DEMOCRATIC HOSTILITY TO ROBERT KENNEDY, JR. MAY HAVE COST KAMALA HARRIS THE PRESIDENCY

The popular vote in the November 5, 2024 presidential election was very close.  Donald Trump received 49.86% and Kamala Harris received 48.24%.  The margin between the two major candidates, 1.62%, is the smallest since 2000.

The result may have been reversed if Democratic officials had not made a effort to injure the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. candidacy, behavior which motivated him to quit the race.  Between Kennedy’s announcement in October 2023 that he would be an independent candidate and August 1, 2024, his poll numbers varied from 20% to 8%, according to The Hill’s compilation of presidential polls.  Kennedy declined in the polls during August, but he was still at 7% in the Pew Research Center poll released August 14.  Meanwhile, Kamala Harris led in 29 of the 37 polls released in August (see the Wikipedia page “Opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election”).  But then, on August 23, Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump.  The hostility toward him from Democratic Party leaders had been huge:

1. Democrats had attacked Kennedy’s ballot access in Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.
2. Democrats worked with CNN to set debate criteria for the June 27 debate that made it impossible for Kennedy to qualify for the debate. They did this by saying his ballot access had to be confirmed in states with at least a majority of the electoral college votes by June 20. This ignored the fact that states simply do not check signatures that early.

The debate rules should have allowed secondary evidence that would have predicted with a high degree of certainty that Kennedy would be on the ballot.  The rule was also discriminatory because at the time there was no certainty that the Democratic Party nominee would be President Joe Biden.

3. The Biden administration denied Kennedy Secret Service protection until the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13 motivated a reversal of that denial.
4. Democrats also challenged the right of an independent PAC to handle petitioning for Kennedy in the most difficult states, even though there is a long tradition in U.S. history of independent groups handling ballot access for minor party and independent presidential candidates. Most recently, the Michigan Republican Party had done the work of putting Ralph Nader on the Michigan ballot as an independent in 2004. Michigan state courts said there was nothing improper about that.  Similarly, in 2008, outside groups put Ron Paul on the general election ballot in two states, with no coordination with Paul, and no one alleged that was illegal.

When Democrats attacked Kennedy so fiercely, that alienated Kennedy supporters.  There is a movement that terms itself the Medical Freedom movement, and it was solidly behind Kennedy.  When Kennedy dropped out of the race, members of that movement followed his lead and switched their support to Trump.  It is not sensible for a party that is trying to win a close election to behave that way.  But Democrats have long been in the habit of attacking minor parties and independents.

The Democratic Party challenged the ballot access of various minor party and independent presidential candidates in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1976, 1980, 2004, and especially 2024.  They attacked not only Kennedy, but Jill Stein, Cornel West, Claudia De la Cruz, Shiva Ayyadurai, and No Labels.  The party has been behaving this way for so long, there seems to be no debate within the Democratic Party on whether this behavior is wise.  It injures the voting rights of supporters of the attacked candidates.  It is profoundly illiberal and contradicts the Democratic Party’s message that it is a champion of voting rights.

Contrast with Republicans

The Republican Party does not have the same habit of trying to challenge minor parties and independents.  In 2024, Republicans challenged Libertarians in Illinois, and made a half-hearted attempt to get the party off the Oregon ballot.  They challenged Libertarian House nominees in Iowa.  Otherwise, there were no legal challenges from Republicans to ballot access.  Furthermore, the most significant improvements in ballot access law in the last ten years have been in Republican-majority legislatures, such as North Carolina, Georgia, and Oklahoma.  By contrast, recently hostile changes to ballot access laws have been passed in Democratic-majority states, such as New York, Nevada, Minnesota, and Colorado.

Most commentary suggests that the voters who were attracted to Kennedy were also attracted to Trump.  Both candidates appealed to voters who feel hostile toward what they term the status quo.  Harris would have been aided if Kennedy had remained in the race.

---

TOP-TWO NEWS

California:  on November 21, three ballot-qualified minor parties filed a federal lawsuit against the top-two system, which has been in effect since 2011.  The three plaintiffs are the Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.  Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 4:24cv-08308.  The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney, a Clinton appointee.

No federal court has ever upheld the California top-two system.  The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Washington state top-two case in 2008, but said in footnote eleven that it was not deciding the ballot access issue, because the lower courts hadn’t ruled on the ballot access issue either.

A California State Court of Appeals upheld the California top-two in 2015, in Rubin v Padilla, but the decision makes three major factual errors, which are discussed in the March 1, 2015 Ballot Access News, which can be read at www.ballot-access.org.

South Dakota:  on November 5, the voters defeated Constitutional Amendment H by a margin of 34.4% to 65.6%.  The amendment would have injured ballot access two ways:  (1) based on the experience of the other top-two states, California and Washington, it would have kept all minor party candidates off the general election ballot, except in races in which only one major party candidate entered the race; (2) because parties remain on the ballot in South Dakota by polling 2.5% for any statewide race, and because they would no longer be on the November ballot except for President, they would lose their qualified status.  Top-two proponents never seem to notice the latter flaw when they write their initiatives.

This was the ninth time that a top-two ballot measure had been on a statewide ballot.

It has now passed twice and been defeated seven times.  The two wins were in Washington in 2004 and California in 2010.  The losses have been in California in 2004, Arizona in 2012, Oregon in 2008 and 2014, South Dakota in 2016 and 2024, and Florida in 2020.  The greatest loss for top-two ballot measures was in Oregon in 2014, when it only got 31.8%.

Oklahoma:  on November 19, a group called Oklahoma United said it would try to put an initiative on the 2026 ballot to implement a top-two system.

---

TOP-FOUR NEWS

Alaska:  on November 5, the voters supported the top-four system that has been in place starting in 2022.  Measure 2 was an initiative to eliminate top-four, and it lost with 49.9% of the vote.  Therefore, Alaska remains the only state using top-four.

Arizona:  on November 5, voters defeated Proposition 140, which would have imposed a system in which all candidates run in the primary, and then only the top two, four, or five would have been able to run in the general election.  The proposition didn’t actually choose between two, four, or five.  Instead it said that if the measure passed, the legislature would decide whether the top two, four or five candidates would advance.

The measure received 41.3% of the vote.  It said that if the legislature refused to decide between two, four, or five, then the Secretary of State would decide.  It said that if the outcome were four or five candidates, then ranked choice voting would be used in the general election.

Colorado:  on November 5, voters defeated Proposition 131, which would have established a top-four system.  It received 46.5%.  This was an amazing outcome, because the proponents had raised $9,300,000, while opponents had only raised $90,000.  Opponents were outspent 100:1.

Idaho:  on November 5, the voters defeated Proposition One, which would have created a top-four system.  It received 30.4%.  Proponents had raised $5,500,000; opponents had raised approximately $1,000,000.

Montana:  on November 5, the voters defeated Constitutional Initiative 126, which would have imposed a top-four primary.  It received 48.9%.  Unlike all the other top-four measures, it did not mandate Ranked Choice Voting.

A second initiative, Constitutional Initiative 127, would have said that election law must be changed so that only candidates who receive a majority of the vote could be elected.  It left it up to the legislature to decide how to realize that goal.  It received 39.6% of the vote.

If CI-126 had passed, but CI-127 had not passed, then Montana would have had a general election system in which it probably would have been common for three Republicans and one Democrat to appear on the general election ballot for a single office.  Without Ranked Choice Voting, this system obviously would have been very unfair to the Republican Party.

CI-126 was doubly bad for ballot access, because under current law, parties remain on the ballot by polling 5% of the winning gubernatorial candidate’s vote.  With minor parties for statewide office unlikely to get on the November ballot, they would have lost their qualified status.

---

TOP-FIVE NEWS

Nevada:  on November 5, the voters defeated Question 3, which would have created a top-five system.  It received 47.0% of the vote.  The outcome was surprising, because the same measure had passéd in 2022 with 52.9% of the vote.  However, in Nevada, initiatives must pass in two elections in a row in order to take effect.  This is the only top-five measure that has ever been on any state’s ballot.

---

HIGH COURT ASKS FOR RESPONSE IN UPSTATE JOBS PARTY CASE

On November 20, the U.S. Supreme Court asked New York to respond to the cert petition filed by the Upstate Jobs Party.  This is the first time since 2020 that the Court has shown that much interest in a cert petition filed by a minor party or an independent candidate.  The issue is whether it is constitutional for a state to permit larger campaign contributions to the nominee of a major party than to the nominee of an unqualified party or an independent candidate.

The case is Upstate Jobs Party v Kosinski, 24-503.  It had won in U.S. District Court, but then the Second Circuit had reversed, saying the law doesn’t violate Equal Protection because minor party and independent candidates aren‘t “similarly situated” to major party candidates.

This is the first time since 2020 that the Court has shown that much interest in a cert petition filed by a minor party or independent candidate.  In 2020, it had asked for a response to the Arizona Libertarian Party’s cert petition involving primary ballot access.  In that instance, the Court had asked for the response after first considering the case at a conference.  Ultimately, it refused to hear that case.  Before that, the Supreme Court hadn’t asked for a response to a cert petition filed by a minor party or independent candidate since 2011, when it asked for one in Ralph Nader’s Hawaii ballot access case.

---

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE BILL

HB 2662, the National Popular Vote Plan bill, has been introduced in Pennsylvania with bi-partisan support.  It has four Democratic and two Republican sponsors.

---

RANKED CHOICE VOTING NEWS

Ballot measures to establish Ranked Choice Voting mostly passed in places where that measure was also not trying to simultaneously injure ballot access.  On November 5, these measures passed in the District of Columbia; Bloomington, Minnesota; Richmond, California; Oak Park, Illinois; and Peoria, Illinois (the Peoria measure is not binding, but was meant to measure public opinion).  However, the Oregon initiative lost.

Ranked Choice Voting helped boost the minor party and independent presidential vote in Alaska and Maine, the two places that used it in the presidential election.

Jill Stein’s highest percentage was in Maine.  Cornel West’s second-best and third best states were Alaska and Maine.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s third best state was Alaska (he wasn’t on in Maine).  Chase Oliver’s fourth best and fifth best states were Alaska and Maine.  Randall Terry’s best state was Alaska.  Peter Sonski of the American Solidarity Party polled his best percentage in Alaska.  The other minor party and independent candidates weren’t on in either Alaska or Maine.

---

LAWSUIT NEWS

Michigan:  on October 29, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to let Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. withdraw his name from the ballot.  Kennedy v Benson, 24A405.  However, Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented.  His dissent is only a sentence, and he said he agrees with the Sixth Circuit Judge in the same case who would have let Kennedy withdraw.

New Jersey:  on November 18, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the ballot access case of Shiva Ayyadurai, who had enough valid signatures but who was barred because he was born in India.  Ayyadurai v New Jersey Democratic State Committee, 24-342.

Ohio:  on November 1, the Sixth Circuit rejected Jill Stein’s lawsuit to force the Secretary of State to count her votes.  She was on the ballot but the Secretary of State ordered signs posted in all precincts telling voters that if they voted for her, their vote would not count.  The Sixth Circuit said she should have filed the case in state court, which was a legal error because when there is a time emergency, federal courts can accept the case.  Stein v LaRose, 24-3923.  The three judges were Richard Allen Griffin and Raymond A. Kethledge (Bush Jr. appointees) and Chad A. Readler (a Trump appointee).

Pennsylvania:  on October 31, the Third Circuit refused to order Cornel West put on the ballot.  West v Pennsylvania Department of State, 24-2913.  The case is still alive in the U.S. District Court, and it may result in an eventual decision that it is unconstitutional to force independent presidential elector candidates to file separate declarations of candidacy, given what the District Court judge wrote.  The qualified parties need not submit such declarations.

Wisconsin:  on October 29, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to let Robert F. Kennedy, Jr withdraw his name from the ballot.  Kennedy v Wisconsin Election Commission, 24A399.

---

ARIZONA VOTERS DEFEAT MEASURES TO HARM INITIATIVE

On November 5, Arizona voters defeated two measures that would have made it more difficult to use the initiative process.  Both had been put on the ballot by the legislature.  Measure 134 would have created a distribution requirement, with signatures needed in each of the 30 legislative districts.  Measure 136 would have allowed state courts to invalidate measures before the voters had voted on them.

---

2024 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE (NOT FINAL!)

State	Trump	Harris	Stein	Kennedy	Oliver	De la Cruz	West	Terry
Alabama	1,457,704	769,391	4,297	12,026	4,914	?	?	?
Alaska	184,204	139,812	2,340	5,663	3,044	?	1,165	810
Arizona	1,770,242	1,582,860	18,319	?	17,898	?	?	?
Arkansas	759,241	396,905	4,275	13,255	5,715	?	?	?
Calif.	5,989,358	9,184,242	165,656	195,286	66,093	71,515	?	?
Colorado	1,377,111	1,727,622	17,334	35,612	21,432	?	5,147	3,522
Conn.	736,559	990,946	14,273	8,438	6,722	257	127	?
Del.	214,351	289,758	?	4,636	2,038	?	?	?
D.C.	21,076	294,185	?	2,778	?	?	?	?
Florida	6,110,125	4,683,038	43,155	?	31,972	11,969	?	5,834
Georgia	2,663,117	2,548,017	18,229	?	20,684	?	?	?
Guam	(12,624)	(13,510)	(119)	(938)	(0)	(0)	0	0
Hawaii	193,661	313,044	4,387	?	2,733	1,940	0	0
Idaho	605,246	274,972	2,973	12,812	4,462	1,230	?	1,026
Illinois	2,448,038	3,060,875	?	80,006	?	?	?	?
Indiana	1,720,347	1,153,603	?	29,325	20,425	?	?	?
Iowa	927,019	707,278	?	13,122	7,218	1,427	?	?
Kansas	741,464	531,989	?	15,806	7,406	?	?	?
Kentucky	1,336,230	700,921	7,538	16,753	6,409	389	?	?
Louisiana	1,208,505	766,870	7,138	6,641	6,835	1,481	2,623	1,424
Maine	374,357	430,222	9,003	?	7,040	?	2,896	?
Maryland	1,028,785	1,870,813	32,376	28,364	15,435	?	?	?
Mass.	1,236,069	2,075,285	25,412	?	17,372	12.259	?	?
Michigan	2,816,636	2,736,533	44,607	26,785	22,440	458	6,664	6,509
Minn.	1,519,032	1,656,979	16,275	24,001	15,155	2,996	3,136	?
Miss.	708,339	428,641	1,787	5,119	2,407	1,034	?	969
Missouri	1,739,020	1,190,806	16,956	?	23,754	?	?	?
Montana	352,001	231,856	1,878	11,824	4,273	?	?	?
Nebraska	564,755	369,959	2,886	?	6,397	?	3,061	?
Nevada	751,205	705,197	0	0	6,059	0	0	0
N. Hamp.	395,531	418,496	3,680	?	4,425	?	?	?
N. Jersey	1,969,133	2,221,071	39,007	23,497	10,476	5,090	?	3,015
N. Mex.	423,391	478,802	4,611	9,553	3,745	2,442	?	?
N. York	3,466,769	4,386,840	?	?	?	?	?	?
No. Car.	2,898,099	2,714,494	24,756	?	22,113	?	12,089	6,862
No. Dak.	246,505	112,327	?	?	6,227	?	?	?
Ohio	3,116,579	2,476,003	?	?	27,502	1,287	?	?
Okla.	1,036,213	499,599	?	16,020	9,198	0	0	0
Oregon	910,055	1,227,740	18,793	33,339	8,919	?	5,558	1,824
Penn.	3,542,813	3,421,948	34,521	?	33,310	?	?	?
R.I.	214,406	285,156	2,900	5,045	1,617	1,176	?	?
S.Car.	1,483,747	1,028,452	8,117	0	12,669	3,059	6,744	5,352
S.Dak.	272,081	146,859	0	7,204	2,778	0	0	0
Tenn.	1,964,499	1,055,039	8,953	21,511	?	3,451	?	?
Texas	6,375,318	4,806,441	82,299	?	68,266	2,161	1,688	?
Utah	883,818	562,566	8,222	?	16,902	3,189	2,199	?
Vermont	119,395	235,791	?	5,905	1,828	1,710	1,549	?
Virginia	2,075,061	2,335,367	34,888	?	19,814	8,410	8,983	?
Wash.	1,526,507	2,241,552	29,676	54,696	16,386	8,658	7,245	?
W.Va.	533,556	214,309	2,531	8,947	3,047	?	?	?
Wisc.	1,699,313	1,669,767	12,259	17,668	10,508	2,026	2,745	4,050
Wyoming	192,633	69,527	?	?	4,193	?	?	?
TOTAL	76,899,219	74,420,765	776,307	751,637	640,256	145,909	71,804	41,197

---

2026 STATEWIDE PETITIONING

State	Requirements		Signatures or Registrations Obtained
	Full Party	Candidate	Libertarian	Green	Constitut.	Wk. Fam.	No Labels	Forward
Ala.	42,353	5,000	0	0	0	0	0	0
Alaska	(reg)   5,000	3,614	already on	1,527	797	0	?	?
Ariz.	34,116	(es) #46,000	already on	already on	0	0	already on	0
Ark.	10,000	5,000	0	0	0	0	0	0
Calif.	(reg) (es) 78,000	65	already on	already on	242	0	40,335	287
Colo.	10,000	12,000	already on	already on	already on	0	already on	0
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start
Del.	(est.) (reg) 780	(est.) 7,800	already on	already on	238	329	already on	?
D.C.	no procedure	#3,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start
Florida	0	0	already on	already on	already on	0	0	alredy on
Georgia	69,884	#7,500	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start
Hawaii	861	5,745	already on	already on	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	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kansas	19,890	5,000	already on	0	0	0	already on	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	154	0	on if pay fee	0
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	already on	already on	?	?	already on	?
Md.	10,000	10,000	0	already on	0	0	already on	0
Mass.	(est) (reg) 49,000	#10,000	16,307	3,599	292	722	?	?
Mich.	44,478	30,000	already on	already on	already on	0	0	0
Minn.	(est) 165,000	#2,000	0	0	0	0	0	0
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	already on	0
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	0	0	0	0	0
Mont.	5,000	#17,725	already on	0	0	0	0	0
Nebr.	6,605	2,500	already on	0	0	0	0	0
Nev.	14,271	250	already on	0	already on	0	0	0
N. Hamp.	24,406	#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	unclear	0	0	0	0
N.Y.	no procedure	#45,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start
No. Car.	13,979	83,874	already on	already on	0	0	0	0
No. Dak.	7,000	1,000	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ohio	56,447	5,000	already on	0	0	0	0	1,000
Okla.	35,592	pay fee	already on	0	0	0	0	0
Oregon	28,576	22,212	already on	already on	already on	already on	0	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	0
So. Dak.	3,502	3,502	already on	0	0	0	0	0
Tenn.	56,083	275	0	0	0	0	0	0
Texas	80,778	113,151	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	0	already on	0	0	0
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	0	0	0	0	0
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	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	already on	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			31	19	13	4	7	0

#partisan label permitted. “WK FAM” = Working Families.  “(reg.) = registered members.  Four years ago at this time, the Libertarians were on in 32 jurisdictions; Green in 15; Constitution in 13.

---

FOURTEEN INDEPENDENTS WIN FOR FEDERAL OR STATE OFFICE

On November 5, two independents were re-elected to the U.S. Senate (Bernie Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine), and twelve independent candidates won elections to state legislatures:

Alaska: Rebecca Himschoot, Ky Holland, Calvin Schrage, Alyse S. Galvin, and Bryce Edgmon, were all elected to the House.

Maine:  William Pluecker was elected to the House.

Massachusetts:  Susannah Whipps was elected to the House.

Rhode Island:  Jon Brien was elected to the House.

Vermont:  Jed Lipsky, Anne Donahue, and Laura Sibilia were all elected to the House.

Kentucky:  Scott Madon, a write-in candidate, was elected to the Senate.  There were two candidates’ names on the ballot, but signs were posted in the polling places saying votes for them would not be counted.  One had died and the other had withdrawn too late to get his name off the ballot.  Madon is a registered Republican but he was not the Republican nominee.

---

PROGRESSIVE PARTY WINS SIX LEGISLATIVE RACES, BUT LOSES THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR RACE

On November 5, the Vermont Progressive Party won six legislative races:  State Senate, Tanya Vyhovsky; State House, Brian Cina, Troy Hendrick, Kate Logan, Chloe Tomlinson, and Heather Moore.  All are party members.  They were also nominated by the Democratic Party, but the ballot listed them as “Progressive, Democrat” indicating by the order of parties that they are Progressive Party members.

But the party lost the Lieutenant Governor’s race.  Its incumbent, David Zuckerman, lost to the Republican.  No one got a majority; the third candidate on the ballot was the nominee of the Green Mountain Peace & Justice Party.

---

NO BALANCE OF POWER IN ANY STATE

On November 5, either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris got over 50% of the vote in every state except Michigan and Wisconsin.  And even in those two states, no single “other” presidential candidate received as many votes as the margin between the two.

---

GREEN AND LIBERTARIAN PARTIES WIN NON-PARTISAN OFFICES

On November 5, twenty Green Party members were elected to non-partisan office:  Haryakasha Gregor Knauer to the Coconino County, Arizona Tech Ed Board; Sylvia Chavez, Calipatria, California city council; Aqeela El-Amin Bakheit, Lake County, California Education Board; Jesus “Jesse” Mendoza, Mendota, California city council; Gabriel Medina, Watsonville, California school board; Zachary Saltzberg, Sebastopol, California school board; Rand Marx, Sacramento County, California water board; Jane Jarlsberg, San Bernardino County water board; Jocelyn Bolanos, Alderpoint, California water board; Alan Hangar, Vacaville, California water board; Christopher Medeiros, Merced County, California irrigation board; Eduardo Torres, Contra Costa County, California Parks Board; Nancy Heliotes, Napa, California Parks Board; Harry Farmer, Cambria, California Community Services Board; Kimory Orendoff, Anna Roblin, Slobodan Milic, to Washington, D.C. Neighborhood Advisory Boards; Kim O’Connor, Leon County, Florida water board; Lynette McLaughlin, Houlton, Maine water board; Eugene Platt, James Ialand, South Carolina public service board.

Libertarians elected are Aaron Starr, Oxnard, California city council; Bob Kerwin, Menifee, California city council; Brian Holtz, Purissima Hills, California water board; Terri L. Wallert, Keensburg, Colorado Trustee Board; James Doyle, Belleville, Kansas city council; Aaron Judd, Dayton, Kentucky city council; Chad Finkenbiner, Orchard Grass Hills, Kentucky city council; Ben Dejong, Lake Odessa, Michigan trustee; Brice Burge, Munising City Commission, Michigan; Larry Johnson, Ypsilanti Twp, Michigan Parks Commission; Jim Pinkman, Ashland, Nebraska city council; Jesse Schmidt, Bennet, Nebraska city council; Clay Andersen, Chadron, Nebraska city council; Katherine Schwieger, Reynolds, Nebraska board; Cole Stark, Waverly, Nebraska school board; Don Jacobson, Lower Platte South Natural Resources Board, Nebraska; Caitlin Statkus, Montague, New Jersey school board.  It is also possible Wendy Hewitt was elected to the Calimesa, California city council but the votes haven’t all been counted yet and only 19 votes separate her from her opponent.

---

JILL STEIN GETS MATCHING FUNDS

Jill Stein qualified for primary season matching funds this year, and has received $379,983.