December 2022 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
December 2022 – Volume 38, Number 7

This issue was printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. 2022 ELECTION RETURNS SUGGEST ELECTORAL COLLEGE COULD DAMAGE REPUBLICANS IN 2024
  2. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION PASSES IN TWO CITIES
  3. INDIANA PROCEDURAL BALLOT ACCESS WIN
  4. TOP-FIVE TENTATIVELY PASSES IN NEVADA
  5. LAWSUIT NEWS
  6. OSCE NOTES GEORGIA BALLOT ACCESS
  7. 2022 VOTE FOR OFFICE AT TOP OF BALLOT
  8. VOTER REGISTRATION TOTALS
  9. 2024 PRESIDENTIAL PETITIONING
  10. MINOR PARTY PARTISAN WINS
  11. ONLY THIRTEEN STATES LACK A BALLOT-QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY
  12. NO LABELS PARTY QUALIFIES IN FLORIDA
  13. FEC FINALLY PUBLISHES 2020 ELECTION RETURNS BOOK
  14. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

2022 ELECTION RETURNS SUGGEST ELECTORAL COLLEGE COULD DAMAGE REPUBLICANS IN 2024

Never in history has the electoral college damaged the Republican Party. In 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, the Democratic Party presidential nominee won the most popular votes but still lost the presidency. But the 2022 election returns suggest that for the first time, in 2024 it might be the Republican Party that is hurt by the electoral college.

The vote for the office at the top of the ballot in 2022, in the nation as a whole, gives the Republicans more popular votes than the Democrats. This is true whether one considers U.S. Senator to be the top-most office, or Governor to be that office. But, under either calculation, the states in which Republicans have more popular votes than Democrats only have a minority of the electoral vote. States with more Democratic votes than Republican votes have a majority of the electoral college.

If one uses the gubernatorial election (in the states which had both a gubernatorial and a Senate election), the total vote for the top-most office in 2022 is: Republican 54,214,821; Democratic 52,689,067. Yet the states with Republican votes exceeding Democratic votes only have 258 electoral votes. The states in which Democrats had the higher popular vote have 280 electoral votes. See page three.

If one uses the Senate election (for states which had both a gubernatorial and Senate election), the national total for the top-most office is: Republican 53,441,867; Democratic 53,425,580. Yet the states with Republican votes exceeding Democratic votes only have 245 electoral votes. The states in which Democrats had the higher popular vote have 293 electoral votes.

These totals were as of November 27. At that time, California had 253,134 uncounted votes; no other state had that many.

Of course, some states only had either a gubernatorial election, or a U.S. Senate election, but not both. Obviously, in those states, whichever office was up is used.

For the six states that had neither of those offices up, U.S. House is deemed the top-most office. None of those six states had any statewide races whatsoever, so when one looks at the ballot in those states, U.S. House is at the top.

The reason for the anomaly is that in 2022 Democrats tended to "carry" their states with fairly narrow margins, whereas most of the states in which Republicans won in 2022 had a very large margin against the Democratic nominees. Millions of Republican votes were "wasted" in such states.

If it should happen that Democrats win the presidency in 2024, even though the Republican nominee has the most popular votes, it is somewhat likely that both major parties might support a constitutional amendment to alter the Electoral College.


PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION PASSES IN TWO CITIES

On November 8, voters in Portland, Oregon, and also in Portland, Maine, passed ballot measures for proportional representation for city council elections. The type of proportional representation in both cities is Single Transferable Vote. It sets up multi-member districts, and makes it possible for minority points of view to win at least one seat inside such districts.

In Portland, Oregon, Measure 26-228 passed with 58% of the vote. It sets up four districts, with each district electing three members. It is possible for a candidate supported by 25% of the voters to win.

In Portland, Maine, Question 4 passed with 64% of the vote. It leaves the details of how many districts there will be, and how many members from each district, to the city council. It says, "For elections conducted by ranked choice voting where more than one person is to be elected to a single office, the winners shall be determined by a proportional method of ranked choice voting. Such method shall provide for candidates to be elected on the basis of thresholds determined by the number of seats to be filled plus one, ballots to be counted in rounds, votes to be transferred from defeated candidaes, and for votes, in fractions or in whole, in excess of the threshold to be transferred from elected candidates."

When New York city used this system between 1937 and 1945, six parties won at least one seat on the City Council at least once. Currently the only city that uses this system in the U.S. is Cambridge, Massachusetts.

A bill has been pending in Congress to provide for this system in U.S. House elections, but it only has eight co-sponsors and has not had a hearing. It is HR 3863 by Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia.

In addition to the measures in those two cities, ballot measures for ordinary ranked choice voting passed in Seattle, Multnomah County Oregon, Evanston Illinois, Fort Collins Colorado, and Ojai California.


INDIANA PROCEDURAL BALLOT ACCESS WIN

On October 28, U.S. District Court Judge James Sweeney, a Trump appointee, issued an order in Green Party of Indiana v Sullivan, s.d., 1:22cv-518. This case challenges the number of signatures needed for minor party and independent candidates, 2% of the last vote cast for Secretary of State.

The judge rejected the state’s request to dismiss the case without a trial. The state argued that the law had been upheld in 1985. But, it had only been in effect for one year at that time. Therefore, the judge said, the old decision isn’t binding.


TOP-FIVE TENTATIVELY PASSES IN NEVADA

On November 8, Nevada voters passed Question Three. However, it won’t go into effect unless the voters pass it again in November 2024. It eliminates the ability of parties to have nominees (except for President). All candidates run in the primary, and the top five then appear on the November ballot. The primary ballot does not use ranked choice voting, but the general election ballot does (except for President).

It makes ballot access more difficult for two distinct reasons. The first is that minor party candidates for Governor and U.S. Senator are very unlikely to qualify for the November ballot. In 2022, there were ten major party candidates for Governor, and twelve for U.S. Senate. Experience from Washington, California and Alaska suggests that minor party candidates will not place in the top five.

Separate from that, because parties will no longer have nominees, minor parties will not be able to retain their qualified status with a vote test. And without qualified status, they won’t be on the ballot for President any longer, without doing a difficult petition drive. The current vote test is 1%.


LAWSUIT NEWS

Florida: on November 8, U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers struck down a law that makes it a crime for a candidate for non-partisan office to mention his or her party affiliation. Hetherington v Madden, n.d., 3:21cv-671. The plaintiff had been fined for saying he was a "lifelong Republican". He was running for School Board.

Georgia: on November 3, the Eleventh Circuit said Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s lawsuit to stop the state from adjudicating her qualifications is moot, because she already went through that process. Greene v Ga. Sec. of State, 22-11299.

Maine: On October 26, U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker declined to put the Libertarian Party on the 2024 ballot. Baines v Bellows, 1:19cv-509. He had previously struck down the law that defines "political party", and he had put the party on the 2022 ballot. When he declined to include 2024, he cited the fact that no Libertarian had run in 2022 in Maine.

New Jersey: on November 23, the Third Circuit upheld a state law that says if a candidate on a primary ballot mentions an individual or a group in his or her ballot label, the candidate must get permission from that individual or group. Mazo v N.J. Sec. of State, 21-2630.

New York: on November 2, the Libertarian and Green Parties asked the Second Circuit for reconsideration, in their lawsuit that challenges the ballot access restrictions passed in 2020.

South Dakota: on November 1, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in Dakotans for Health v Noem, 21-2428. It says the lower court had been correct to enjoin some restrictions on initiative circulators. The law requires them to disclose their name, residential address, email address, phone number, and sex offender status prior to circulating. The information is put into a directory that anyone may see.


OSCE NOTES GEORGIA BALLOT ACCESS

On November 10, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security & Co-operation in Europe published its tentative report on the U.S. elections process. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights observers elections on a regular basis, all around the world.

The Report mentions the Georgia ballot access law for U.S. House elections, which effectively requires U.S. House candidates to be Republicans or Democrats if they wish to run. The Report even has a footnote which links to the cert petition in Cowen v Raffensperger.


2022 VOTE FOR OFFICE AT TOP OF BALLOT

~

Rep.

Dem.

Lib’t

Wk Fam

Green

Consti

oth(1)

oth(2)

independent

Alab.

944,845

411,687

45,823

~

~

~

~

~

~

Alas.

144,178

63,755

~

~

~

~

~

~

54,585

Ariz.

1,270,774

1,287,890

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Ark.

571,070

319,195

16,689

~

~

~

~

~

~

Cal.

4,361,701

6,354,574

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Colo.

983,034

1,468,476

28,938

~

~

21,623

6,686

~

~

Conn.

546,209

690,183

~

16,137

~

~

12,400

2,827

~

Del

138,201

178,416

3,074

~

~

~

~

1,958

~

DC

11,699

174,212

4,003

~

9,867

~

~

~

~

Fla.

4,614,307

3,106,328

19,299

~

~

~

~

~

31,577

Ga.

2,111,572

1,813,673

28,163

~

~

~

~

~

~

Hi.

152,237

261,025

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Ida.

358,596

120,160

6,714

~

~

5,250

~

~

101,835

Ill.

1,719,377

2,202,378

112,352

~

~

~

~

~

~

Ind.

1,090,390

704,480

63,823

~

~

~

~

~

~

Iowa

709,198

482,950

28,998

~

~

~

~

~

~

Kan.

471,323

492,209

10,888

~

~

~

~

~

20,057

Ky.

913,257

564,231

~

~

~

~

~

~

La.

876,843

481,065

4,865

~

~

~

5,388

~

15,129

Me.

286,971

372,882

~

~

~

~

~

~

13,603

Md.

640,811

1,284,834

29,989

~

14,443

~

17,072

~

~

Mass.

848,989

1,547,199

38,529

~

~

~

~

~

~

Mich.

1,954,332

2,422,650

38,764

~

10,772

16,247

4,954

~

~

Minn.

1,119,906

1,312,313

~

~

~

~

51,945

25,396

~

Miss.

453,752

250,893

3,556

~

~

~

~

~

~

Mo.

1,143,636

868,875

34,706

~

~

14,548

~

~

~

Mont.

245,081

158,745

12,611

~

~

~

~

~

47,195

Nebr.

398,324

242,006

26,455

~

~

~

~

~

~

Nev.

497,377

481,991

14,919

~

~

9,918

~

~

~

N.H

342,813

256,766

7,843

~

~

~

~

~

~

N.J.

1,133,921

1,375,143

15,235

~

~

~

2,127

~

14,948

N.M.

324,699

370,163

17,384

~

~

~

~

~

~

N.Y.

2,398,960

2,783,903

~

250,898

~

~

306,948

~

~

No.C.

1,905,603

1,783,875

51,636

~

29,926

~

~

~

~

No.D.

135,474

59,995

~

~

~

~

~

~

44,406

Ohio

2,528,018

1,497,866

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Okla.

639,484

481,904

16,243

~

~

~

~

~

15,653

Ore.

842,648

910,772

6,764

~

~

7,915

~

~

167,095

Pa.

2,229,532

2,996,882

51,214

~

24,138

~

~

20,346

~

R.I.

139,001

207,166

2,811

~

~

~

~

~

7,635

So.C.

988,501

692,691

20,826

~

~

~

~

~

~

So.D.

217,035

123,148

9,983

~

~

~

~

~

~

Tenn.

1,128,097

572,153

~

~

~

~

~

~

37,204

Tex.

4,426,627

3,539,135

81,660

~

28,499

~

~

~

~

Utah

571,974

0

31,784

~

~

~

12,103

~

459,958

Vt.

202,147

68,248

~

~

~

~

~

~

13,060

Va.

1,462,035

1,572,376

~

~

~

~

~

~

7,466

Wa.

1,295,079

1,736,784

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

W.V.

312,004

149,706

~

~

~

~

~

~

10,257

Wis.

1,269,483

1,360,430

~

~

~

~

~

~

27,055

Wyo.

143,696

30,686

8,157

~

~

~

~

~

~

TOT

54,214,821

52,689,067

889,666

267,035

107,626

75,464

419,419

50,527

1,084,434


VOTER REGISTRATION TOTALS

~

Dem.

Rep.

Indp, misc

Lib’t.

Green

Consti.

Wk Fam

Reform

other

Alaska

77,137

144,542

349,735

7,009

1,540

749

?

?

21,550

Arizona

1,270,544

1,436,852

1,401,277

32,148

3,108

?

?

?

– –

Arkansas

90,236

128,756

1,583,193

725

107

?

?

?

– –

Calif.

10,283,258

5,232,094

5,170,822

231,459

96,229

156

?

?

926,256

Colorado

1,058,592

940,970

1,736,967

41,052

8,691

12,015

?

?

8,167

Conn.

813,384

463,401

955,990

97

241

44

26

2

3,831

Delaware

363,463

211,039

173,650

2,211

730

258

329

48

13,037

Dt. Col.

386,009

26,910

84,471

2,368

3,982

?

?

?

– –

Florida

4,971,444

5,277,394

3,992,985

39,451

7,826

3,893

?

1,456

209,529

Idaho

130,637

580,188

279,957

11,356

?

4,042

?

?

– –

Iowa

598,205

687,710

577,740

12,100

2,966

0

0

0

– –

Kansas

518,651

874,446

543,315

21,164

0

0

0

0

0

Kentucky

1,606,876

1,629,964

334,381

15,594

2,190

1,155

?

176

461

Louis’na

1,189,716

1,007,718

674,192

16,180

2,544

167

0

894

125,215

Maine

339,103

272,003

257,565

942

35,061

?

?

?

?

Md.

2,256,421

1,000,822

887,607

17,712

6,642

?

?

?

4,457

Mass.

1,438,607

437,211

2,967,100

17,493

3,991

330

750

121

18,473

Nebraska

345,292

606,967

268,730

18,373

?

?

?

?

3,879

Nevada

605,540

553,200

597,412

16,330

1,654

79,844

?

?

– –

N. Hamp.

275,220

265,116

330,466

?

?

?

?

?

– –

N. Jersey

2,531,662

1,526,226

2,366,866

23,478

11,670

14,793

?

1,718

29,338

N. M.

602,433

423,915

316,224

14,828

2,786

?

1,842

?

– –

N. York

6,021,708

2,695,984

2,805,351

19,420

21,207

?

46,714

?

513,865

No. Car.

2,501,694

2,226,492

2,638,733

50,231

312

?

?

?

– –

Okla.

687,545

1,175,253

413,328

19,780

?

?

?

?

– –

Oregon

1,013,268

730,986

1,048,142

20,914

7,861

3,827

8,409

?

142,788

Penn.

4,047,103

3,497,727

1,266,455

44,912

10,406

?

?

?

– –

Rhode Is.

306,362

102,225

311,582

?

?

?

?

?

– –

So. Dak.

151,464

296,491

146,020

2,802

?

371

?

?

– –

Utah

235,828

881,648

479,274

20,461

?

6,579

?

?

66,386

W. Va.

379,233

452,791

308,584

10,025

2,376

121

?

?

– –

Wyo.

34,016

232,653

28,150

2,250

0

570

?

?

– –

TOTAL

47,130,651

36,019,694

35,296,264

732,865

234,120

128,914

58,070

4,415

2,087,232

Percent

38,73%

29.60%

29.00%

.60%

.19%

.11%

.05%

.00+%

1.72%

Totals October 2020: Democratic 47,106,084 (39.67%), Republican 35,041,482 (29.51%), independent & miscellaneous 33,696,700 (28.38%), Libertarian 652,261 (.55%), Green 240,222 (.20%), Constitution 129,556 (.11%), Working Families 49,758 (.04%), Reform 9,004 (.01%), other parties 1,814,973 (1.53%).

Totals October 2016: Democratic 45,690,825 (40.60%), Republican 33,052,332 (29.37%), independent & miscellaneous 31,200,104 (27.72%), Libertarian 497,535 (.44%), Green 256,560 (.23%), Constitution 92,483 (.08%), Reform 5,294 (.00+%), Working Families 61,517 (.05%), other parties 1,662,329 (1.50%).

Totals October 2012: Dem. 43,512,746 (41.85%), Rep. 31,298,863 (30.10%), indp. & misc. 26,808,810 (25.79%), Libertarian 330,811 (.32%), Green 250,682 (.24%), Constitution 77,918 (.07%), Reform 22,880 (.02%), Americans Elect 6,408 (.01%), other parties 1,659,537 (1.60%).

Totals October 2008: Dem. 43,933,901 (43.62%), Rep. 30,944,590 (30.72%), indp. & misc. 24,157,259 (23.98%), AIP/Constitution 438,222 (.44%), Green 255,019 (.25%), Lib’t. 240,328 (.24%), Reform 32,961 (.03%), other parties 675,980 (.67%).

Totals October 2004: Dem. 37,301,951 (42.19%), Rep. 28,988,593 (32.79%), indp. & misc. 20,471,250 (23.15%), Constitution 320,019 (.36%), Green 298,701 (.34%), Lib’t. 235,521 (.27%), Reform 63,729 (.07%), other 695,639 (.83%).

The parties in the "Other" column are: Ak: Alaskan Independence 19,277; Veterans 1,454; Moderate 339; Progressive 224; Patriots 210; Alliance 46. Ca: American Independent 777,152; Peace & Freedom 123,037; Common Sense 25,715; American Solidarity 352. Co: Approval Voting 4,540; Unity 3,341. Ct: Independent Party 3,649; Socialist 151; Forward 8; Socialist Action 8; Socialism & Liberation 7; Socialist Workers 2. De: Independent Party 10,317; Nonpartisan Party 1,214; Conservative 793; American Delta 573; Socialist Workers 140. Fl: Independent Party 206,024; Socialism & Liberation 1,604; Ecology 1,253; People’s 579; Coalition with Purpose 69. Ky: Socialist Workers. La: Independent Party 124,365; Conservative 850. Md: Working Class 4,457; Ma: United Independent 16,747; Socialist 1,590; Workers 116; Prohibition 20. Ne: Legal Marijuana Now. NJ: Conservative 15,404; Socialist 7,840; Natural Law 6,094. NY: Independence 360,216; Conservative 153,141; SAM 508. Or: Independent Party 139,427; Progressive 3,361; Ut: Independent American 64,008; United Utah 2,378.


2024 PRESIDENTIAL PETITIONING

STATE
REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURES OR REGISTRATIONS OBTAINED
FULL PARTY
CAND
LIB’T
GREEN
CONSTI
WK FAM
NO LABELS
FORWARD

Ala.

42,353

5,000

0

0

0

0

finished

0

Alaska

(reg) 5,000

3,614

already on

1,540

749

0

6,000

0

Ariz.

34,116

(es) #43,000

already on

3,108

0

0

finished

0

Ark.

10,000

5,000

0

already on

0

0

0

0

Calif.

(reg) (es) 75,000

219,403

already on

already on

156

0

0

0

Colo.

10,000

pay fee

already on

already on

already on

0

3,000

2,000

Conn.

no procedure

#7,500

already on

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Del.

(est.) (reg) 760

(est.) 7,600

already on

730

258

329

0

0

D.C.

no procedure

(est.) #5,200

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Florida

0

145,040

already on

already on

already on

0

15,000

0

Georgia

69,884

#7,500

already on

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Hawaii

861

5,745

already on

0

already on

0

0

0

Idaho

17,359

1,000

already on

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Indiana

no procedure

#36,944

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Iowa

no procedure

#3,500

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Kansas

19,890

5,000

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Ky.

no procedure

#5,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

La.

(reg) 1,000

#pay fee

already on

already on

221

0

0

0

Maine

(reg) 5,000

#4,000

942

already on

0

0

0

0

Md.

10,000

10,000

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Mass.

(est) (reg) 49,000

#10,000

already on

(reg) 3,991

(reg) 330

(reg) 750

0

0

Mich.

44,478

30,000

already on

already on

already on

0

0

0

Minn.

(est) 130,000

#2,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

Miss.

be organized

1,000

already on

already on

already on

0

0

0

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Mont.

5,000

#5,000

already on

unsettled

0

0

0

0

Nebr.

6,605

2,500

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Nev.

10,096

10,096

already on

(reg) 1,654

already on

0

0

0

N. Hamp.

18,575

#3,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

N.J.

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

0

0

N. M.

3,562

3,562

already on

already on

0

0

0

0

N.Y.

no procedure

#45,000

in court

in court

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

No. Car.

13,757

82,542

already on

already on

5,000

0

23,000

0

No. Dak.

7,000

1,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ohio

40,345

5,000

0

0

0

0

finished

0

Okla.

35,592

pay fee

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Oregon

28,576

23,737

already on

already on

already on

already on

23,000

0

Penn.

no procedure

5,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

R.I.

17,884

#1,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already on

already on

already on

already on

0

2,000

So. Dak.

3,502

3,502

already on

finished

0

0

0

0

Tenn.

56,083

275

0

0

0

0

0

0

Texas

80,778

113,151

already on

already on

in court

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already on

0

already on

0

0

200

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already on

0

0

0

0

0

Virginia

no procedure

#5,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Wash.

no procedure

#1,000

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

West Va.

no procedure

#7,948

already on

already on

0

0

0

0

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

already on

already on

already on

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

Wyo.

3,879

3,879

already on

can’t start

already on

can’t start

can’t start

can’t start

TOTAL STATES ON
34
17
12
3
0
0

#partisan label permitted. "WK FAM" = Working Families. "(reg.) = registered members. Four years ago at this time, the Libertarians were on in 32 states; Green in 19; Constitution in 14.


MINOR PARTY PARTISAN WINS

Progressive, Vermont: elected David Zuckerman Lieutenant Governor, with 54.2% of the vote. The Democratic Party had also nominated him, but he was on the ballot with the label, "Progressive, Democrat". In Vermont, with fusion nominees, the candidate’s membership party is listed first. Also elected: Tanya Vyhovsky to the State Senate, and these five members to the State House: Brian Cina, Troy Headrick, Kate Logan, Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, and Taylor Small.

Libertarian, Indiana: Stephanie Tucker, Ossian town council; Cheryl Heacox, Clay Twp. , Wayne County; Tom Kneuven and Dean Hartley, Franklin Twp. Board, Montgomery County; Stephen Coffman, Liberty Twp. Trustee and Terry Coffman, Liberty Twp. Board, Henry County.

Libertarian, Iowa: Thomas Laehn, County Attorney of Greene County.

Lib’t., Kentucky: Lex Hannan Justice of the Peace in Boone County; and Shannon Denniston & David Harryman Justices of the Peace in Montgomery County.


ONLY THIRTEEN STATES LACK A BALLOT-QUALIFIED THIRD PARTY

Only 13 states lack any qualified parties other than Rep. and Dem.: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. That is the smallest number of such states, just after a midterm election, in a century, except that after the 2018 election, there were also 13.

In earlier mid-term elections, the number was: 2014 fifteen; 2010 fifteen; 2006 nineteen; 2002 nineteen; 1998 sixteen; 1994 nineteen; 1990 thirty-one.

2022 was bolstered, compared to 2018, by the Libertarians meeting the vote test in Iowa and Maryland; but the party is no longer on in Ohio and Kentucky.

Currently, the only ballot-qualified third party in Minnesota is the Legalize Marijuana Now Party. The other pro-marijuana party in Minnesota, the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party, did not poll 5% for any statewide race in either 2020 or 2022, so it is now off the ballot.


NO LABELS PARTY QUALIFIES IN FLORIDA

On November 4, the No Labels Party became a qualified party in Florida. The No Labels movement is somewhat similar to Americans Elect, which existed 2011-2012. The strategy is to nominate a centrist presidential candidate who politically would be perceived as an independent candidate. Both insist that they are not trying to create a new party. But both decided to qualify as a party in most states well before the election, simply for the purpose of easing the ballot access path for the presidential candidate. The No Labels bylaws in Florida specify that the party will not run anyone for office other than president. It is not clear that the state would honor that bylaw, because all qualified parties in Florida nominate by primary, for all partisan office, so a registered member of No Labels could file to run for any partisan office by paying a filing fee.

In 2011 Florida passed a law that qualified parties may not run a presidential nominee unless the party is recognized by the Federal Election Comission as a "national committee", or unless it submits a petition of 1% of the number of registered votes. The petition does not name a candidate. Florida did not enforce this law in 2012, nor in 2020, but it did enforce it in 2016. Because enforcement of the law is so uncertain, No Labels is circulating its presidential petition, which will require 145,040 signatures.

The FEC will not recognize a group as a "national committee" until after it has run a presidential candidate and congressioinal candidates in several states, so a new party can never gain FEC recognition. For that reason, the law discriminates against new parties, and under Williams v Rhodes, 363 US 23 (1968) it is unconstitutional.


FEC FINALLY PUBLISHES 2020 ELECTION RETURNS BOOK

Ever since 1980, the Federal Election Commission has published a free book of election returns for federal office. The 2020 book is finally in print. Anyone may receive a free copy by phoning 800-424-9530 and asking for it. It has a red cover, like all the previous editions. It is also available on-line at the FEC website.


SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com. If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com.

Ballot Access News is published by and copyright by Richard Winger. Note: subscriptions are available!


Go back to the index.


Copyright © 2022 Ballot Access News

Comments

December 2022 Ballot Access News Print Edition — 50 Comments

  1. That’s too much info for a white to pay attention to!! Dumb it down for us next time. Maybe add some pictures, I prefer to read pictures than words. It makes my story better!

  2. Why do Native Americans hate April?

    Because April showers bring May Flowers, and Mayflowers bring white people.

  3. Why do the Native Americans hate when white people ask to use their WiFi?

    They’re taking all their LAN!

  4. Today, we should be talking about Biden’s “Safer America Plan,” which funds the police and enables and encourages state-sanctioned violence against our communities. We should be talking about the water crisis in Jackson, where white supremacist leaders have allowed the city’s water system to fail, which is endangering and killing our people. We should be talking about how Black people are still seeking liberation across the globe. We should be strengthening each other as Black movement practitioners as we work toward our shared goal of ending state-sanctioned violence. We should be taking steps to create a society free of prisons, police, and racial injustice. We should be focused on the work — the work of liberation and Black joy.

    Instead, we face, yet again, another round of struggle for “control” of one organization. This time, by people who say they love Black people and center abolitionist values but whose actions are furthest from movement principles of courageous conversations, reconciliation, and finding pathways for peace and understanding.

    “One of the things that has to be faced is the process of waiting to change the system, how much we have got to do to find out who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going.” “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” “Give light, and people will find the way.” — Ella Baker

    Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) is here to give light and fight for Black liberation. Make no mistake, the allegations of Melina Abdullah and BLM Grassroots (BLMGR) are false. They are slanderous and devoid of reality.

    As the newly assembled Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) Board of Directors, we were onboarded to bring the organization into compliance, and along the way we have done our due-diligence to honor the vision the founders left behind. We are disappointed and dismayed at the false narrative created by Melina Abdullah and Black Lives Matter Grassroots (“BLMGR”) during its press conference today. Nevertheless, BLMGNF will remain focused on our mission and continue evolving into a foundation that funds frontline liberation organizations and focuses not only on responding to Black death, but on centering Black life and the pursuit of Black joy. And we have always been clear, no one has ownership over the movement. As with all aspects of this movement, there’s no sole leadership nor should responsibility be placed on one person.

  5. Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

    As organizers who work with everyday people, BLM members see and understand significant gaps in movement spaces and leadership. Black liberation movements in this country have created room, space, and leadership mostly for Black heterosexual, cisgender men — leaving women, queer and transgender people, and others either out of the movement or in the background to move the work forward with little or no recognition. As a network, we have always recognized the need to center the leadership of women and queer and trans people. To maximize our movement muscle, and to be intentional about not replicating harmful practices that excluded so many in past movements for liberation, we made a commitment to placing those at the margins closer to the center.

    As #BlackLivesMatter developed throughout 2013 and 2014, we utilized it as a platform and organizing tool. Other groups, organizations, and individuals used it to amplify anti-Black racism across the country, in all the ways it showed up. Tamir Rice, Tanisha Anderson, Mya Hall, Walter Scott, Sandra Bland — these names are inherently important. The space that #BlackLivesMatter held and continues to hold helped propel the conversation around the state-sanctioned violence they experienced. We particularly highlighted the egregious ways in which Black women, specifically Black trans women, are violated. #BlackLivesMatter was developed in support of all Black lives.

    In 2014, Mike Brown was murdered by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. It was a guttural response to be with our people, our family — in support of the brave and courageous community of Ferguson and St. Louis as they were being brutalized by law enforcement, criticized by media, tear gassed, and pepper sprayed night after night. Darnell Moore and Patrisse Cullors organized a national ride during Labor Day weekend that year. We called it the Black Life Matters Ride. In 15 days, we developed a plan of action to head to the occupied territory to support our brothers and sisters. Over 600 people gathered. We made two commitments: to support the team on the ground in St. Louis, and to go back home and do the work there. We understood Ferguson was not an aberration, but in fact, a clear point of reference for what was happening to Black communities everywhere.

    When it was time for us to leave, inspired by our friends in Ferguson, organizers from 18 different cities went back home and developed Black Lives Matter chapters in their communities and towns — broadening the political will and movement building reach catalyzed by the #BlackLivesMatter project and the work on the ground in Ferguson.

    It became clear that we needed to continue organizing and building Black power across the country. People were hungry to galvanize their communities to end state-sanctioned violence against Black people, the way Ferguson organizers and allies were doing. Soon we created the Black Lives Matter Global Network infrastructure. It is adaptive and decentralized, with a set of guiding principles. Our goal is to support the development of new Black leaders, as well as create a network where Black people feel empowered to determine our destinies in our communities.

    The Black Lives Matter Global Network would not be recognized worldwide if it weren’t for the folks in St. Louis and Ferguson who put their bodies on the line day in and day out, and who continue to show up for Black lives.

  6. Born out of the collective cry for Trayvon Martin, it started as a hashtag that reignited a movement. 8 years later, we’ve grown into a global community working towards Black liberation and freedom — and still, our movement of promise is not done with the work yet. We’re not even close.

    As we commemorate our 8th year, we continue to honor our founding principles of grassroots organizing through BLM grassroots, which has chapters across the country and world. Our evolution of political courage became BLM PAC, a political power we now have in our toolbox to elect officials who create Black-affirming policies.

    We also evolved into the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation — our philanthropic arm which is investing in the long-term work where Black folks across the diaspora are truly thriving and healing.

    Through Black Lives Matter, we have this opportunity and blessing to do the work that leads to policy change and encourages us to reimagine and build towards a future that prioritizes the safety of Black people. We all have a role to play in creating an abolitionist world, and we look forward to building that future for years to come alongside you.

    In honor of our 8th anniversary, we want to know…how have you felt the impact of BLM over the last 8 years?:

    Leave us a message at: 779-BLM-LINE (779-256-5463)

    Using the hashting #BLMAnniversary, you can also share your memories on Twitter.

    Despite the oppressive systems we face and the repeated injustices we are dealt with through criminal legal systems, we still matter.

    The possibilities are endless when we put our people-power together — and we can’t wait to keep it going.

  7. Gender Identity: One’s internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or another gender(s). Everyone has a gender identity, including you. For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their own internal sense of gender identity are not the same. Female, woman, and girl and male, man, and boy are also not necessarily linked to each other but are just six common gender identities.

  8. Gender Expression/Presentation: The physical manifestation of one’s gender identity through clothing, hairstyle, voice, body shape, etc. Many transgender people seek to make their gender expression (how they look) match their gender identity (who they are), rather than their sex assigned at birth.

  9. Sex Assigned at Birth: The assignment and classification of people as male, female, intersex, or another sex based on a combination of anatomy, hormones, chromosomes. It is important we don’t simply use “sex” because of the vagueness of the definition of sex and its place in transphobia. Chromosomes are frequently used to determine sex from prenatal karyotyping (although not as often as genitalia). Chromosomes do not always determine genitalia, sex, or gender.

  10. Physically Attracted To: Sexual orientation. It is important to note that sexual and romantic/emotional attraction can be from a variety of factors including but not limited to gender identity, gender expression/presentation, and sex assigned at birth.

  11. Emotionally Attracted To: Romantic/emotional orientation. It is important to note that sexual and romantic/emotional attraction can be from a variety of factors including but not limited to gender identity, gender expression/presentation, and sex assigned at birth. There are other types of attraction related to gender such as aesthetical or platonic. These are simply two common forms of attraction.

  12. CISGENDER/CIS
    Term for someone who exclusively identifies as their sex assigned at birth. The term cisgender is not indicative of gender expression, sexual orientation, hormonal makeup, physical anatomy, or how one is perceived in daily life.

  13. TRANSGENDER/TRANS
    Encompassing term of many gender identities of those who do not identify or exclusively identify with their sex assigned at birth. The term transgender is not indicative of gender expression, sexual orientation, hormonal makeup, physical anatomy, or how one is perceived in daily life. Also see: The Gender Unicorn.

  14. QUEER
    A term for people of marginalized gender identities and sexual orientations who are not cisgender and/or heterosexual. This term has a complicated history as a reclaimed slur.

    ******This is the one I identify with*******

  15. AGENDER
    An umbrella term encompassing many different genders of people who commonly do not have a gender and/or have a gender that they describe as neutral. Many agender people are trans. As a new and quickly-evolving term, it is best you ask how someone defines agender for themselves.

  16. “If it should happen that Democrats win the presidency in 2024, even though the Republican nominee has the most popular votes, it is somewhat likely that both major parties might support a constitutional amendment to alter the Electoral College.”

    No need for a constitutional amendment. Even if both parties wanted a constitutional amendment, it is doubtful that they could agree on something that would pass in 3/4 of the states

    I’ve mentioned before in these comments several reforms that don’t require an amendment. Probably the most useful one that would correct the issue you bring up is to pass the Wyoming Rule to expend the size of the House of Reps. That would make the electoral college more proportional to population, as well.

  17. “These totals were as of November 27. At that time, California had 253,134 uncounted votes; no other state had that many.”

    Another reform that i have mentioned before that would minimize this issue would be to divide the four most populous states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) into smaller ones This would make fewer excuses in those new states for not counting absentee ballots, because the outcome would be more consequential.

  18. “The vote for the office at the top of the ballot in 2022, in the nation as a whole, gives the Republicans more popular votes than the Democrats”

    When you look at the table that you presented, we see that the total votes for all third party and independent candidates exceeds the spread between the votes for Republicans and Democrats. Looks like a case for ranked choice voting – or at least runoffs.

  19. @JR:

    Of course it will. Just look at the numbers. The more Reps there are, proportional to the number of Senators, means that the electoral college would be more proportional to population. It’s elementary school math – if they still teach proportions in elementary school these days.

  20. Some commie idiot either shares my first name or decided to use it out of spite to post disgusting perversion and anti-White idiocy, and what this subhuman creature thinks of as humor. This must be because I posted views that this commie would be censor wants to shout down on other recent articles here. Having failed at pathetic attempts at intimidation and, at least thus far, at intimidation of forum management to censor my views and others that the commie entity dislikes, it is attempting now to dissuade me from commenting further through posting the opposite of what I believe under my name. That’s not going to work either. You’re going to have to work harder if you intend to silence me, commie scum.

  21. Specifically, all the December 27 comments above were by the impersonator Max (or, to be very generous, maybe someone else who happens to be named Max but is a commie pervert pos). How can anyone and everyone easily tell the difference, other than that I am right wing and this other Max is left wing? Simply ask me or him to explain and defend our views and the reasons behind holding them. I can and will; I doubt the same can be said for her/him/it/them. Give it a try, if you wish.

  22. @Walter Ziobro…. But the states award their electors statewide and thus all you would really do is increase the amount of electors each candidate gets but not their proportionality to one another. Thus effectively all you’ve done is diluted the numbers. You haven’t changed any part of the actual result.

    Example: if you close to double the size of the house, each state would receive roughly twice the electors it currently has now. You’ve doubled the electors but haven’t changed the proportions. Or in other words, what’s the difference between 1/2 and 2/4?

  23. The best reform for the electoral college would be to go back to having state legislatures choose the electors, and to remove federal interference with state laws which used to limit the general electorate in useful ways. States should be free to set the voting age (or it should be uniformly raised to 30), to bar women and nonWhites from voting (or they should be uniformly barred), to enact property ownership requirements and poll taxes for voting, to require verified membership in a Christian church to be allowed to vote, to require literacy tests and grandfather clauses, etc. After the electorate is thus limited and the legislators pick the electoral college, the election of legislators, state and local executives etc should be switched to a town meeting/caucus style system.

  24. Thanks so much for this information. In the 2024 PRESIDENTIAL PETITIONING table, a few states have “pay fee” instead of a signature number in the “REQUIREMENTS, CAND” column. Do any states have both a filing fee and a signature requirement?

  25. I recently received information that the fake/left wing Max is actually the worst kind of pervert, a disgusting filthy child molester who did time in prison for multiple child rapes!!!

  26. Impersonator/fake/left wing Max should be taken out behind a barn and euthanized with extreme prejudice!!! His sickening sex offender status, would explain the sick, perverted sex related comments he left on 27 December along with his anti-White vomit!!!

  27. Aiden said:

    “if you close to double the size of the house, each state would receive roughly twice the electors it currently has now. You’ve doubled the electors but haven’t changed the proportions”

    Not so. You are not considering the effect of the Senatorial electors. If you increase the size of the House, the number of Rep electors increases relative to the Senate electors. The Wyoming Rule would add over 100 Reps, more than the current number of Senators. The electoral college would definitely become more proportional to population.

    And, for that matter you could ALSO increase the proportionality by adding states, IF those states are created by dividing the most populous states, as I have also suggested.

  28. The current Constitution does not prohibit state legislators from choosing Presidential electors. But, none have done so since the Civil War.

    Which states want to try?

  29. Here’s a thought:

    The problem with the recent Presidential elections has been in the swing states in which no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote. (A MAJORITY of the vote is 50%+1, NOT a mere plurality. I need to remind people of that because so many posters here are ignorant of simple math.) My solution has been to use either ranked choice voting, or a runoff.

    However, those conservatives who are so anxious to have state legislatures choose the electors might be satisfied, IF a state adopted a rule saying, that if no candidate for President gets a majority (That’s MAJORITY of 50%+1) of the popular vote in a state, then the choice of electors would fall to the state legislature.

    This could have the interesting benefit of having the state divide their electors proportionally, if their legislature is divided by party.

  30. Another benefit of having the state legislature decide the awarding of Presidential electors, if no Presidential candidate got a majority of the popular vote in a state, is that the legislature would be more inclined to make it easier for third party and independent candidates for President to get on the ballot in their state, as it would increase their chances of being the decisive force in the Presidential election.

  31. But, as i have said before, the REAL problem with the Presidential election is that the President has gotten too damn powerful, such that it has become intolerable for either major party not to hold the office.

    Thus, we ought to consider the Swiss model of a collegiate executive.

  32. What do you think of the Caucus / town meeting method for conducting all general elections? How about my ideas for limiting the electorate? Too many aliens, welfare leeches, emotional females and effeminate males, mongrels, immature children in adult bodies, etc get to choose the people who make decisions over too much of our lives. I don’t the president or any part of our government would have nearly as much power over us if we limit the electorate in the ways I suggest and conduct open public Caucus / town meeting voting. Do you agree? Why or why not?

  33. I would advise anyone changing the election laws to accept the current Constitutional requirements. It would be an exercise in futility to try to take the vote away from women and non-whites.

  34. Whether that’s true or not it addresses only two of my many points. What do you think of the others?

  35. The Latin word for leftist is SINISTER. You can’t spell sinister without SIN. LEFTIST are SINISTER and therefore evil and satanic. The Bible says they will lose the final war between good and evil (READ BOOK OF REVELATION)! Therefore THEY ARE EVIL LOSERS!!

    The devil (SATAN) is a fallen angel who betrayed God, so they are also TRAITORS because they are on the sinister side of evil, the devil, demons, and sin!! IT IS STUPID to be on the side which is both evil and sure to lose.

    THE LEFT IS ON THE SIDE OF SATAN, EVIL AND DARKNESS. THE RIGHT IS ON THE SIDE OF GOD, PURITY, HOLINESS, WHITENESS, AND LIGHT.

  36. Leftist = loser, liberal, commie, socialist, fascist, evil, traitor, stupid, unholy, satanic, sinister, treasonous, sinner, bad, darkness, blackness, black lives matter, globalist, mixed race, left wing, effeminate

    RIGHTIST = winner, conservative, right wing, White wing, nationalist, traditionalist, orthodox, righteous, Godly, holy, smart, good, White, pure, White Lives matter, dexterity, loyal, noble, racial purity, manly

    QED!!!

  37. @Bob I am a right-winger and conservative, but you lost me when you suggested that mixed race was a leftist (and therefore bad) group. As a party, it is imperative that as the left continues to push further left, we stand strong in a Centre-Right position. We cannot become as extreme as them, because then we’d be almost as bad. We need to gain and maintain the respect of American Independents through a mostly moderate platform inspired by traditional Conservative ideas and beliefs.

  38. As the left pushes further left, “centre right” stands strong in bold defense of…the gains the left made fairly recently, against the opposition of the right wingers and conservatives of the time. There is no question that race mixing was at one point only advocated or defended by the far left of that time. Why should we accept, take for granted and defend their past gains? That is not a formula for winning, it’s a formula for perhaps slower paced losing, a slight drag on what the left sees as the inevitable course of history. If we want to win, we need to move beyond accommodation and fight to take back the ground they already took in the past, putting them on defense for a change.

  39. What are conservatives conserving?! Some take it to mean conserving the status quo. But that’s not good enough when the status quo is that of an already substantially debased race, state, nation, civilization, folk, blood, honor, and loyalty. It is conserving the European cultural and genetic heritage which built the greatest civilization in world history, and conserving human biodiversity, which more authentic conservatives seek to conserve. Otherwise, all you are conserving is a mudslide down a hill that gets steeper as you slide further down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.