U.S. DISTRICT COURT ENJOINS ARKANSAS 3% PETITION

On July 3, U.S. District Court Judge Kristin Baker, an Obama appointee, enjoined the Arkansas ballot access law for new parties, a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, e.d., 4:19cv-214. The decision is 63 pages. It summarizes the testimony of all witnesses on both sides.

The law had been passed in 2019. Previously 10,000 signatures had been required. The enjoined law, for 2020, required 26,746 signatures.

The Libertarian Party had already submitted approximately 18,000 signatures, in the hopes that the decision would have the effect of reinstating the old 10,000-signature requirement. The state has accepted the petition but has not yet checked the signatures. The state is also asking the U.S. District Judge to stay her own ruling while the state appeals to the Eighth Circuit. In the Eighth Circuit, the case is 19-2503.

The opinion says, "There is no record evidence that requiring the State of Arkansas if the party presents a petition with at least 10,000 signatures of registered voters would do any harm to either the Secretary of State, the State of Arkansas, or the public." It also says, "There is no record evidence of ballot overcrowding. In fact, Mr. Hood, the State of Arkansas’ own expert, conceded that a ballot with only a Democrat, a Republican, and a Libertarian would not be an overcrowded ballot."

Arkansas had a 3% petition for new party ballot access between 1977 and 2006, and during those years, no party qualified. Even the Reform Party failed to qualify in 1996, but it got on the ballot anyway when it won a court decision against the same law that the legislature restored in 2019. During the years when the requirement was 10,000 signatures, the only parties that qualified were the Libertarian and Green Parties.

On July 19, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in De La Fuente v Padilla, 17-56668. It upholds the California independent presidential petition, 1% of the number of registered voters. When the case was filed in 2016, by Rocky De La Fuente, the requirement was 178,039. All signatures must be collected in 105 days, due in the second week of August.

Since then, the number of registered voters has increased, and the 2020 requirement is 196,964 signatures.

The decision is by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee. It is also signed by Judge A. Wallace Tashima, a Clinton appointee; and Judge John Clifford Wallace, a Nixon appointee.

The ten-page decision says the state has an interest in preventing overcrowded ballots. Evidence in this case, which was not contested, shows that if a state requires more than 5,000 signatures, it will never have a crowded ballot, if "crowded ballot" means more than eight candidates for any particular office. This evidence is massive, and was discussed at the oral argument, yet the opinion does not acknowledge its existence.

This is supremely ironic, because Judge McKeown has previously written at great length, and with great intensity, that ballot access and other election law cases must depend on evidence. She previously wrote an opinion upholding the February petition deadline for new parties (Arizona Green Party v Reagan, 838 F.3d 983, 2016), on the grounds that the Green Party did not present any evidence that the early deadline harmed it.

She also wrote about the importance of evidence in Arizona Libertarian Party v Reagan, 798 F.3d 723 (2015), a case in which she agreed that an Arizona practice of printing only the two largest parties on the voter registration form is constitutional, even though there are other qualified parties. She said the Libertarian and Green Parties in that case had not presented evidence that being left off the registration form did them any harm.

On May 31, 2019, Judge McKeown had also written another ballot access decision, Arizona Libertarian Party v Hobbs, 17-16491. She upheld severe petitions for Libertarians to get on their own party’s primary ballot, and the number of write-in votes needed for a Libertarian to win a primary. In that case, she agreed with the U.S. District Court that all the party’s evidence should be excluded from the case. With no evidence to contradict her, she then labeled the requirement "slight", even though no Libertarian for any state or federal office managed to be nominated in either 2016 or 2018.

The new California decision noted that no California independent presidential petition has succeeded since 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court has said twice, in Storer v Brown and Mandel v Bradley, that if a ballot access restriction seldom is used, it is probably unconstitutional. McKeown did not mention that point.

She said California ballot access "does not significantly impair ballot access" because there are minor party presidential candidates on the ballot. However, in Storer v Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The political party and the independent candidate approaches to political activity are entirely different and neither is a satisfactory substitute for the other."

Many other cases have struck down procedures for new parties to get on the ballot, even though the independent requirements in the same state were lenient, in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

McKeown said, "a plain reading of both the statutes and the record supports the conclusion that sections 8400 and 8403 (the independent presidential petition laws) are ‘not severe’ restrictions." However, the record shows that it costs close to $1,000,000 to complete a petition of 200,000 valid signatures.

McKeown wrote, "Sections 8400 and 8403 are ‘generally applicable, even-handed, politically neutral". Yet the record and the oral argument established that independent presidential candidates are the only candidates in California who ever need massive petitions. Candidates for other statewide office only need 65 signatures plus a filing fee, or 7,000 signatures without a fee. At the oral argument, attorneys on both sides mentioned the 7,000 figure.

McKeown did not mention any contrary precedents, except one. She mentioned Green Party of Georgia v Kemp, 106 F.Supp.3d 1340; affirmed, 674 F Appx 974 (11^th circuit 2016), which struck down a virtually identical Georgia petition requirement for president, 1% of the registered voters. However she said that case was different because Georgia had not had any minor party candidates on the ballot. That is an error, and the oral argument made it clear that Georgia had minor party candidates on the ballot even during the years the 1% petition requirement was in effect in that state: the New Alliance Party (once), the Reform Party (twice), and the Libertarian Party (17 times) were on in Georgia.

She did not mention other favorable precedents. Graveline v Johnson, 336 F.Supp.3d 801 (e.d. Mich. 2018), affirmed, 747 F.Appx 408 (6^th circuit 2018) enjoined a Michigan petition requirement of 30,000 signatures, which was less than 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.

Also not mentioned is Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Krebs, 290 F.Supp. 3d 902 (2018), striking down a 2.5% of the last gubernatorial petition for new parties. Nor did she mention the Arkansas decision mentioned in the story above, although that decision came down after the oral argument in the California case, so she probably didn’t know about it.

The McKeown decision depends partly on Nader v Cronin, in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the Hawaii independent presidential petition requirement of 2004, which required only 3,711 signatures with an unlimited amount of time to collect the signatures, and a due date of September 3 of the election year. The formula was 1% of the last presidential vote. For anyone to believe that because it is constitutional to require 3,711 valid signatures, therefore it is constitutional to require almost 200,000 signatures in a limited time period, is the stuff of satire.

Perhaps the lowest point in the decision was when McKeown wrote, "De La Fuente’s own expert suggested that ‘there’s almost nobody left (for independent candidates) to petition’ because voters have their choice among major and minor party candidates." She refers to me, but that quote from me only referred to 1996 and 2000, when no significant presidential candidate failed to get on the ballot in California.

The same deposition shows that important candidates did fail to get on the ballot in California in other years. The deposition mentions Eugene McCarthy in 1976 (who placed third); Ralph Nader in 2004 (who placed third); Chuck Baldwin in 2008 (who placed fifth); Virgil Goode in 2012 (who placed fifth); and Evan McMullin in 2016 (who placed fifth). All these failures occurred during the lifetime of the existing independent petition law, which has existed almost unchanged starting in 1976.

Presumably De La Fuente will ask for a rehearing en banc. Judges Tashima and Wallace are part-time, so they can’t vote on a rehearing en banc.

Arkansas: on July 1, the Eighth Circuit issued an eight-page opinion in Moore v Thurston, 18-1382. This case was originally about the March petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates. The district court had struck it down, and then the legislature had moved it to May. But the state asked the Eighth Circuit to vacate the U.S. District Court decision, on the grounds that it is moot. Of course, if the U.S. District Court decision were vacated, then it wouldn’t exist as a precedent for the future, in case the legislature moves the deadline to an earlier month some day. The Eighth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the U.S. District Court decision should not be vacated.

Arizona: on July 5, a state trial court ruled that the Green Party is still ballot-qualified within Tucson. Green Party of Pima County v Randolph, 2019-2885. Although the party is not on the ballot in Arizona, it is on in Tucson. The Green Party last qualified in Tucson in 2017, and state law says when a party qualifies, it is on for two elections. Yet the City Clerk excluded the party from the 2019 city election. Because the relief came late, the judge also cut the number of signatures for Greens who need to get on the party’s primary ballot in half. In the city council races, that cut the average number of signatures from four to two (in Arizona, parties in their first four years of legal existence only need tiny petition requirements for their own primary ballot).

Ohio: on July 15, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously put Libertarian candidate Robert Bender back on the Libertarian primary ballot. He is running for city council of Reynoldsburg, a partisan office. The election board had excluded him because it believed he was short three signatures, but the Court said the Board waited too long to remove him, and also that the person who challenged his petition was not a Libertarian Party member, so he had no right to file a challenge. State ex rel Bender v Franklin County Board of Elections, 2019-Ohio-2854.

On July 3, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 696, which says that no party may have "independent" or "independence" in its party name. The intent of the bill is to force the American Independent Party to change its name. The party has been on the California ballot continuously since 1968. Except for the Conservative Party of New York, the AIP has been ballot-qualified continuously longer than any party in the United States, other than the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The bill says the party can change its name, by must do so by December 1, 2019. On July 5, the bill was amended to include an emergency clause, which means it will take effect as soon as it is signed. The bill was then sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The Secretary of State and CACEO, the association of county election officials, back this bill because they say independent voters mistakenly register as members of the AIP, even though the California registration form asks applicants if they wish to join a party, and only if they check "yes" are they then directed to a list of the six qualified parties.

Never before in U.S. history has any state passed a law requiring a qualified party to change its name. There is virtually no case law on whether this bill would be constitutional.

The words "independent" and "independence" convey meanings that cannot be conveyed without the use of those words. For instance, the Alaskan Independence Party, which has existed since 1974, was formed to advocate that Alaska leave the United States and become an independent nation. If a state could outlaw the word "independence" in a party name, the party could not convey what it stands for. Similarly, in 1991 a Massachusetts ballot-qualified party came into existence named the Independent Voters Party. If "independent" could not be the name of a party, it would be impossible for that group to have expressed its mission.

The California legislature is in recess until August 12, so the bill won’t move for a while.

The chart on page four shows that the use of the words "independent" and "independence" have been used by parties throughout U.S. history. Only three states have never had a party on the ballot that didn’t use either of those two words.

Initiatives: on July 9, the Senate Elections Committee passed AB 1451, which makes it more difficult to put statewide initiatives on the ballot. Petitioners cannot be paid on a per-signature basis. Also, at least 10% of the signatures must be collected by unpaid circulators.

Ranked Choice Voting: on July 3, the Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 212, which lets all non-charter counties and cities use Ranked Choice Voting for elections for their own officers. Currently only charter counties and cites may do that.

Presidential Primaries: on July 11, the legislature passed two bills. SB 505 makes it easier for candidates to get on a presidential primary ballot, and will probably result in an increase in the number of such candidates who appear on a ballot. Also on July 11, the legislature passed SB 27, which says no one can be on a presidential primary ballot without revealing five years of income tax returns. Both bills will be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom shortly, and then he will have twelve days to act on them.

Party-switching at the polls: on July 2, the Senate Elections Committee passed AB 681, which lets voters change parties at the polls on primary election day.

The bill in the U.S. House to make the District of Columbia a state, HR 51, now has 216 co-sponsors.

New Hampshire: on July 10, Governor Chris Sununu signed HB 588. It deletes the requirement that candidates in a presidential primary must be registered voters in the party in which they are running.

New York: on July 8, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed S5072. It says if a congressional committee chair wants to see any New York state income tax return for any public official, the state will furnish the return to that congressional office.

Pennsylvania: on June 25, the legislature passed SB 421, which would have deleted the straight-ticket device. But on July 5, Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the bill.

Arizona: on July 18, a U.S. District Magistrate refused to reconsider his opinion in De La Fuente v State, 2:16cv-2419, upholding the independent presidential petition.

Arizona(2): on July 11, the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear Arizona Libertarian Party v Hobbs, 17-16491, the case over primary petition requirements for Libertarians to get on their own party’s primary ballots.

Maryland: on July 11, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake upheld the law that all parties which failed to poll 1% for the office at the top of the ticket must submit 10,000 signatures to regain qualified status. Johnston v Lamone, 1:18cv-3988. The Libertarian Party had argued that because it has 22,000 registrants, it is obvious that it has at least 10,000 supporters, so the petition is redundant. But the Judge said perhaps some of the Libertarians may remain due to inertia, and the petition is needed to show that 10,000 people support the party.

Texas: on July 11, four minor parties filed a lawsuit against state laws that make it very difficult to get on the ballot, and also against the new law that requires convention nominees to pay a filing fee. The plaintiffs include the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and America’s Party. Miller v Doe, s.d., 1:19cv-700.

State	Example	Example of Nominee	Year
Alabama	Alabama Independent Democratic	Hubert Humphrey, President	1968
Alaska	Alaskan Independence	Dustin Darden, State House 22	2016
Arizona	American Independent	John Schmitz, President	1972
Arkansas	Independent Party	Ross Perot, President	1992
California	American Independent	Donald J. Trump, President	2016
Colorado	Independent American	Kyle Kopitke, President	2016
Connecticut	Independent Party	Bob Stefanowski, Governor	2018
Delaware	Independent Party	Donald Ayotte, State House 20	2016
Florida	Independent Party	Nancy Argenziano, State House 34	2012
Georgia	Independent Democratic Party	Thomas E. Dewey, President	1944
Hawaii	Independent Party	Mufi Hannemann, Governor	2014
Idaho	American Independent Party	Ted L. Bruner, State House 9B	1982
Illinois	Independent Republican Party	Lottie H. O’Neal, U.S. Senate	1930
Indiana	American Independent	Donald L. Harris, U.S. House 4	1974
Iowa	American Independent	John Schmitz, President	1972
Kansas	NEVER	– – –	– – –
Kentucky	American Independent	Lester Maddox, President	1976
Louisiana	Independent Party	Belden Batiste, U.S. House 2	2018
Maine	Green Independent	Andrew Howard, State House 1	2018
Maryland	Independent Party	Ralph Nader, President	2008
Massachusetts	United Independent Party	Evan Falchuk, Governor	2014
Michigan	Tisch Independent Citizens	Robert Tisch, Governor	1982
Minnesota	Independence	William Denney, Secretary of State	2018
Mississippi	Independence	Ted C. Weill, U.S. Senate	1996
Missouri	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Montana	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Nebraska	Peoples Independent	Woodrow Wilson, President	1912
Nevada	Independent American	Russell Best, Governor	2018
New Hampshire	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
New Jersey	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
New Mexico	Independent American	Jon R. Barrie, U.S. Senate	2012
New York	Independence	Andrew Cuomo, Governor	2018
North Carolina	Independent Party	John B. Anderson, President	1980
North Dakota	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Ohio	American Independent	John G. Schmitz, President	1972
Oklahoma	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Oregon	Independent Party	Patrick Starnes, Governor	2018
Pennsylvania	American Independent	Francis T. McGeever, Governor	1970
Rhode Island	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
South Carolina	Independent Party	Judy Reynolds, Governor	1978
South Dakota	NEVER	– – –	– – –
Tennessee	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Texas	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Utah	Independent American	Reed McCandless, U.S. Senate	2018
Vermont	Independent Party	Philip H. Hoff, Governor	1962
Virginia	Independent Green	Glenda Gail Parker, U.S. House 1	2014
Washington	Independent Party	John G. Schmitz, President	1972
West Virginia	Independence League	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908
Wisconsin	NEVER	– – –	– – –
Wyoming	Independence	Thomas Hisgen, President	1908

All of the instances above are names of bona fide political parties. Instances when an independent candidate chose a partisan label such as "Independent" are not included above.

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	*500	0	0	Mar. 3	Mar. 3	Aug. 13
Alaska	(est) (reg) 8,358	#3,212	*unsettled	*1,604	*499	May 4	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Ariz.	31,686	(est) #37,000	already on	*2,600	*600	Nv 29 2019	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
Ark.	*10,000	#1,000	*finished	0	*already on	in court	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Calif.	(es) (reg) 65,000	196,964	already on	already on	296	Oct 2 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	*270	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	*0	*0	July 14	July 14	July 14
Hawaii	757	#4,347	already on	already on	*60	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	*1,000	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	*250	already on	0	Jan. 2	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Md.	10,000	10,000	*100	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	*finished	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	*already on	*in court	May 25	May 25	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	*organizing	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	*21	*15	~

# means partisan label permitted.
* means a change since the last petitioning chart, which was carried in the April 1, 2019 newsletter.

On July 16, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens died. While on the court, he was a strong defender for ballot access for minor party and independent candidates. He was a especially a force in favor of late petition deadlines for minor party and independent candidates.

In 1977, he wrote in Mandel v Bradley, a case over the Maryland March petition deadline, that the Court had not upheld Georgia’s June petition deadline in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson. Although the court in 1971 had upheld Georgia’s petition, and Georgia had a June deadline, Stevens said that the Socialist Workers Party had not challenged the deadline, and so no deadline precedent had been set.

In 1983 he authored Anderson v Celebrezze, which struck down Ohio’s March 20 petition deadline for independent presidential candidates. Ohio already had easy petition requirements for statewide independent candidates; the requirement of 5,000 signatures was only one-tenth of 1% of the registered voters. Five other presidential candidates had used that procedure in 1980, the year John Anderson failed to qualify in Ohio because he hadn’t even declared as an independent until April. Anderson v Celebrezze settled that early petition deadlines are unconstitutional all by themselves, even if the number of signatures is low.

On July 9, Ross Perot died. In 1992, he was the first and only presidential candidate running outside the two major parties to have got on the ballot in all jurisdictions without having to file any ballot access lawsuits. He was so popular in June 1992 that the polls showed that if the election had been held then, he would have won. However, he dropped out in mid-July.

He continued petitioning, however, and re-entered the race on October 1. Even though at that point he was only at 7% in the polls, he was permitted to debate both his major party opponents in all the October debates. He is the only person who ever was permitted in general election presidential debates with both major party nominees. In November 1992 he polled 18.9%.

On July 7, Rick Knox died at the age of 70. He had been national chair of the Prohibition Party since 2015. He had been responsible for obtaining qualified status for the Prohibition Party in Mississippi. In the 2016 election, the party’s presidential nominee was on the ballot in that state for the first time since 1896. He also created a social media presence for the party.

The Socialist Party will hold its national convention in Newark, New Jersey, October 18-19, 2019. It may nominate a presidential candidate, or it may decide not to nominate anyone for the first time since 1984. There is some sentiment to endorse the Green Party presidential nominee if the Green Party nominates Howie Hawkins, who is a Green but also a Socialist Party member.

Virginia elects its state legislature in November 2019. For State Senate, there are six independent candidates and one Libertarian. For State House, there are eight independents and five Libertarians. Louisiana also elects its state legislature this year, but filing does not occur until August 6-8.

On July 4, Michigan Congressman Justin Amash said he had left the Republican Party and become an independent. On July 7 he said he would run for re-election to the U.S. House as an independent. This means he won’t run for President, because Michigan does not allow candidates to run for two offices simultaneously in November.

The Libertarian Party, which is not on the ballot in New Hampshire, plans to administer its own presidential primary, by mailing a postal ballot to all members of the party early in 2020.