had almost no opposition. The new deadline is almost certainly unconstitutional. Even the old deadline was probably unconstitutional, but when the Green Party challenged it in 2014, it didn’t present evidence that the deadline had injured it, so the 9^th circuit said in the absence of evidence about harm, it would not strike down the deadline.

Kentucky: on March 14, the legislature passed HB 325. The existing law lets voters switch parties a month before any primary. The bill says voters can’t switch parties (for the purpose of voting in a party primary) later than December 31 of the year before. This gives Kentucky the most restrictive period for that purpose of any state other than New York.

New Mexico: HB 93, which would have let independents vote in primaries, failed to pass before the legislature adjourned.

Tennessee: HB 1273, changing open primaries to closed primaries, was defeated on February 27.

Oklahoma: the bills to ban the straight-ticket device, SB 51 and HB 1919, failed to move.

Utah: HB 259, to ban the device, passed the House and all Senate committees, but then the legislature adjourned.

This year, bills to require presidential candidates to reveal their income tax returns, or be left off the ballot, have been introduced in 18 states. So far, none have passed, but each house of the Hawaii legislature has passed one version.

Sponsors of these bills seem to think that because states may impose ballot access petitions and filing fees on candidates, therefore states can pass bills relating to disclosure of income tax returns. Backers of these bills say they know that the states can’t add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution. But they say that their bills are only ballot access procedures, not qualifications.

Supporters of these bills tend not to know that ever since the start of government-printed ballots in 1890, courts have been striking down state election laws (aside from petitions and fees) that prevent candidates from getting on the ballot for federal office. The chart below lists forty lawsuits in the last 100 years that have struck down barriers to the ballot. These barriers included loyalty oaths; bans on felons; bans on candidates who were holding a state elective office and hadn’t resigned the state job; laws requiring candidates to be registered voters; and laws requiring residency in a particular district or state.

The principle underlying such court decisions was expressed well by Alexander Hamilton, who said, "The true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed." Hamilton said this at the New York convention called to decide whether to ratify the Constitution.

State	Case Name	Year	Court	Citation	Restriction
WV	Sutherland v Miller	1917	State Supreme	91 SE 993	Broke federal campaign finance laws
Mn	State ex rel Eaton v Schmahl	1918	State Supreme	167 NW 481	Had felony conviction
Wa	State ex rel Chandler v Howell	1918	State Supreme	175 P 569	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Mn	State ex rel 25 Voters v Selvig	1927	State Supreme	212 NW 604	Broke state campaign finance laws
Or	Ekwall v Stadelman	1934	State Supreme	30 P 2d 1037	Didn’t resign prior elected office
NY	In re O’Connor	1940	State Supreme	17 NYS 2d 758	Subversive person; felony conviction
Az	Stockton v McFarland	1940	State Supreme	106 P 2d 328	Didn’t resign prior elected office
ND	State ex rel Sundfor v Thorson	1942	State Supreme	6 NW 2d 89	Lost primary, then indp candidate
Wis	State ex rel Wettengel v Zimmerman	1946	State Supreme	24 NW 2d 504	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Ok	Riley v Cordell	1948	State Supreme	194 P 2d 857	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Wy	State ex rel Johnson v Crane	1948	State Supreme	197 P 2d 864	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Mn	Danielson v Fitzsimmons	1950	State Supreme	44 NW 2d 484	Conviction for overthrowing govt
Md	Shub v Simpson	1950	State Appeals	76 A 2d 332	Wouldn’t sign loyalty oath
In	State ex rel Handley v Superior Court	1958	State Supreme	151 NE 2d 508	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Md	Hellmann v Collier	1958	State Appeals	141 A 2d 908	Didn’t live in US House District
SD	In re Opinion of the Judges	1962	State Supreme	116 NW 2d 233	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Az	State ex rel Pickerill v Senner	1962	State Supreme	375 P 2d 728	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Cal	Salinger v Rogers	1964	State Supreme	54 Minutes 123	Not registered in Democratic Party
Neb	Exon v Tiemann	1968	US District	279 F Supp 609	Didn’t live in US House District
NM	State ex rel Chavez v Evans	1968	State Supreme	446 P 2d 445	Not a registered voter
NY	Appeal of Ferguson	1968	State Supreme	294 NYS 2d 174	Had felony conviction
Fl	Stack v Adams	1970	US District	315 F Supp 1295	Didn’t resign prior elected office
NM	Dillon v Fiorina	1972	US District	340 F Supp 729	Not registered in party for a year
Nv	State ex rel Santini v Swackhamer	1974	State Supreme	521 P 2d 568	Didn’t resign prior elected office
Ga	Lowe v Fowler	1977	State Supreme	240 SE 2d 70	Didn’t resign prior elected office
NY	United States v Richmond	1982	US District	550 F Supp 605	Plea bargain couldn’t include not run
Cal	Van Heusen v Patterson	1983	State Superior	San Fran 809021	Allegedly didn’t live in state
Wy	Hamburg v Wyoming	1991	State Supreme	820 P 2d 523	Plea bargain couldn’t include not run
Tx	LaRouche v Hannah	1992	State Supreme	822 SW 2d 632	Had felony conviction; in prison
La	Strong v Breaux	1992	State Supreme	612 So 2d 111	Allegedly didn’t live in state
Nv	Stumpf v Lau	1992	State Supreme	839 P 2d 120	Congress term limits are invalid
Wa	Thorstad v Gregoire	1994	US District	841 F Supp 1068	Congress term limits are invalid
Ar	US Term Limits v Thornton	1995	US Supreme	514 US 779	Congress term limits are invalid
Ca	Schaefer v Townsend	2000	Ninth circuit	215 F 3d 1031	Wasn’t registered to vote in state
Co	Campbell v Davidson	2000	Tenth circuit	233 F 3d 1229	Wasn’t registered to vote
Mn	Backstrom v Kiffmeyer	2004	State Supreme	A04-1647	Had felony conviction; was fugitive
Tx	Texas Democratic Party v Benkiser	2006	Fifth circuit	459 F 3d 582	Won primary then moved out of state
NY	NY State Republican Party v Bd Elec	2008	Second circuit	08-5327	Won primary then moved out of state
NM	Woodruff v Herrera	2009	US District	1:09-cv-449	Wasn’t registered to vote
Ne	Nebraska Republican Party v Gale	2012	State trial	Lancster 12-1102	Allegedly didn’t live in state

In the cases above, a candidate for federal office was kept off a ballot for the reason mentioned in the right-hand column, but then a court ruled that the candidate could not be kept off the ballot, due to the fact that the qualifications for federal office mentioned in the U.S. Constitution are exclusive. The list above also includes three term limits cases in which there were no particular candidates involved.

This chart is to show the history of decisions that restricted states from adding to the qualifications for federal office. There couldn’t have been such lawsuits before 1890, because there were no government-printed ballots in elections for federal office until 1890. Before 1890, it was impossible for a government to keep anyone from running for office, so the issue didn’t arise.

There are a few lawsuits that let the state keep a candidate off the ballot for federal office, even though the he met the constitutional qualifications. Some courts have upheld "resign to run" laws. Also, two court decisions allowed a state to keep a candidate for federal office off the ballot because when he had run for state office earlier, he didn’t follow campaign finance rules governing state office, and was penalized by being barred from running for any office for a certain period in the future: Lukens v Brown in Ohio in 1974, and Williams v Fahrenholtz in Louisiana in 2008. Finally, there is Secretary of State v McGucken, a 1966 Maryland state case which kept a federal candidate off for failing to appoint a campaign treasurer.

On March 14, an important vote occurred in the U.S. Senate on whether to disapprove of President Trump’s declaration of emergency spending on a border wall. There are 53 Republicans. Twelve of them (22.6%) voted against President Trump. This forced him to veto his first bill.

Advocates of open primaries constantly say that open primaries produce office-holders who are less partisan than office-holders who were nominated in closed primaries. However, Republicans from closed primaries were twice as likely to vote against their President.

Fifteen Republican Senators were nominated in closed primaries. Of those fifteen, six voted against their party. That is 40%.

Fourteen Republican Senators were nominated in semi-closed primaries. Of those fourteen, two voted against their party, or 14.3%.

Twenty-four Republicans were nominated in open primaries. Of those, four voted against their party, or 16.7%.

Fusion (the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate) has been under attack in New York. The state Democratic Party passed a resolution urging the legislature to abolish it. However, on March 6, 26 Democratic State Senators signed a letter expressing support for fusion. New York has 63 State Senators, so fusion appears safe, and no bill to abolish has been introduced.

The Clerk of the U.S. House has released the booklet Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 6, 2018. It is free and can be requested by calling 202-226-5200.

State	Requirements		Signatures Collected			Three Types of Deadlines
	Full Party	Cand.	Lib’t	Green	Consti	Full Party	Pres Party	Pres. Ind.
Ala.	*51,588	5,000	0	0	0	Mar. 3	Mar. 3	Aug. 13
Alaska	(est) (reg) 8,358	*#3,212	*7,137	*1,582	*455	May 4	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Ariz.	*31,686	(est) #37,000	already on	*600	0	*Nov 29	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
Ark.	*26,746	#1,000	*in court	0	0	*in court	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Calif.	(es) (reg) 65,000	196,964	already on	already on	296	Nov 4 2019	July 6	Aug. 7
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $1,000	already on	already on	already on	Jan. 10	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	already on	already on	can’t start	– –	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Del.	(est.) (reg) 700	(est.) 7,000	already on	already on	*275	Aug. 23	Aug. 25	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	(est.) #5,000	already on	already on	can’t start	– –	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Florida	132,781	132,781	already on	already on	already on	April 15	July 15	July 15
Georgia	64,354	#7,500	already on	can’t start	can’t start	July 14	July 14	July 14
Hawaii	757	#4,347	already on	already on	*50	Feb. 24	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Idaho	*13,809	1,000	already on	can’t start	already on	Aug. 31	Aug. 31	Aug. 24
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	June 22	June 22
Indiana	no procedure	*#44,935	already on	0	0	– –	June 30	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	– –	Aug. 14	Aug. 14
Kansas	*21,112	5,000	already on	0	0	June 1	June 1	Aug. 3
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– –	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $500	already on	already on	174	May 18	Aug. 21	Aug. 21
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	*115	already on	0	Jan. 2	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Md.	10,000	10,000	*in court	0	0	Aug. 3	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Mass.	(est) (reg) 45,000	#10,000	already on	already on	244	Feb. 4	Aug. 2	July 28
Mich.	*42,506	30,000	already on	already on	already on	July 16	July 16	July 16
Minn.	*129,365	#2,000	0	0	0	May 1	Aug. 18	Aug. 18
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	Feb. 1	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	July 27	July 27	July 27
Mont.	5,000	#5,000	already on	in court	0	Mar. 12	Aug. 12	Aug. 12
Nebr.	*6,980	2,500	already on	0	0	Aug. 3	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Nev.	9,608	9,608	already on	0	already on	June 5	June 5	July 10
N. Hamp.	*17,209	#3,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	Aug. 5	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
N.J.	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	– –	July 27	July 27
N. M.	3,483	*3,483	already on	already on	already on	June 25	June 25	June 25
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	already on	already on	can’t start	– –	*May 26	*May 26
No. Car.	11,778	70,666	already on	already on	already on	May 18	May 18	Feb. 16
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	0	0	0	Apr. 10	Aug. 31	Aug. 31
Ohio	*44,296	5,000	*already on	0	0	July 1	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Okla.	35,592	#pay $35,000	already on	0	0	Feb. 28	July 15	July 15
Oregon	*27,960	17,893	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 25	Aug. 25	Aug. 25
Penn.	no procedure	#5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
R.I.	*18,758	#1,000	0	0	0	Aug. 3	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	May 4	May 8	July 15
So. Dak.	*3,393	*3,393	*already on	0	0	July 1	July 1	Aug. 4
Tenn.	*56,083	275	0	0	0	Aug. 5	Aug. 5	Aug. 18
Texas	*83,435	79,939	already on	can’t start	can’t start	May 18	May 18	May 11
Utah	2,000	1,000	already on	*already on	already on	Nv 30 2019	Nv 30 2019	Aug. 17
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	0	0	De 31 2019	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Virginia	no procedure	#5,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	Aug. 21	Aug. 21
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	July 25	July 25
West Va.	no procedure	#7,145	already on	already on	0	– –	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	can’t start	can’t start	already on	April 2	Aug. 2	Aug. 4
Wyo.	*4,018	*4,018	already on	can’t start	already on	June 1	June 1	Aug. 25
States On			*34	*20	14	~

# means partisan label permitted.
* means a change since the last petitioning chart, which was carried in the December 1, 2018 newsletter.

California: on March 26, a special State Senate election was held in the 33rd district. The Green Party candidate, Cesar Flores, received 1.5% in a twelve-candidate field.

Connecticut: on February 26, a special election was held for Representative, 39^th district. Four candidates were on the ballot, a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, and an independent. The Green, Mirna Martinez, placed second, with 28.52%. The Republican was third with 11.67% on the Republican line and 3.04% on the Independent Party line. Martinez had become the first Green Party nominee in Connecticut to qualify for public funding.

Rhode Island: on March 5, a special election for Representative, 68^th district, was held. The candidates were a Democrat, a Libertarian, and two independents. The Libertarian, William Hunt Jr., polled 28.4%, placing second. The Democratic winner received 39.8%.

Vermont: on March 5, the Progressive Party gained two seats in the Burlington city council elections, which are partisan. Progressives now have five seats on the twelve-member council. Also Progressive Party members were elected to town councils or school boards in Thetford, Norwich, and Brandon.

The Alliance Party, which was formed just a few months ago, is already petitioning to get on the ballot in 2020. It has petition drives in Utah and Nevada, and registration drives in Maine and Massachusetts. It is already on the ballot in one state, South Carolina. It got on by persuading the ballot-qualified American Party to change its name to the Alliance Party.

The Alliance Party is talking to some one-state parties that are on the ballot and which are also centrist, to see if they might become Alliance Party affiliates. It is also in talks with the SAM Party, another nationally-organized new party that espouses centrism and which is on in New York.

The Democratic Party has chosen Milwaukee for its 2020 national convention. This is the first time a major party has ever held its presidential convention in Wisconsin. However, in the past, the Socialist Party and the Green Party have had their national conventions in the state.

On March 23, Gary Wnuk said that he has changed his party membership from Republican to Constitution. He is a member of the Alcona County, Michigan, Board of Commissioners.

Mississippi elects all its state officers in the odd years prior to presidential election years. In the November 2019 election, filing has already closed. The Constitution Party is the only third party that has any statewide candidate: Bob Hickingbottom for Governor. The Libertarian Party has two legislative candidates. No other parties, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, have any candidates. This is the first year the Reform Party has not contested any offices in Mississippi since it was founded in 1995.

On March 3, Mark Cuban, prominent Texas businessman, told the New York Daily News that he is thinking of running for president as an independent.

North Carolina holds special U.S. House elections later this year in the Third and Ninth Districts. Libertarians have candidates in both districts. The Green Party has a candidate in the Ninth District and the Constitution Party has one in the Third District.