NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR VETOES BILL MAKING BALLOT ACCESS FOR NEW PARTIES TOUGHER

On July 30, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu vetoed HB 98, which would have made minor party and independent candidate ballot access more difficult. It also would have moved the non-presidential primary from September to August. The ballot access part of the bill would have moved the petition deadline for petitioning candidates from August to July, and would have moved the deadline for such candidates to file a declaration of candidacy from June to May.

Because even independent presidential candidates, and the presidential candidates of unqualified parties, must file a declaration, the bill would have required minor parties to choose their presidential nominee no later than May.

The bill had been supported by Republicans in the legislature, and opposed by Democrats. When the bill has passed in the House, only six Democrats (out of 187) had voted for the bill. Only ten Republicans (out of 213) had voted against it.

Governor Sununu is a Republican, and it is very rare for a Governor to veto a bill that members of his or her own party support.

This is the twelfth time in the last thirty-two years that a Governor has vetoed a bill that injured minor parties or independent candidates.

1. In 1989, Georgia Governor Joe Harris, a Democrat, vetoed HB 351, which would have required each separate signature on a petition to be notarized.

2. In 1991, Oregon Governor Barbara Roberts, a Democrat, vetoed SB 286A, which would have barred minor parties from nominating someone who had not been a party member for at least a year.

3. In 1993, Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus, a Democrat, vetoed HB 320, which moved the non-presidential independent petition deadline from August to March. However, after he left office, the legislature passed the same bill and it was signed by the next Governor.

4. In 1994, California Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, vetoed AB 2218, which would have denied declared write-in candidates to have their votes tallied. Unfortunately, in 2012 the legislature banned write-in votes in November for congress and state office.

5. In 1995, Arizona Governor Fife Symington, a Republican, vetoed SB 1138, which would have made it far more difficult for a member of a small qualified party to be nominated in his or her own party’s primary. Unfortunately in 2015 a similar bill was passed and signed.

6. In 1995, Georgia Governor Zell Miller, a Democrat, vetoed SB 148, which would have moved the petition deadline for minor party and independent petitions from July to May.

7. In 1997, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, a Republican, vetoed SB 200, which would have quadrupled the number of signatures for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties.

8. In 1997, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, a Republican at the time, vetoed HB 865. It would have banned write-in votes.

9. In 2009, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat, vetoed HB 723. It made it much more difficult for any ballot-qualified party to nominate someone after the primary was over. Unfortunately, the legislature overrode his veto.

10. In 2010, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, a Republican, vetoed HB 3746, which made ballot access for independent candidates much more difficult. It limited the collection time, required notarization of petitions, and barred newly-registered voters from signing the petition.

11. In 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, vetoed SB 696, which banned any party from having the words "Independent" or "Independence" in its name.

On June 28, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued a one-sentence ruling, saying that the lower court ruling in Grider v Oliver, S-1-SC-38784, is correct. The lawsuit concerned the definition of a "major political party", which is a party that is entitled to a primary election. The issue was whether a major party had to poll 5% for President or Governor, or just had to poll a number of votes for any of its nominees that equaled 5% of the gubernatorial or presidential vote. It is far easier for a minor party to get a large vote for unimportant offices than for President or Governor.

If the decision had gone the other way, the Libertarian Party would have lost its status as a "major party" because although it had polled 7.1% in 2020 for Judge of the Court of Appeals, it had only polled 1.4% for President.

The decision overturns an unfavorable ruling from a lower state court in 2000, Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Vigil-Giron.

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Brnovich v Democratic National Committee, 19-1257. It upheld the Arizona ban on anyone except family members, household members, caregivers in assisted-living settings, and postal employees from delivering a voted postal ballot to a post office or an elections administration office.

The Ninth Circuit had struck down the ban under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans any state law or practice that makes it more difficult for racial or ethnic minorities to "participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice." The Ninth Circuit did so after considering evidence about the difficulty residents of the Navajo reservation have in returning their voted ballots.

Navajo reservation residents do not receive home mail delivery service. Instead, they must rely on post office boxes. But post office boxes on the reservation are in short supply and not everyone who wants to rent one is able to do so. Also some residents are as far away as 45 miles from the nearest post office. A majority of residents do not own automobiles. Public transportation is limited, and the roads are poor. There are over 10,000 miles of roads on the reservation, but 86% of them are unpaved. Consequently, for many years residents relied on particular individuals who made it their goal to help deliver voted postal ballots. In 2015 the legislature made it a felony for anyone except household members, close family members, caregivers in institutions, or postal employees, to handle a voted postal ballot.

Many residents only pick up their mail as little as once per month, which isn’t good enough to receive a ballot, use it, and then return it in time, so the collection ban injures their ability to vote.

The U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion still upheld the law, although the majority opinion, signed by the six Republican appointees, only mentioned reservation residents once (other than in some footnotes that were written after the main opinion had been written, in order to rebut the dissent. At the oral argument, and in the majority opinion, much was made of the fact that the Carter-Baker Commission of 2005, a blue ribbon non-governmental report on how to improve election administration, advocated banning letting anyone handle voted postal ballots, except for postal workers and election administration employees. But former President Jimmy Carter this year expressed deep unhappiness with the use of his report. He said it is outdated and in any event, the Commission didn’t actually gather evidence to support its conclusion.

At the oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts said that even though no evidence of Arizona voter fraud related to collection of postal ballots had ever been found, that it had been found in other states. In North Carolina in 2018, in the Ninth U.S. House district, there was substantial fraud related to absentee ballots, so much so that the election was set aside. But that was a case in which unethical campaign workers tampered with ballots and filled them out themselves.

Roberts’ voice dripped with sarcasm as he asked attorneys who were opposing the Arizona law, "How many reports of fraud in other states are needed before Arizona can legitimately take cognizance of the problem?" But no brief in the case (and there were dozens of amicus briefs) mentioned any fraud that would have been prevented by controlling who could return the voted ballots. Many of the amicus briefs on the side of Arizona made wide-ranging arguments against postal balloting, and some of the arguments had merit. But they were not on the subject of the law itself, the identity of individuals who could deliver a ballot.

Postal voting is a big source of voter fraud. Many unmotivated voters who receive a postal ballot in the mail are inclined to let a spouse or friend fill out the ballot. Then the voter signs it and returns it. In effect, postal voting enables voters to engage in proxy voting. But, again, that has no connection to a ban on which individuals can transport a voter ballot.

The effect of the decision is to make section two of the Voting Rights Act almost useless. If it doesn’t ban the Arizona restriction on delivery of postal ballots in the conditions of the Navajo reservation, it probably can’t be used for any other situation either. The majority rationale seems to be that Section Two is too arbitrary to be fair to the states. It is a poorly-worded law. It is conceivable some day that Congress will re-write it to make it clearer and more useful.

The lawsuit also involved the Arizona ban ou counting provisional ballots if they were cast in the wrong precinct, but that aspect of the law seems relatively unimportant, because most voters in Arizona live in counties that no longer have precincts. Instead they have voting centers, and ballots can be deposted at the voting centers without regard to where in the county the voter lives.

On June 30, the Delaware Senate Elections & Government Affairs Committee defeated HB 30. It would have moved the deadline for a new party to qualify from August to April, and it would have forced minor parties that are already on the ballot to choose all their nominees by April. Even their presidential nominees would need to be chosen by April.

The purpose of the bill was to move the non-presidential primary for major parties from September to April, but it was worded so carelessly that it harmed minor parties.

On July, a California Superior Court issued an order, putting talk radio host Larry Elder on the California gubernatorial recall ballot, set for September 14. He had been kept off because of a 2019 law requiring candidates for Governor "in a primary" to submit copies of the last five years of income tax returns. Although Elder tried to comply with the law, he failed to redact his Social Security Number from one page of a return.

The judge said no candidate needs to file income tax returns in the gubernatorial recall election, because it is not a "primary." So all 46 candidates who are running went to a great deal of work, when it was not required; but of course they couldn’t have known the lawsuit would end that way. Elder v Weber, Sac., 34-2021-80003682.

A poll released on July 24 showed that Governor Newsom is not likely to be recalled. But the poll also showed that if he were recalled, the winner would be Elder, who had 16%, ahead of anyone else. Newsom himself is not listed in the candidate portion of the ballot.

On July 2, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously struck down a voter registration restriction passed in 2017. New Hampshire Democratic Party v Secretary of State, 2020-0252.

The law said if someone registered within 30 days of an election, and didn’t have the right type of ID, he or she could still vote, but if that voter didn’t return later and present an ID, would be fined up to $5,000. The law was aimed at college students. Some legislators in New Hampshire don’t believe that they should be allowed to vote in New Hampshire if their parents live in another state.

During July, two Florida election laws were enjoined by courts. On July 1, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor, a Trump appointee, enjoined the law that prohibits anyone from contributing more than $3,000 to a campaign to get an initiative on the ballot. ACLU of Florida v Lee, n.d., 4:21cv-190. The plaintiffs desire to qualify an initiative that would remove the ban on ex-felons registering to vote if they still owe court costs, restitution, or fines.

On July 14, U.S. District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers, a Bush Jr. appointee, enjoined the law that makes it illegal for candidates for non-partisan office to mention their political party in any campaign ad. Hetherington v Madden, n.d., 3:21cv-671.

Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism by Scott Horton. 318 pages, paperback. Published by the Libertarian Institute, 2021.

The most important public policy issue on which the Republican and Democratic Parties tend to agree with each other is foreign policy, especially foreign policy toward the majority-Muslim nations. Both major parties are generally in favor of U.S. intervention.

By contrast, the nation’s two largest nationally-organized minor parties, the Libertarian and Green Parties, tend to agree with each other but are in sharp opposition to the position of the two major parties. The Libertarian Party platform says, "We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."

The Green Party platform is more detailed, and says, "Our government does not have any moral or legal right, or any justification, to preemptively attack another nation.

"The only legitimate use of military force is to repel an actual attack on our nation. We demand repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force…it has been used to establish U.S. military actions in Afghanistan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen."

Enough Already is a fact-filled, passionate criticism of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and Africa over the past 30 years. It concludes, "As many as two million Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Somalis, Libyans, Syrians and Yemenis have been killed in these wars. Their countries have been completely destroyed. The famines in Somalia and Yemen are on Bush, Obama, and now on Trump as well. They are not responsible for bad weather, but the chaos of their wars is responsible for the inability of people to make up for the droughts. Of course, in Yemen, targeting food supplies has been a deliberate strategy of the U.S.-led coalition all along. Helpless civilians are still dying in large numbers. More than 37 million people have been internally and externally displaced by the wars, more than in any crisis since World War II. Nobody knows how many widows and orphans have been created. Nor how many new enemies."

Horton has conducted more than 5,400 radio interviews since 2003, as host of Antiwar Radio on Pacifica KPFK in Los Angeles, and as host of his own podcast. He also wrote the book Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistaon, published in 2017. That book is heavily footnoted; one-fourth of the text consists of footnotes. His newest book does not have footnotes to sources, a decision made to keep the book to an more manageable length, although some readers will still wish there were footnotes, because this subject is contentious and sources are important.

Enough Already is an outstanding source of information, heavy on details but never tedious.

On July 22, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Freudenthal, an Obama appointee, struck down the 300 foot zone around polling places in which petitioning and other First Amendment activity is banned. Frank v Buchanan, 2:20cv-138. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld zones like this, but only at a distance of 100 feet. Generally when states create zones of 200 or 300 feet, courts strike them down.

Petitioning at the polls is an excellent way to get a high validity rate, because virtually everyone in line waiting to vote is a registered voter. Wyoming independent candidates commonly petition at the polls on primary day.

Arkansas: on July 2, the Eighth Circuit decided Whitfield v Thurston, 20-2309. It ruled for neither side, saying the case is moot. The issue was whether the lower court should have granted relief for an independent candidate in 2020, due to the covid-19 crisis. That court had declined to give him relief from the requirement that he submit 10,000 signatures, to be collected in three months during the emergency.

In the past the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over, whether the candidate intends to run again or not. The Eighth Circuit said the U.S. Supreme Court no longer holds to this view, although the only authority it cited for that conclusion were cases that do not involve ballot access.

California: on July 12, a Superior Court ruled that Governor Gavin Newsom may not have his party label next to his name on the recall ballot. He had missed the deadline to ask for the label "Democrat". He sued, hoping to win a decision that the error could be excused, but he did not prevail. Newsom v Weber, Sac., 34-2021-80003666.

Georgia: it appears that U.S. District Court Judge Leigh May, who on March 29 overturned the law on how many signatures an independent or minor party candidate needs for U.S. House, has decided not to impose an interim requirement. She had asked both sides for suggestions, and they responded. But she has not taken any action. She probably has decided to see what the legislature does, when it goes into special session in September. The special session is needed to handle redistricting, but it can work on other issues as well.

Ohio: on July 28, the Sixth Circuit said the lawsuit Thompson v DeWine, 21-3514, over whether the state should have granted petitioning relief for initiatives during the covid-19 crisis, is moot.

Colorado: on June 28, Governor Jared Polis signed HB 1071, which makes it easier for cities to use ranked choice voting for their own elections. The new law requires counties to help the cities administer RCV elections.

District of Columbia: on July 14, a majority of members of the city council introduced a bill to use ranked choice voting, in both primaries and general elections. Also it provides for Single Transferable Vote for the races for City Council-at-large, which elect multiple winners. The bill still doesn’t have a bill number.

The inability of the Census Bureau to furnish data until late August has caused new lawsuits:

Illinois: this is the only state in which the legislature has already drawn new legislative districts. Those new districts have been attacked in federal court by two sets of plaintiffs, Republicans, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. The legislature used data from the American Community Survey. McConachie v Illinois State Board of Elections, n.d., 1:21cv-3091. A trial will be held September 27-29.

Virginia: this state holds elections for state office in odd years, not even years. The 2021 elections for House of Delegates are using the old districts drawn using the 2010 census. A lawsuit has been filed to require that the legislators elected in November 2021 should only serve one-year terms, and that the state hold elections for that office again in November 2022, again for one-year terms. The lawsuit argues that it violates one person-one vote to let the incumbents remain in office until the end of 2023, given that the population disparities in the districts would be so excessive by 2023. Goldman v Northam, e.d., 3:21cv-420.

Maine: LD 231, the bill to let independent voters vote in partisan primaries, did not pass. Although each house of the legislature approved it, it failed final approval because no provision was made for it in the state budget. But it could still pass next year.

Ohio: on July 1, Governor Mike DeWine signed SB 80, which puts party labels on general election ballots for candidates for Supreme Court Justice and Appeals Court Judge. Parties have nominees for those offices, but in the past the general election ballot didn’t reveal that.

MOST CROWDED GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE

The chart below lists the election in each state that had the most candidates for a single office, in a statewide general election. In case of ties, the more recent instance is listed.

Oddly enough, in four states, the election with the most candidates was in 2020. Unlike a similar chart run ten years ago in B.A.N., this chart includes special elections as well as regular elections.

State	No. of Candidates	Year	Requirement
Alabama	10 for president	1980	hold a convention
Alaska	9 for president	1992	2,035 signatures
Arizona	7 for president	1968	358 signatures
Arkansas	13 for president	2020	hold a convention
California	135 for governor	2003	65 signatures and $4,200
Colorado	22 for president	2016	pay $1,000
Connecticut	7 for president	1996	7,500 signatures
Delaware	7 for president	2008	305 registrations
Dist. of Columbia	9 for president	1992	3,072 signatures
Florida	13 for president	2008	have 27 members to be pres. elector candidates
Georgia	20 for U.S. Senate	2020	pay $5,220
Hawaii	7 for president	2000	602 signatures
Idaho	6 for president	2000	4,918 signatures
Illinois	12 for U.S. Senate	1926	1,000 signatures
Indiana	8 for president	1980	6,982 signatures
Iowa	14 for president	1992	1,000 signatures
Kansas	8 for president	1980	2,500 signatures
Kentucky	9 for president	1976	1,000 signatures
Louisiana	13 for president	2020	pay $500
Maine	7 for president	1996	4,000 signatures
Maryland	6 for president	2008	10,000 signatures
Massachusetts	10 for Governor	1938	1,000 signatures
Michigan	10 for president	1984	file declaration of candidacy with court
Minnesota	11 for president	1996	2,000 signatures
Mississippi	8 for president	1992	1,000 signatures
Missouri	8 for president	1952	hold a convention
Montana	7 for president	2000	5,000 signatures
Nebraska	7 for president	2000	2,500 signatures
Nevada	8 for U.S. Senate	2010	250 signatures
New Hampshire	8 for president	1980	1,000 signatures
New Jersey	19 for Governor	1993	800 signatures
New Mexico	10 for president	1992	2,069 signatures
New York	12 lines for president	2000	15,000 signatures
North Carolina	6 for president	1980	10,000 signatures
North Dakota	11 for president	1976	300 signatures
Ohio	9 for president	1984	5,000 signatures
Oklahoma	8 for governor	1934	pay filing fee
Oregon	8 for president	1996	14,601 signatures
Pennsylvania	10 lines for Governor	1914	2,238 signatures
Rhode Island	10 for president	2000	1,000 signatures
South Carolina	7 for president	2000	10,000 signatures
South Dakota	6 for president	1996	3,117 signatures
Tennessee	28 for Governor	2018	25 signatures
Texas	71 for U.S. Senate	1961	file declaration of candidacy
Utah	10 for president	1992	300 signatures
Vermont	21 for president	2020	merely ask
Virginia	7 for president	1936	file declaration of candidacy
Washington	12 for president	1976	100 attendees at a meeting
West Virginia	6 for president	2000	6,365 signatures
Wisconsin	11 for president	1976	2,000 signatures
Wyoming	6 for president	2000	3,485 signatures

The Arkansas Secretary of State has approved the Libertarian Party’s petition, so now it is a qualified party for 2022. The party is now on in 2022 in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

On September 14, Californians will vote on whether to recall Governor Gavin Newsom. The ballot is in two parts. The first part asks about Newsom. Below that is a list of 46 possible replacement candidates. Newsom is not on the lower part of the ballot.

The 46 candidates include 24 Republicans, nine Democrats, two Greens, one Libertarian, and ten candidates who have the label: "Party preference: none." But of those ten, three are actually members of an unqualified party, and they would list their party if the law permitted that. They are James Hanink of the American Solidarity Party, Dennis Richter of the Socialist Workers Party, and Michael Loebs of the California National Party (which wants California to be an independent nation).

Paula Jean Swearengin, who was the 2020 Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from West Virginia, has joined the People’s Party and is that party’s state director for West Virginia.

Dan Rosenthal, a selectman in Newtown, Connecticut, had been elected in 2019 as a Democrat. In the 2021 election, he is running for re-election as the nominee of the SAM Party.

On July 1, Louisiana State Representative Melinda White of Bogalusa switched her voter registration from Democratic to independent.

On July 19, Kim Guadagno, who was the New Jersey Republican nominee for Governor in 2017, changed her registration from Republican to independent. She had been New Jersey’s Lieutenant Governor between 2009 and 2017.

On June 29, California held a special election to fill the vacancy in the 18^th Assembly district. Six Democrats, one Republican, and one Socialist Workers candidate ran. The Socialist Workers candidate, Joel Britton, whose ballot label was "party preference: none" received 1.3%. The Republican, Stephen Slauson, received 9.7%. The Democrats received the remainder of the vote. No one got as much as 50%, so there will be a runoff on August 31 between Democrats Mia Bonta and Janani Ramachandran.

The Green, American Solidarity, and Prohibition Parties recently qualified for presidential status in Arkansas for 2024. They did that by submitting 1,000 signatures. Earlier this year the Arkansas legislature increased the presidential status petition from 1,000 to 5,000 signatures, but the new law hasn’t gone into effect yet, so those three parties rushed to qualify under the old, easier law.