December 2023 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Posted on by December 29, 2023

Ballot Access News
December 2023 – Volume 39, Number 7

This issue was printed on blue paper.

SEVEN COURTS REFUSE TO REMOVE
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FROM VARIOUS BALLOTS

During November, seven courts (in six states) refused to remove former President Donald Trump from various Republican presidential primary ballots.  Most of the cases are being appealed, and there are thirteen other lawsuits pending on the same subject that don’t even have an opinion from the trial court yet.

In all cases involving Trump’s ballot access, the basis for the lawsuits is the Fourteenth Amendment, section three, which says “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

California:  on October 13, a U.S. District Court ruled that the plaintiff who is challenging Trump’s ballot position appears to lack standing.  She gave the plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint, but he did not take any action, so that case is over.  Schaefer v U.S.A. and Trump, s.d., 3:23cv-1451.

Colorado:  on November 17, Judge Sarah B. Wallace released her opinion in Anderson v Griswold, Denver District Court, 2023cv-32577.  It is 102 pages and is the only opinion in any Trump-ballot-access case so far that answers any of the substantive questions that these cases present.

The opinion, relying on an extensive trial in which witnesses from the January 6 incident at the Capitol testified, finds that Trump did engage in insurrection.  That part of the decision is 48 pages.

Then, the opinion finds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to president and vice-president.  It points out that the first draft did include President and Vice President, but the final version that became part of the Constitution deleted those offices.  Therefore, since the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to presidential candidates, the court ordered the state to put Trump on the ballot.  Both sides have appealed, and the state Supreme Court will hear arguments on December 6.

The opinion is flawed because it says that Colorado policy is not to list unqualified candidates on the ballot.  Actually, Colorado did list under-age candidates for president or vice-president on general election ballots in 1972 (Linda Jenness) and 1892 (James Cranfill).

Michigan:  on November 14, James R. Redford of the state Court of Claims issued an opinion in Trump v Benson, 23-151.  It says that courts cannot adjudicate these cases because they are political, and it is for Congress to decide.  The plaintiffs are appealing.

Minnesota:  on November 7, the State Supreme Court issued an opinion in Growe v Simon, A23-1354.  It is only four pages, and says that the purpose of a presidential primary is to enable members of that party to choose delegates to that party’s national convention.  It said there is no basis to interfere with that process.  It left open the door to barring Trump from the November ballot.

New Hampshire:  on October 27, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph LaPlante, a Bush Jr. appointee, issued an opinion in Castro v Scanlan, 1:23cv-416.  It says that the plaintiff, Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, does not have standing.

Other courts have ruled that candidates do have standing to challenge the ballot placement of their opponents.  For instance, in 1990 the Seventh Circuit ruled that Lenora Fulani had standing to challenge the ballot positions of George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, the major party nominees.  They had filed their paperwork late.  They still got on the ballot, though, because the Seventh Circuit also ruled that Fulani had filed her lawsuit too late.

On November 21, the First Circuit affirmed the Trump decision, 23-1902.

Rhode Island:  on November 27, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell ruled in Castro v Amore, 1:23cv-405,  that the plaintiff, Republican candidate John Castro, does not have standing, and that the First Circuit opinion from New Hampshire controls the outcome.  Rhode Island and New Hampshire are in the First Circuit.

More cases are pending in trial courts in Arizona, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

None of the decisions so far say that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did not anticipate that voters could be barred from voting for anyone.  Back then ballots were private, and government had no ability to prevent any voter from voting for anyone.

TENNESSEE BALLOT ACCESS CASE FILED

On November 30, the Tennessee Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against the petition requirement to get a new party on the ballot, which is 56,083 signatures (2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote).  Darnell v Hargett, m.d., 3:23cv-1266.  It is assigned to Judge Aleta A. Trauger, a Clinton appointee.

Tennessee and Michigan are both in the Sixth Circuit, and in 2021, the Sixth Circuit struck down the Michigan petition for statewide independent candidates, which was 30,000 signatures.  The basis was that the Michigan petition hadn’t been used successfully since it had been passed in 1988, except for two independent presidential candidates.  Therefore, there was no state interest for Michigan to have such a difficult requirement.  The Michigan case was Graveline v Benson, 992 F.3d 524.  Under the Graveline reasoning, the case against the Tennessee law is even more compelling, because no petition to create a new party in Tennessee has succeeded since 1968, when the American Party did it.

The history of attempts to invalidate the Tennessee party petition is complicated.  In 2010 the Libertarian Party sued and won, but in response, the legislature only eased the petition deadline from March to April, and deleted the old language that said only party “members” could sign the petition (Tennessee doesn’t have registration by party, so the word “member” was hopelessly vague but discouraged people from signing).

In 2012 the Green Party and the Constitution Party filed a new lawsuit, and it won also.  But all the legislature did in response was to move the petition deadline from April to August.

The state appealed the part of the decision that struck down the number of signatures, and the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for more fact-finding.

But it did not disturb the part of the ruling that put the Green and Constitution Parties on the 2012 ballot, so those two parties enjoyed party status that year, the first parties to have done so since 1972, the last year the American Party had been on the ballot.

In 2013, the U.S. District Court again struck down the number of signatures, but in 2014 the Sixth Circuit again remanded it back for more fact-finding.

The former U.S. District Court Judge who had struck down the law had retired, so the case went to a new U.S. District Court Judge, who upheld it on the grounds that the evidence, showing that minor party candidates do better when they have a party label than just the word “independent”, was not statistically proven.  The decision upholding the number of signatures is not reported and does not dispute the key fact, which is that the party petition has not been used successfully since 1968.

The new case will depend on the Sixth Circuit’s Graveline opinion, which had not existed when the last action had occurred in the old Tennessee case.

In the meantime, the Green and Constitution Parties had also appeared on the 2014 ballot, after they won a separate new lawsuit against the law on how a party remains on the ballot.  The old law only gave a new party one election to meet the vote test, but let old parties have two elections to meet the vote test.  The Tennessee vote test is to poll 5% for any statewide office.  But after that victory, which was based on Equal Protection, the legislature changed the vote test so that even old parties now only have one election, not two, to meet the vote test, so there is no longer any Equal Protection violation.

Besides Tennessee, the only other state in which the petition to create a new party has not been used in the last 50 years is Minnesota, where it has never been used since it was passed in 1913.

GEORGIA BALLOT ACCESS NEWS

Three separate cases are pending in Georgia that affect the state’s ballot access for minor parties.

The original ballot access case filed by the Georgia Libertarian Party in 2017 is still alive in U.S. District Court.  Cowen v Raffensperger challenges the petition requirements for U.S. District Court, which are so severe, they haven’t ever been used by a minor party.  The party lost the only remaining part of the case, the Equal Protection part, on September 27, but it filed for reconsideration on October 23 and that is still pending.

Separately from that, on November 24, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Public Service Commissioner elections should be statewide, and not elected by districts.  Rose v Rafflesperger, 22-12593.  This case was filed by organizations representing Black voters, and is not a ballot access case per se.  But it has implications for ballot access.  If Public Service Commissioner elections were not statewide, the effect would be to make it far more difficult for minor parties to remain on the ballot.  The law requires minor parties to poll 1% of the number of registered voters in order to stay on the ballot for statewide office, and it is far easier for a minor party to poll that many votes for Public Service Commissioner than for president.  Without the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the only statewide office in 2024 would have been president.

Finally, the lawsuit over the boundaries of House districts in Georgia has ballot access implications.  On November 27, the state filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in Pendergrass v Raffensperger, 1:21cv-5339.  If that appeal moves fast, it will create uncertainty about the boundaries and may force the state to reduce the House petitions for 2024 only.  See the November 1, 2023 B.A.N. article, “Georgia Serendipity”.  Ballot-access.org. links to past print issues are on upper right.

MORE LAWSUIT NEWS

Arizona:  On October 19, No Labels Party filed a federal lawsuit to prevent anyone from filing in its primary for Congress or state office. No Labels Party v Fontes, 2:23cv-2172.  No Labels is a qualified party in Arizona, and in Arizona, all qualified parties nominate by primary.  No Labels doesn’t want any nominees for office other than President and Vice-President, and claims a Freedom of Association right to decide that for itself.

Georgia:  on November 10, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg set a trial in Curling v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-2989.  The issue is whether the state’s vote-counting machines are reliable.  This case was filed in 2017.  The trial starts January 9, 2024.

Michigan:  the internal dispute in the Libertarian Party has reached the Sixth Circuit.  On November 27, the faction that is not recognized by the Libertarian National Committee filed its opening brief.  It argues that the federal trademark law, the Lanham Act, cannot be used to resolve an intra-party dispute.

Ohio:  on November 7, State Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner filed a federal lawsuit against the new law that puts party labels on general election ballots for nominees for State Supreme Court Justice.  Brunner v LaRose, n.d. 4:23cv-2180.

Pennsylvania:  on November 21, U.S. District Court Judge Susan P. Baxter, a Trump appointee, struck down a state law that says postally mailed returned ballots are invalid if the voter forgets to add the date of return to the outer envelope.  Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v Schmidt, w.d., 1:22cv-339.  The opinion depends on the “materiality” part of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Law, which says that votes must be counted even if state law says they shouldn’t be, if the state law is not material to an honest and accurate vote count.

BOOK REVIEW:  PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND MAJORITY RULE

Presidential Elections and Majority Rule:  the Rise, Demise and Potential Restoration of the Jeffersonian Electoral College, by Professor Edward B. Foley, 2020.

Foley is a Law Professor and an election law specialist.  His book covers the entire history of the Electoral College, which was altered significantly by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.  Foley refers to the revised Electoral College rules as the “Jeffersonian Electoral College”, which was meant to elect a President who received a majority of votes in a majority of states, referred to as a “Compound Majority.”

Before 1828, states used different methods to award their electoral votes, including choice by state legislatures, not the voters, but usually intrastate majorities of some sort were used to assign electoral votes to presidential candidates.

A problem developed in 1824, by which time most states began awarding electoral votes based on intrastate plurality votes.  This, in combination with the lack of foresight among Republicans and Federalists that perhaps more than two candidates would vie for the presidency in the future, has led to the Electoral College problems that Foley thinks were most clearly manifested in the elections of 1844, 1884, and 2000.  In those elections, Foley articulates that the Compound Majority winners would have been Henry Clay (not James Polk), James Blaine (not Grover Cleveland), and Al Gore (not George W. Bush).

Foley also fingers thirteen other presidential elections that had “dubious Jeffersonian winners”, meaning winners who did not earn a majority of popular votes in enough states to win the Electoral College.

The 2020 election was another such occurrence, as Biden fell one electoral vote short of winning the Electoral College in states where he got a majority of the popular vote.

The situation, writes Foley, is likely to get worse in the future.  What to do?

While it appears that Foley’s preferred reform would be to have a nationwide popular vote using Instant Runoff Voting (now usually called Ranked Choice Voting), Foley thinks repealing the Electoral College simply isn’t going to happen, and he thinks wholesale removal of independent and third party candidates would be unconstitutional and bad public policy.

He has several criticisms of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the most important of which is that it could elect a President with a plurality vote.

Instead, he urges states to adopt one of several voting methods that would ensure that the candidate with majority intrastate support receives all, or at least most of, each state’s electoral votes.

Such voting methods include (1) RCV, (2) proportional allocation of electoral votes based on the popular vote, (3) awarding all electoral votes to a majority winner, otherwise allocate proportionally, and (4) two-round general elections, with all candidates in a Labor Day election, with the top two advancing to November, regardless of September vote totals.

Foley thinks states should adopt these reforms on their own, and adoption by a few states, or even one, could make the difference in a nationwide election, as would have been the case with Florida in 2000.

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY DATE

On November 15, the New Hampshire Secretary of State announced that the presidential primary will be January 23.  In 2020, it had been February 11, and, in 2016, had been February 9.

VOTER REGISTRATION TOTALS

Dem. Rep. Indp, misc Lib’t. Green Consti. Wk Fam NoLabels other
Alaska 75,034 142,783 353,189 6,870 1,529 766 ? ? 19,985
Arizona 1,252,630 1,444,953 1,456,065 33,713 3,367 ? ? 18,799 – –
Arkansas 85,561 127,732 1,518,409 688 104 ? ? ? – –
Calif. 10,353,432 5,286,269 5,122,703 242,299 101,620 234 ? 25,141 982,758
Colorado 1,053,385 929,561 1,871,868 39,803 8,668 11,967 ? 3,872 9,426
Conm. 800,492 460,789 952,440 3,105 1,398 ? 301 ? 29,535
Delaware 354,927 207,162 186,211 2,079 720 243 314 ? 13,301
Dt. Col. 386,009 26,910 84,471 2,368 3,982 ? ? ? – –
Florida 4,521,851 5,165,815 3,668,430 36,020 7,578 10,357 ? 5,454    241,752
Idaho 125,633 576,381 272,275 11,145 ? 4,090 ? ? – –
Iowa 468,773 585,418 426,224 8,307 1,739 0 0 0 – –
Kansas 506,530 867,805 552,584 24,059 0 0 0 0 0
Kentucky 1,527,087 1,603,069 334,426 16,054 2,288 1,283 ? ? 722
Louis’na 1,149,803 1,007,759 666,443 15,903 2,542 161 0 ? 134,193
Maine 400,770 321,615 367,264 3,185 47,136 ? ? 8,246 31
Md. 2,225,208 987,532 918,066 18,241 5,800 ? ? ? 4,155
Mass. 1,438,607 437,211 2,967,100 17,493 3,991 330 750 121 18,473
Nebraska 333,912 600,269 268,048 18,086 ? ? ? ? 5,643
Nevada 602,549 553,278 670,581 16,574 1,654 84,517 ? ? – –
N. Hamp. 264,356 269,153 344,242 ? ? ? ? ? – –
N. Jersey 2,504,294 1,541,158 2,367,992 24,579 11,380 13,411 ? ? 29,720
N. M. 577,941 410,631 304,483 14,748 7,416 801 2,058 ? 4,523
N. York 5,886,085 2,696,999 2,883,236 18,064 18,812 ? 49,586 ? 487,374
No. Car. 2,413,710 2,213,969 2,683,654 49,882 1,659 ? ? 3,671 – –
Okla.  654,433 1,184,156 428,357 21,554 ? ? ? ? – –
Oregon 996,276 719,820 1,094,372 20,452 7,865 3,865 8,323 1,485 145,357
Penn. 3,899,957 3,453,432 1,248,315 41,856 9,855 ? ? ? – –
Rhode Is. 288,510 99,329 333,136 ? ? ? ? ? – –
So. Dak. 147,732 301,657 148,951 2,938 ? 371 ? 9 –          –
Utah 229,237 873,747 472,815 20,245 ? 6,701 ? 482 68,335
W. Va. 368,547 466,412 322,077 10,620 2,441 111 ? ? – –
Wyo. 23,085 177,178 15,142 1,000 0 315 ? ? – –
TOTAL 45,916,356 35,739,952 35,303,569 741,930 253,544 139,523 61,335 67,280 2,195,283
Percent 38.09% 29.65% 29.23% .61% .20% .12% .05% .05% 1.80%

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 January 1, 2024 B.A.N. will carry a breakdown of the “other” column.

2024 PRESIDENTIAL PETITIONING

State Requirements Signatures or Registrations Obtained  
Full Party Candidate Libertarian Green Constit RFK Jr No Labels Deadline
Ala. *42,458 5,000 0 0 0 0 Finished Aug. 15
Alaska (reg)   5,000 3,614 already on *already on already on 0 already on Aug. 7
Ariz. 34,116 (es) #43,000 already on *finished 0 0 already on Aug. 17
Ark. 10,000 5,000 *already on already on 0 0 already on Aug. 1
Calif.   (reg) (es) 75,000 219,403 already on already on 156 0 *28,000 Aug. 9
Colo. 10,000 12,000 already on already on  already on 0 already on Aug. 7
Conn. no procedure #7,500 already on can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start Aug. 7
Del.  (est.) (reg) 760   (est.) 7,600 already on *727 *242 0 15 Aug. 20
D.C. no procedure  (est.) #5,200 can’t start already on can’t start can’t start can’t start Aug. 7
Florida 0 145,040 already on already on already on 0 already on        Sept. 1
Georgia 69,884 #7,500 already on can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start July 9
Hawaii 861 *5,798 already on *500 *0 0 0 Aug. 7
Idaho 17,359 1,000 already on 0 already on 0 *5,000 Aug. 30
Illinois no procedure #25,000 can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start June 24
Indiana no procedure  #36,944 already on 0 0 0 0 July 1
Iowa no procedure #3,500 already on 0 0 0 0 Aug. 16
Kansas  20,180 5,000 already on 0 0 0 finished Aug. 5
Ky. no procedure #5,000 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 Sept. 6
La.  (reg) 1,000 #pay fee already on already on 221 0 0   Aug. 23
Maine (reg) 5,000 #4,000 (rg) **3,400 already on 0 0 already on Aug. 1
Md. 10,000  10,000 already on *1,700 0 *1,200 0 Aug. 5
Mass. (est) (reg) 49,000 #10,000 already on (reg) 3,991 (reg) 330 0 0 July 30
Mich. 44,478 30,000 already on already on already on 0 0 July 18
Minn. (est) 130,000 #2,000 0 0 0 0  0 Aug. 20
Miss. be organized 1,000 already on already on already on 0 already on Sept. 6
Mo. 10,000 10,000 already on *5,300 *1,300 0 0 July 29
Mont. 5,000 #5,000 already on already on 0 0 0 Aug. 14
Nebr. 6,605 2,500 already on 0 0 0 0 Aug. 1
Nev. 10,096 10,096 already on *4,100 already on 0 already on July 5
N. Hamp. 18,575 #3,000 can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start Aug. 7
N.J. no procedure #800 0 0 0 0 0 July 29
N. M. 3,562 3,562 already on already on 0 0 0 June 27
N.Y. no procedure #45,000 can’t start can’t start can’t start 0 can’t start May 28
No. Car. 13,757 82,542 already on already on 17,000 0 already on May 18
No. Dak. 7,000 4,000 *5,350 0 0 0 0 Sept. 2
Ohio 40,345 5,000 *1,500 0 0 0 finished Aug. 7
Okla. 35,592 pay fee already on 0 0 0 0 July 15
Oregon 28,576 23,737 already on already on already on 0 already on Aug. 27
Penn. no procedure   5,000 can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start Aug. 1
R.I. 17,884 #1,000 0 0 0 0 0 Sept. 6
So. Car. 10,000 10,000 already on already on already on *300 finished July 15
So. Dak. 3,502 3,502 already on *4,100 0 0 already on Aug. 6
Tenn. 56,083 275 0 0 0 0 *3,000 Aug. 20
Texas  80,778 113,151 already on already on *can’t start can’t start can’t start May 19
Utah 2,000 #1,000 already on *finished already on *finished already on Jan. 6
Vermont be organized #1,000 already on 0 0 0 0 Aug. 1
Virginia no procedure #5,000 can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start Aug. 23
Wash. no procedure #1,000 can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start can’t start July 27
West Va. no procedure #7,948 already on already on 0 0 0 Aug. 1
Wisc. 10,000 #2,000 already on already on already on can’t start can’t start Aug. 6
Wyo. 3,879 3,879 already on 0 already on 0 0 Aug. 27
TOTAL STATES ON *35 *18 12 0 0

#partisan label permitted. “RFK Jr” = Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  “Deadline” column shows the deadline for the latest way to get on.

**The Maine Libertarian figure indicates the number of registrations believed to be valid, not the raw number obtained..  * means entry changed since last issue.

JILL STEIN WILL SEEK GREEN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION

On November 9, Jill Stein filed paperwork indicating that she will seek the Green Party presidential nomination.  If she is nominated, she will be the first person to have received the Green nomination three times.  She will also be the first woman to run for president in the general election who was on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win, and who ran more than twice.

CONSTITUTION PARTY SETS NATIONAL CONVENTION

The Constitution Party presidential convention will be April 17-20 in Salt Lake City.  Its 2020 convention had been April 29-May 2 in St. Louis.

NO LABELS WON’T RUN ANYONE FOR PRESIDENT
UNLESS THE MAJOR PARTIES RUN BIDEN AND TRUMP

On November 17, leaders of No Labels said they will only run a presidential nominee next year if the major party nominees are President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump.

UTAH SPECIAL US HOUSE ELECTION

Utah held a special election on November 21 to fill the vacancy in the Second District.  Results:  Republican 57.35%; Democratic 33.73%; Libertarian 2.66%; Constitution 2.17%; United Utah 1.79%; independent Perry Myers 1.42%; independent Joe Buchman .84%.

When this seat was last up, in November 2022, the results had been:  Republican 59.71%; Democratic 34.01%; United Utah 3.32%; Constitution 2.96%.

The Second District includes southwest Utah and much of Salt Lake City.

GENERAL ELECTION DEBATES

On November 20, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the cities and dates of the general election presidential debates.  The vice-presidential debate will be September 25 in Easton, Pennsylvania.  The presidential debates will be:  (1) September 16 in San Marcos, Texas; (2) October 1 in Petersburg, Virginia; (3) October 9 in Salt Lake City.  The Republican Party may not recognize these events, and former President Donald Trump has said he will not participate in Commission debates, if he is the nominee.

FOUR MINOR PARTIES WIN PARTISAN ELECTIONS

On November 7, nominees of the Libertarian, Green, Working Families, and Forward Parties won some partisan elections.  The list of Libertarian and Green winners will be in the January 1, 2024 B.A.N.  The Working Families Party won two Philadelphia city council-at-large seats.  The Forward Party won the Mayoralty of  Stonington, Connecticut and the Township Auditor of Lower Heidelberg Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania.

NEW PARTY WINS ARGENTINA PRESIDENCY

On November 19, Argentina held a run-off presidential election.  Javier Milei, nominee of the Libertad Avanza, won with 55%.  In the first round he had placed second with 30% in a five-candidate field.  His party was running in its first presidential election.  It had been formed in 2019.

Other nations in which a new party won the presidency recently include Mexico, France, and Ukraine.   No new party has won the presidency of the United States since 1860.

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!

Comments

December 2023 Ballot Access News Print Edition — 36 Comments

  2. Nice registration gains for GOP, independents, LP and CP. Also nice to see demon rats bleed members.

  3. Milei win is awesome. I’m psyched.

    “No new party since 1860” – fairly new, but not quite new. GOP was 6 years old then and had already carried 4 states for president in 1856, and by 1858 had the Speaker of the US house and majorities in most northern states.

  4. Fyi, at least 2 other candidates I’ve heard of are attempting to qualify for our presidential election in Russia. There might be additional ones I’ve not noticed. Anatoly Batashov and Rada Russkikh (I’m guessing assumed name, it means happiness of Russians).

    That’s not counting the qualified parties. I know you covered Duntsova before she was ruled ineligible, but not sure if you’re aware of others.

    As of the last time I saw anything of her, her appeal of the disqualification was rejected by the Supreme Court on 27 December and she is currently attempting to earn the nomination of the Apple Party, which they are as I understand treating with some skepticism to put it nicely.

    LDPR is running Slutsky, so can go jump on the Moscow River as far as I’m concerned. I used to vote for Zhirinovsky, who was at least entertaining, but unfortunately passed away.

    Other rejected applications on 29 December were for independent Alexandra Tischchenko , independent Ivan Ostrovsky (Army of Defenders of Fatherland, All Russia Officers Assembly), and on 28 December Vladimir Mikhailov, party of social protection.

    KPRF, LDPR and New Peoples Party qualify without signatures by prior performance. I almost said unfortunately KPRF qualifies, but they won’t win, so I don’t see it as a problem. However, Nazis are not allowed to run in Germany under their own name, so why the double standard or at least acknowledgement that we’re more tolerant than Germany and European Onion? LOL.

    President Putin will of course get his 300k easily, and for the first time earn my vote. However, I’d rather sign for someone who needs my signature more.

    Several other parties working on their 100k, but comment has once again become longer than I intend.

    That’s all I remember currently.

  5. Oh yeah, Navalny disqualified for being a criminal. 2018 candidate Xenia Sobchak now disqualified for Israel citizenship. Sergei Polonsky likewise disqualified for Cambodia citizenship. I think there are other such disqualified candidates who are less prominent individuals.

  7. Kudos to President Trump for skipping the notoriously biased COPD “debates” this time. He should have done the same last time as well, I think.

  8. Regards your Georgia lawsuits item, I presume the SOS name is misspelled in at least one of the lawsuits. The alternative would be that at least one of the lawsuits is against someone else who has a fairly unusual name that’s close to but not exactly that of the SOS. That seems significantly less probable.

  9. Book review: state legislatures picking presidential electors would be vastly preferable.

    I don’t see how anyone failed to foresee more than two candidates vying for the presidency when that possibility is in the text of the electoral college constitutional language and more than two relatively strong candidates was commonplace in early US presidential elections.

    Foley’s solutions to a nonexistent problem would make things worse. I doubt anyone would be alive to have this discussion, much less be allowed to have it or speak English, if Algore or Killary Klingon had been president. Perish the thought!

  10. Good points Blood, FJ6PP, Pig Farmer and WMCT!

    I agree with Max, Russia definitely has freer election than Germany or EEWWW, and I would add than the US. In fairness, Nazis aren’t allowed to run with their own name or favorite symbol in Russia either, but banning CPRF would be at least as justified as banning NSDAP on historical grounds. It’s a somewhat different issue in those countries that have not had such parties in power before

  11. ADD REGISTRATIONS IN THE 21 STATES NOT HAVING PARTY REGISTRATION PURGE LISTS

    2020 PREZ VOTES VS 2020 REGISTRATION TOTALS ???

    HOW MAY DEAD / MOVED OUT FOLKS REGISTERED ???

  12. The two letter troll moron is contradicting itself like always.

    If a bunch of dead and moved folks are registered, why would we want mail or electronic voting or anything other or less than voters showing up with valid state ID, E-VERIFY, social security card, fingerprints check, retinal scan, valid birth certificate, proof of citizenship and proof of current residence in person on election day?

    Because the same crazy fascist troll moron/bot regularly rails for mail voting.

    I guess it’s admitted it loves vote fraud, too.

    The “purge list” nonsense is downright goofy and I don’t know where it gets off ordering the folks who run the page to do extra work, which as I understand it they don’t even get paid for.

    I understood the purpose of the table to be comparing relative party strength and how it evolved over time. The extra information would distract from that and is public from state governments.

    If the troll moron compiled that information and posted it, instead of acting like someone died and put it in charge, some people may find that useful.
    I’m not one of them, but it’s possible some would.

  13. https://www.yahoo.com/news/retirements-could-tip-control-house-052322051.html

    CONGRESS HACKS GETTING OUT 2023

    HOW MANY MORE IN 2024 ???
    —
    DUE TO TRUMP MORON COMMENTS — MANY STATES HAVE LEFT THE ERIC SYSTEM THAT LOOKED FOR REGISTRATIONS OF SAME PERSON IN 2 OR MORE STATES.

    HOW MANY FOLKS CAN MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE AND BE REGISTERED AND CAST AN ABSENTEE BALLOT ON SAME DAY AND MOVE BACK HOME AND VOTE AGAIN ???

    ESP MOVING TO A MARGINAL 2020 PREZ STATE FOR ONE DAY– TO NH IN N.E. STATES / ETC.

    —
    REGISTER BY 28 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAYS — NO EXCEPTIONS

  15. Putin’s petition is accepted, with over half a million signatures, which is if course,not surprising.

  17. As I suspected, Rada Russkikh is a PR stunt. She’s a cosmetics social media person, I would guess barely qualified by age (35, as in your country).

    She is quite obviously seeking additional attention for her brand, not federal presidency.

    I suppose I would sign her petition currently, if I came across it (I’m not going to go out of my way to seek it out).

    I don’t care anything about her, her brand, or cosmetics, and don’t even find her attractive; not that it would matter if I did. I think I’d sign it because I think her candidacy encapsulates my contempt for the idea of a federal government spanning a 9 figure number of humans, multiple time zones, as well as the whole notion of voting for individual candidates rather than by party.

    Her run is the distilled essence of everything wrong with the election system as currently practiced, ours no less than yours.

  18. At least one line of those voter registration statistics isn’t current. The numbers for Massachusetts are from October 2022. I haven’t gone through them all to see if there are others that are out of date.

  19. GenZ, agreed with all those other people also.

    You make a decent point about NS ban in Russia. Of course you know they killed 20+ million of us, so many of us, especially old people who remember that time personally, find Russians parading around costune playing as Nazis particularly insulting. They are generally mentally ill attention seeking pedophiles, alcoholics and drug addicts, criminals who are also law enforcement informants – the worst sort of human garbage imaginable.

    Nevertheless, I’d prefer them parading out in the open and running for office under their own banner than under false flags.

    Part of me admittedly would prefer to have them exterminated, but I don’t think that’s a very healthy instinct. They generally find their way to the penal colonies, which is their natural habitat and retirement plan, before too long, for reasons other than just trying to shock and disgust decent people and especially elderly pensioners with indecent public ns costume play.

    I do agree that they should be treated the same as KPRF, for similar reasons. However, KPRF has way too much lingering nostalgia support (from idiots who forget everything wrong with those times, lazy people who resent having to actually work at their jobs or be fired, and people who weren’t yet born or were too young to have experienced it as anything except children, which is the majority now).

    The history is also increasingly being whitewashed in retrospect, which is somewhat understandable on general patriotic grounds, but very bad omen. I’d prefer not to die in a gulag if possible.

    The whitewash, idiotic nostalgia, and very understandable reaction to everything wrong with our 1990s era is a dangerous mix. KPRF could yet be a real threat on the future, something naive “Russia without Putin” people have generally not considered unless they are comsymps themselves.

    There are many other such threats; it’s a very dangerous mix, and only Orthodox revival and prayer represent hope for positive outcomes when that transition occurs. Given a lot of what is brewing under the surface, I think it would be better to delay that time and create better mechanisms to resolve likely moves and combinations on that horizon.

    Much more to say but this is again way too long, and at a busy time for me. I should probably stop again thinking anyone at this site actually reads, cares, or analyzes views intelligently through a real conversation, as opposed to just endlessly repeating or perhaps copypasting slogans to each other for incomprehensible purpose.

  20. However, quick additional to earlier, the disqualification for foreign citizenship and residency are due to new amendments subsequent to the last presidential election.

    Sorry for worse than usual English, not up to my usual standards, but I’m spending time I shouldn’t right now. After the old new year (mid January) might be less bad.

    There I go again. In retrospect, if I was going to spend this much time, it should have been in updates of qualifications rather than my musings which may be one or two of you at most will read , much less care about .

  21. Ok, let’s see if I can keep this one short. Personal challenge to myself.

    I am considering change of mind about vote. Putin wins with or without my vote so if Russkikh somehow were to qualify, why not vote for her too, for the same reasons I voted for Zhirinovsky? It’s not like I actually expected or wanted him to be president either, or anyone else. I was really more voting for an entertainer as a big middle finger to the absurd notion of federal government.

    Russkikh would be the best way to make the point that nobody alive now or in the past is remotely qualified for such a position (except Jesus, and of course he rejected it).

  22. Jim, Massachusetts is the only state that doesn’t release registration data during odd years. So for Massachusetts, I had no choice but to use November 2022. There will be new Massachusetts data in February 2024.

  23. Mr. Winger, sorry for excess comments length. Are you interested on the Russia elections news , or were you only interested in rejected Duntsova? You did stories at least twice on her, zero time in other our candidates , do u want these or not interested ? Believe it or not I’m spending time I don’t have on their and I don’t wish to waste my time or yours if you are not interested

  26. There has only been ONE election for President in the US in which a candidate got a 50%+ popular vote majority, and lost the electoral vote That candidate was Samuel Tilden in 1876. Tilden even had the electoral votes on election night, but were taken away from him by selective disqualifications.

    My point is, the electoral college works pretty well. It almost certainly votes for the winner of the popular vote, if that winner has 50%+. Those elections in which a candidate got a plurality, but lost the electoral vote were all (except for 1876) elections in which no candidate had a clear 50%+ majority. In a sense, in those elections, the electoral college vote is a kind of automatic run-off vote.

    That doesn’t mean that the electoral college cannot be improved. But, improvement doesn’t require constitutional amendment. Foley mentions several methods of improvement in his book, including run-offs and alternative voting methods in swing states. The Constitution wisely leaves it up to each state as to how to do this.

    Other reforms not mentioned that could be considered are expanding the size of the House of Representatives, which would make the electoral college more proportional to population, and choosing electors by district in populous swing states, which would minimize the chance that a very narrow state-wide marginal could determine the outcome of large blocks of electoral votes.

  27. EFFECT OF 1876 TILDEN LOSS WAS ABANDONMENT OF EX-BLACK SLAVES TO THE TERROR OF KKK IN OLDE SOUTHERN SLAVES STATES – HANGINGS, ETC. — TO 1960S. – MORE ESCAPES TO NORTH STATES — BLACK GHETTO CITIES- DETROIT, CHICAGO, ETC

    1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 EC VOTES = 1/4 CONTROL ELECTION OF PREZ/VP

    BIAS FOR SMALL POP STATES — MIN 3 EC VOTES EVEN IF STATE POP WAS 1 OR EVEN ZERO.

    ONLY MATH ACCIDENT A PREZ HAS NOT BEEB ELECTED BY ALL SMALL POP STATES AND A FEW BARELY ABOVE AVERAGE STATES

    OPEN GERRYMANDERS IN ME AND NE — GERRYMANDER USA REP DISTS = 1 EC VOTE EACH

    MORE EC G DISTS IN 2024 — AT LAST SECOND IN OCT-NOV 2024 ???
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

    NOISES THAT TRUMP WILL FILE 14-3 APPEALS ON TUES 2 JAN 2024

  28. Max,

    I think they probably only covered Duntsova because they like her. I’ll answer the rest later if I remember. It does not sound like you’re in a hurry for reply.

  29. GenZ, no hurry at all. The more time you take, especially over the next 2-4 weeks, the better for me.

  30. Also, unfortunately, my tentative presumption is you are correct about this site. I always try to give everyone every reasonable benefit of the doubt and then some.

    But since no one is showing any interest in Russia election beyond Duntsova here, I’ll stop spending time I need for other uses providing unwanted information. Others can look if up if they care.

    A posle starovo novovo goda y mozh tam nedelku ile dve, nu, uvidem togda.

  31. Uvazhayevym Gospodin Maxim Maximovich, tak tochno.

    Others: Max said after old new year (Julian new year, couple of weeks after Gregorian) , maybe another week or two after that, then we’ll see.

    My reply: basically, Sir, yes sir.

    More literal translation: Honorable Mr. Max, son of Max, exactly so.

    Very literal translation: Respectable Lord Max, son of Max, exactly so.

  32. If anyone else does want, those updates, not the best time for me either, but I can fill in until Max comes back, if he comes back. Just ask. Or look it up yourself, like he said, LOL

  33. GenZ,

    I could look it up. If you do it for me, better for me, not a huge deal either way. No idea if any others here share our interest. I’m going with site operations interested in Duntsova as western propaganda asset unless proved otherwise.

  34. GenZ and P,

    I don’t think we need to impose our interest in Russian language, culture, religion, elections, etc on those here who are not in out group chat.

    We can discuss all that, practice our Russian language skills, and all the rest of that there. If they were interested in any of the 15 or so candidates whose paperwork was accepted, and not just an otherwise obscure CIA propaganda asset whose paperwork was deficient, they would have already asked or published.

    It is what it is. We are not paying to be here, and have no standing for issuing demands. I know you all agree.

    As for Ms. Duntsova, perhaps the ultraliberal Yabloko party’s Yavlinsky explained it best; “Yabloko party does not nominate random and obscure citizens.” This is the party most in line with her pro-Western views. That she was the subject of two articles here and the utter lack of interest in any of those other candidates is self-explanatory.

  36. Walter Z,

    See above, Dec 29, at 7:18 pm regarding Foley. His proposals would make things worse, not better.

    The best way to improve the electoral college would be to have the electors choosen by state legislatures.

    There are other needed reforms such as :

    repealing the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments (can those all be repealed by one single amendment? If the 21st is a poison pill, strike that one);

    Resricting the franchise in a variety of ways, starting with all the ways it was restricted in the 18th century;

    And other ways to evolve government in the opposite direction from what it evolved ever since then.

    Some people here have called this the gradual directional Max plan, after Maxim Maximovich, who posted Ruassia news above.

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.