ARIZONA STATE COURT SAYS POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHANGE THEIR NAMES

On March 25, an Arizona state trial court ruled that a political party has no right to change its name, unless there is a preexisting state law that gives parties permission to change their names.  Arizona Clean Elections Commission v Fontes, Maricopa County Superior Court, cv2025-064149.

As a result, unless an appeal reverses the decision, the Arizona Independent Party must go back to being called the No Labels Party.  Last year, the party had held a vote for its registered members, and they voted overwhelmingly to change the name.  The Secretary of State then permitted the change, but he was sued by the Clean Elections Commission, the Arizona Democratic Party, and the Arizona Republican Party.  They not only argued that a party can’t change its name; they also said that particular name would cause confusion, an issue not in the decision.

The decision says if parties could change their name, they might deliberately do an initial qualifying petition using an appealing name, and then after the petition had been verified, they would change the name to something unappealing and unpopular, such as “Arizona Nazi Party” or “Arizona Anarchists.”

It is probably true that unpopular groups would have trouble qualifying in Arizona. The state requires 34,127 signatures, one of the nation’s highest barriers.  It is so high that Arizona is one of only four states in which the Constitution Party has never been able to put its presidential nominee on the ballot.

But in a free society, even unpopular parties have a right to get on the ballot.  The U.S. Supreme Court has never cast doubt on that statement.

The Court has said states have an interest in blocking frivolous candidates.  On the other hand, in 1974, it unanimously struck down an Indiana law that barred the Communist Party.  The Communist Party at that time, and to this day, had never polled more than one-fourth of 1% of the national presidential vote.  Nor did it ever win a partisan election anywhere in the United States (except that it won two city council seats in New York City under a proportional representation system).

The answer to the judge’s hypothetical is that the state should make it easier for parties to get on the ballot, thus ending the temptation for a “bait and switch”, as the judge labeled it.  Furthermore, there have been over 100 instances when a state let a party change its name, and there is no instance of an actual “bait and switch.”

The decision doesn’t mention any of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have ruled that parties enjoy a First Amendment freedom to run their own affairs.  For example, in 1995, it ruled that if a party wants independents to vote in its primary, it doesn’t need state permission to do that.  Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut.  In 1989, it ruled that a party is free to organize itself as it wishes and need not conform to state laws on how a party should be structured.  San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v Eu. 

In three separate decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, it ruled that parties can seat whichever state delegates it wishes to, at its national conventions, regardless of the outcome of state presidential primaries.  Brown v O’Brien, Democratic Party v Wisconsin ex rel LaFollette, and Cousins v Wigoda.

In 2000, the Court ruled that if a party doesn’t want members of other parties voting in its primaries, it can block them, regardless of state law.  California Democratic Party v Jones.

Major parties and minor parties alike have frequently changed their names.  The Democratic Party was first called the Democratic-Republican Party, then the Jacksonian Democratic Party, and finally its current name.  The Republican Party changed its name to the Union Party in 1864, and changed it back in 1865.  The Socialist Party’s first name was the Social Democratic Party.  The Prohibition Party’s original name was the Temperance Party.  The Communist Party’s original name was the Workers Party.

It would be shocking if the government told individuals, churches, businesses, or civic groups that they cannot change their names without government approval.  The United States signed the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in 1990.  We and the other signing nations promised to keep “a clear separation between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with the State.”

The Secretary of State will not appeal, but the Arizona Independent Party probably will appeal, and it may even file a lawsuit in federal court to emphasize the constitutinal issues.  No court decision ever before said that a party can’t change its name without getting government approval.  Fifteen states had previously let parties change their names, something that was in the record, but which the decision did not mention.

---

CALIFORNIA LAW FOR GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES TO SUBMIT TAX RETURNS

In 2019, bills were introduced in the legislatures of many states to keep presidential candidates off primary ballots unless they submitted copies of their income tax returns.  But, only in California did such a bill become law.  The motivation for these bills was that Donald Trump was not voluntarily revealing his tax returns.  For thirty years, it had become traditional for leading presidential candidates to submit their tax returns.

The California bill also included gubernatorial candidates, in an attempt to make the bill seem less like a personal attack on Trump.

In 2019, both the California Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court ruled that requiring presidential candidates to file copies of their tax returns is unconstitutional.  The federal court said the tax returns requirement was an additional qualification, and states are not permitted to add to the qualifications to be President that are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.  That decision was Trump v Padilla, e.d., 2:19cv-1501.

A month later, the California Supreme Court also invalidated the law as to presidential candidates, because the State Constitution said that presidential candidates mentioned in the media should automatically appear on the presidential primary ballot.  Patterson v Padilla, Cal 5^th  220.

The state had appealed Trump v Padilla, to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit said the case was moot, given the outcome in the state Supreme Court.

That left the law only applicable to gubernatorial candidates.  It was a very strict law.  It said the candidate had to submit the last five years of returns.  If the most recent return wasn’t available on filing day, it had to be submitted later.

Also, the candidate had to send two copies for each year.  One was original and one had to have redactions of the candidate’s Social Security number, home address, phone number, e-mail address, medical information, and bank account number.

In 2021, California held a recall gubernatorial election.  Larry Elder was kept off the ballot by the Secretary of State because one of his redacted returns forgot to delete his Social Security number.  Elder sued and won, on the grounds that the tax returns law didn’t apply to recall gubernatorial elections.  In 2023, the legislature amended the law to extend the tax returns requirement to recall elections and general elections.

Now, the tax returns law is causing more heartache for gubernatorial candidates.  A Korean-American pastor, Che Ahn, was kept off the 2026 primary ballot because he did not file copies of his tax returns.  He did not know about the requirement.  He said he looked in the State Constitution to read about the qualifications, and he complied with all of them.  But, the tax returns law is not in the Constitution; it is only a statute.  He sued and argued that the law is unconstitutional because it adds to the qualifications listed in the state Constitution, and statutes can’t do that.

He sued in Superior Court.  Ahn v Weber, 26WM000058.  The judge said at oral argument that it a close call, but that she felt the tax returns law is a ballot access law, not a qualification.  She did not put that conclusion in writing; the decision only says “Denied.”  Ahn appealed to the Appeals Court, but it also denied him any relief.  It did not issue a written opinion or any other explanation.

The Secretary of State also removed Butch Ware from the ballot.  He was the only Green Party candidate running for Governor.

The Secretary said there were slight discrepancies between his original returns and his redacted returns, for two particular years.  He also sued, arguing that he had sent corrected copies before the deadline.  Ware v Weber, 26WM000074.  But, on March 26, he lost in Superior Court.  The evidence is very convoluted.  The judge did not explain his reasoning.  Ware will appeal, but it is too late for him to get on the ballot, no matter how the appeal turns out.

After the hearing, he noticed that at least one other gubernatorial candidate who is on the ballot did not redact his home address from any of his redacted returns.  He also noted that three other candidates who are on the ballot did not retract their entire address; they only redacted the street name and street number, but not the city and zip code.  Also, there are some candidates whose names on the tax returns are entirely different from their names as candidates.  This leads to a suspicion that the Secretary of State, a Democrat, was not evenhanded.  She scrutinized Ware’s tax returns more than she scrutinized the returns of other candidates.  A political motive may lie in Ware’s effect on the campaign.  All polls that included him showed him at least at 2%.  That may sound trivial, until one realizes that no Democrat is above 10%, and Democrats need every vote they can get to prevent the two leading Republicans from placing first and second in the top-two primary.

The argument that the tax returns law is a qualification is strong.  The Ninth Circuit already ruled in 2000 that requiring a candidate for Congress to be a registered voter is also an impermissible qualification. And, this year a Superior Court ruled that requiring a congressional candidate to swear loyalty to the California Constitution is a qualification.  Scott v Weber, 26WM000074.  Ironically, that decision was made by the same judge who ruled against Ware.

---

BALLOT ACCESS BILLS

Alabama:  the legislature adjourns on April 16, and HB 67 hasn‘t yet been brought up in the State Senate.  It has passed the House and the Senate committee.  It would drastically lower the cost of the voter registration list, from about $36,000, to exactly $1,000.  This bill would indirectly help ballot access, because access to the list is helpful for petitioning candidates and groups who want to check the validity of their own petitions before submitting them.

Arizona:  on March 12, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 4115.  It would have required paid initiative petitioners to tell everyone they approach what state the petitioner lives in and that the petitioner is being paid.  The veto message said that it is important to protect the initiative process.

Michigan:  on March 18, the Senate passed SB 697, which lowers the number of signatures for statewide independent candidates from 30,000 to 15,000.  The 30,000 figure was declared unconstitutional several years ago in federal court.  The Court had set the number at 12,000 until the legislature acted.  So if this bill passes, the number will actually go up somewhat, but it will be good to have the court’s decision codified.

Minnesota:  HF 3534 failed to advance, and it is now too late.  It would have eased the definition of a party from a group that polled 8% at either of the last two elections to 1%.

Rhode Island:  on February 26, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 2593.  It would have eased the definition of a qualified party from a group that polled 5% for Governor or President to one that polled 2% for any statewide race at either of the last two elections, or which had 5,000 registrants, or which had a state legislator.

---

TOP-TWO THWARTED IN THREE STATES

Hawaii:  on March 10, the Senate defeated SB 2480, which would have changed the state from an open primary state, to a top-two state.

Oklahoma:  on March 5, the Secretary of State determined that the initiative for a top-two system did not have enough valid signatures to qualify.  It had 209,616 signatures, but only 142,567 were valid.  The requirement was 172,993.

Oregon:  on March 6, the legislature adjourned without passing HB 1330.  It would have created a hybrid primary system.  There would be a top-two primary, but also if any party failed to have a member advance to the general election in that primary, it could still have placed someone on the general election ballot.  It had not made any headway in the legislature.

---

GAVIN NEWSOM BOOK DESCRIBES HOW HE MANIPULATED 2018 TOP-TWO ELECTION

California Governor Gavin Newsom published an autobiography recently, titled Young Man in a Hurry.  Page 229 describes how he won the 2018 gubernatorial election by manipulating the top-two system.

As the book recounts, Newsom, running for his first term, considered Antonio Villaraigosa his strongest opponent.  Villaraigosa was also a Democrat.  He had been Mayor of Los Angeles and Speaker of the Assembly.  As the book relates, “My political team executed a stunning move that seemed counterintuitive but proved quite effective.  It was a trick that the frustrated magician in me couldn’t help but love.  We began to focus the lion’s share of our advertising on attacking not Villaraigosa but the strongest Republican in the race, John Cox.  Our calculation was simple:  Cox had little chance to win California.  An attorney and housing developer, Cox was a Chicagoan who had lost every race he ever ran in, including those for Cook County recorder, U.S. Senator, and U.S. president.  What happened next was fascinating to watch.  The more our ads attacked Cox, the bigger his name recognition became and the more support he garnered from the Far Right.  In essence, we were helping Cox build his MAGA base and gain enough votes to place second. We were boosting Cox as our opponent for the general election, not Antonio.  I don’t think Antonio, a skilled and charismatic politician, knew what hit him at first.  Here he was spending all his resources attacking me in his ads, and here we were going after Cox.  The thinking was, we didn’t want to run against Antonio, so we didn’t focus on Antonio.  The minute I won the primary and Cox came in second, we had the general election matchup we wanted.”

LAST TIME EACH STATE CHANGED ITS PARTY RETENTION LAW

STATE	YEAR	WHAT WAS THE CHANGE?
Alabama	1982	From just running one candidate every 4 years, to polling 20% for any statewide race
Alaska	2022	Lowered registration test from 3% of the last vote cast, to exactly 5,000 members
Arizona	1992	Added an alternate registration test for parties to remain, besides the vote test
Arkansas	1977	Lowered the vote test from 7% for Governor/President, to 3%
California	2014	Lowered the registration test from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to .33% of registration
Colorado	1998	Lowered vote test from 10% for Gov., to 1% for any statewide race either of last 2 elections
Conn.	1957	Raised the vote test from 0.5% for any particular office, to 1%
Delaware	2010	Raised the registration test from one-twentieth of 1% to one-tenth of 1%
D.C.	1999	Lowered the vote test for presidential status from having elected a president, to 7,500 votes
Florida	1999	Eased the definition of party from a group with registration of 5%, to any group with officers
Georgia	2024	No vote test for parties that are on for president in 20 other states (only applies to president)
Hawaii	1997	From petitioned for 3 elections in a row, to being on for any reason 3 elections in a row
Idaho	1977	Added an alternative to the vote test:  just running at least 3 nominees
Illinois	1931	Raised the vote test from 2% for any statewide office, to 5%
Indiana	1980	Raised the vote test from one-half of 1% for Secretary of State, to 2%
Iowa	2025	Provided that groups must meet the vote test for three elections in a row before qualifying
Kansas	1984	From no requirement at all, to vote test of 1% for any statewide office
Kentucky	1972	Vote test changed from 2% for any statewide race, to 2% for President
Louisiana	2025	Raised registration test from 1,000 to 5,000
Maine	2017	Lowered registration test from 10,000 to 5,000
Maryland	1998	Lowered the vote test from 3% for President/Governor to 1%
Mass.	1990	Eased the vote test from 3% for Governor, to 3% for any statewide office
Michigan	2004	Changed vote test from 1% vote for candidate at top of ballot, to 1% for any statewide office
Minn.	2023	Raised vote test from 5% for any statewide office to 8%
Miss.	– – –	No change has ever been made to the original law, just to be organized
Missouri	1979	Eased the vote test from 2% for any statewide race, to same at either of last two elections
Montana	1991	Eased the vote test from 5% of winner’s vote, to same at either of last two elections
Nebraska	2017	Expanded how parties can remain qualified to include having 10,000 registrants
Nevada	1993	Lowered the vote test from 3% for any office, to 1%
N. Hamp.	1997	Raised vote test from 3% for Governor, to 4% for either Governor or US Senator
N. Jersey	1920	Raised vote test from 2% of the total Assembly vote, to 10%
N Mexico	1983	Lowered vote test for major party status from 15% to 5%
New York	2020	Raised vote test from 50,000 votes for Governor, to 2% for President and Governor
No. Car.	2017	Added alternate to the vote test, that party is on if its presidential nominee was on in 35 states
No. Dak.	2005	Expanded vote test from 5% for President or Governor, to also several other statewide offices
Ohio	2013	Lowered the vote test from 5% for President/Governor, to 3%
Oklahoma	2018	Eased vote test from 2.5% for President/Gov., to 2.5% any statewide, either of last 2 elections
Oregon	2013	Eased reg. test from from one-half of 1% to one-quarter of 1%
Pennsyl.	1986	Changed from vote test of 2% of the winner’s vote, to having 15% registration membership
Rhode Is.	1994	Eased vote test from 5% for President/Governor, to either one of those offices
So. Car.	1986	From no requirement at all, to must run a candidate every four years
So. Dak.	2018	Eased vote test for a party from just Gov., to any statewide office, either of last 2 elections
Tennessee	2016	Changed the vote test for any statewide at either of last two elections, to last election
Texas	2019	Lowered the vote test from 5% for any statewide, to 2% for any statewide in last ten years
Utah	2012	Eased vote test from 2% for any statewide race, to same at either of last two elections
Vermont	1977	Eliminated 1% vote test, to just having town committees in any ten towns
Virginia	1991	Eased vote test from 10% for any statewide, to same at either of last two elections
Wash.	2009	Changed vote test from 5% for any statewide, to president only
W. Va.	1916	Lowered vote test from 5% for Governor, to 1% for Governor
Wisconsin	1985	Eased vote test from 1% for any statewide, to same at either of last two elections
Wyoming	1998	Lowered vote test from 3% for U.S. House, to 2% for one of several statewide offices

For more about this chart, see the article below about the Hawaii bill.

---

HAWAII BILL EASING DEFINITION OF A QUALIFIED PARTY

On March 17, the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee passed HB 1716.  It says that if a party has been on the ballot for at least eight continuous years, then it automatically remains on the ballot, as long as it runs at least one candidate and keeps its list of officers up to date with the state Elections Office.  If the bill passes, it will help the Green and Libertarian Parties.  The bill had passed the House on March 10.

This bill was the idea of one particular Green Party activist, Nick Nikhilananda.  He persuaded his own legislator to introduce the bill, and is is likely to pass.  No legislator so far has voted against it.

BAN commends Nikhilananda.  More activism of this type would be extraordinarily helpful to the restoration of free elections in the United States.  The chart on page four shows that the laws on how parties remain on the ballot are constantly changing, for better or worse.

---

2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES

State	Party sigs	Indp sigs	Lib’tarian	Green	Constitut.	Forward	Pty due	Indep due
Alabama	42,459	42,459	0	0	0	0	May 19	May 19
Alaska	(reg) 5,000	#Pay fee	already on	*1,508	*772	0	May 4	June 1
Arizona	34,127	#44,539	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	*Nv 14, 25	May 6
Arkansas	10,000	10,000	*already on	0	0	0	April 28	*May 1
Calif.	(reg) *76,204	65	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	Dec 31 25	March 6
Colorado	10,000	#8,000	already on	already on	already on	*already on	Jan 9	July 9
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	*0	*0	*0	*0	– –	Aug 10
Del.	(reg) 780	7,800	already on	already on	*226	*2	Aug 25	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	#3,000	can’t start	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– –	Aug 5
Florida	be organized	0	already on	already on	already on	already on	Apr 24	Apr 24
Georgia	72,680	#70,083	500	0	0	0	July 14	July 14
Hawaii	861	25	already on	*already on	*too late	*too late	Feb 20	June 2
Idaho	18,349	1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Aug 30	March 21
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	*0	*1,500	*0	*0	– –	May 25
Indiana	no procedure	#36,944	already on	0	0	0	– –	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#3,500	*2,250	0	0	0	– –	June 2
Kansas	20,180	5,000	already on	0	0	0	June 1	Aug 3
Kentucky	no procedure	#5,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	– –	Aug 11
Louisiana	1,000  + 5,000	5,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	*Feb 13	*Feb 13
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	already on	already on	0	0	Jan 2	June 1
Maryld.	10,000	10,000	*6,100	already on	0	0	July 1	Aug 3
Mass.	(reg) 45, 500	#10,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	Feb. 1	July 28
Michigan	44,618	12,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 16	July 16
Minn.	163,621	#2,000	0	0	0	0	May 2	June 2
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	*Feb 2	Feb. 2
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	200	0	Muly 27	July 27
Montana	5,000	#12,788	already on	0	0	0	March 2	May 26
Nebraska	6,726	4,000	already on	0	0	0	Aug 3	Sept 1
Nevada	14,271	250	already on	0	already on	*30	May 12	May 12
N.Hamp	24,375	#3,000	*0	*0	*300	*0	Aug 4	Aug 4
N Jersey	no procedure	#2,000	*150	*200	0	0	– –	June 2
N Mex	3,560 +14,246	14,246	already on	already on	0	*finished	June 25	June 25
N York	no procedure	#45,000	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	May 26
No Caro	*14,310	83,874	already on	already on	*0	*7,000	May 17	March 3
No Dak	7,000	1,000	0	0	0	0	April 6	Aug 31
Ohio	57,678	5,000	already on	0	0	3,000	July 1	May 4
Okla	34,599	0	already on	0	0	0	March 2	April 10
Oregon	29,294	22,445	already on	already on	already on	0	Aug 11	Aug 11
Penn.	no procedure	#5,000	*50	*0	*0	*0	– –	Aug 3
R.I.	*25,670	#1,000	0	0	0	0	Aug 3	July 10
So.Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	May 3	July 15
So.Dak.	3,502	3,502	already on	0	0	0	July 1	April 28
Tenn	43,498	25	0	0	0	0	Aug 5	*March 10
Texas	81,030	81,030	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	May 26	*May 11
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	Nv  30 ‘25	June 15
Vermont	be organized	#500	already on	0	0	0	Dec 31 ‘25	Aug 6
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	*0	*0	*0	*0	—	June 16
Wash.	no procedure	#0	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– –	May 8
W.Va.	no procedure	#7,478	already on	already on	already on	0	– –	Aug 3
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	*0	April 1	June 1
Wyoming	5,201	5,201	already on	0	already on	0	June 1	Aug 24
#ON			31	*18	12	*4

* means change since March 1, 2026 B.A.N.

---

CONGRESSMAN KEVIN KILEY BECOMES AN INDEPENDENT

On March 6, Congressmember Kevin Kiley of California announced that he had changed his registration from Republican to independent.  He is running for re-election, and his ballot label will be “no party preference”, which is the California label for independents.  He is the first member of the U.S. House not to be a member of the two major parties since Libertarian member Justin Amash left office in January 2021.

---

DEMOCRATIC PARTY SETS 2028 PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTION DATE

On March 2, the Democratic National Committee said the party’s 2028 presidential convention will be August 7-10, 2028.  The city has not yet been chosen.

There is a strong tradition that the party that holds the White House meets after the other major party.  Therefore, the Republican convention will almost certainly be in late August.  It is somewhat unusual for both major party conventions to be in August.  In both 2024 and 2020, one was in July and the other in August.  Neither major party wants to hold its convention during the Olympics.  The 2028 Olympics will last until the end of July.

---

2026 STATEWIDE PETITIONING

Besides the petitioning activity shown on page five, the Lincoln Party is petitioning in Indiana, the Independence Party is petitioning in Illinois, the Socialist Workers Party is petitioning in New Jersey, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation is petitioning in Massachusetts and Ohio.   A new party in Vermont, the Freedom & Unity Party, has completed its petition for Governor.  Its nominee is fourteen years of age.  Vermont is the only state with no constitutional age qualification for candidates for Governor.

The American Solidarity Party is now on the ballot in Delaware.  It did this by persuading the Conservative Party, which was already qualified, to become the state affiliate of ASP.

---

NEW PARTY IN ALASKA

Leaders of the Alaskan Independence Party, which recently dissolved itself, will try to qualify a new party in Alaska, the Alaskan Party.

---

RUTLAND, VERMONT ELECTS A MAYOR WITH WRITE-IN VOTES

On March 3, Rutland, Vermont, held a Mayoral election.  No candidates were on the ballot, so the election proceeded with all voters making their choice with a write-in vote.

---

LIBERTARIAN PARTY GAINS A PARTISAN OFFICEHOLDER IN NORTH CAROLINA

On March 11, New Hanover County Board of Education member David Perry said he had changed his registration from Republican to Libertarian.  His office is partisan, but he does not need to run for reelection until 2028.  New Hanover County is one of North Carolina’s most populous counties.

---

ERRATA

The March 1 B.A.N. said that no Republican would be on the November ballot for U.S. Senate in New Mexico, because no Republican had qualified for the June 2 primary for that office.  But New Mexico does permit write-ins in primaries, so it is possible the party will nominate someone by write-in votes.

---

BO GRITZ DIES

On February 27, Bo Gritz died at the age of 87.  He had been the Populist Party’s presidential nominee in 1992.  For someone who was not famous, he polled a surprisingly large share of the vote in certain places in Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, and Utah.  He received 11.8% in Duchesne County, Utah, and 12.4% in Franklin County, Idaho.  Nationwide he polled 107,014, the highest the Populist Party ever received for president.  Gritz was known as a reallife Rambo for his exploits in the Green Berets in southeast Asia.