FOR FIRST TIME, REPUBLICAN CHALLENGES TO MINOR PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE ACCESS ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGES
For ninety years, the Democratic Party has been far more active than the Republican Party in challenging various minor party and independent candidates from ballots. Yet, in 2026, for the first time, the Republican Party has filed more such challenges than the Democratic Party. Republican challenges this year are listed here:
Arizona: both major parties sued the Secretary of State when he let the No Labels Party change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. That case is still pending.
Florida(1): Republicans challenged Peter Jassenoff, the Libertarian nominee for U.S. House, 25th district. That is still pending.
Florida(2): Republicans challenged Addison Patrick, the Libertarian candidate for Jacksonville City Council. That failed.
Iowa(1): Republicans challenged Rick Stewart, Libertarian nominee for U.S. House, 2nd district. That is still pending.
Iowa(2): Republicans challenged Nicholas Gluba and Jules Cutler, the Libertarian nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. That is still pending.
Iowa(3): Republicans challenged Marco Battaglia, the Libertarian nominee for U.S. House, 3rd district. That is still pending.
Kansas: the Republican Secretary of State removed the No Labels Party from the ballot. That is still pending.
New Hampshire: the Republican Secretary of State challenged Aaron Day, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate. It is still pending.
New Jersey: the Republican Party challenged Lana Leguia, the Libertarian nominee for U.S. House, 7th district. That is still pending.
This list of nine far exceeds the number of Republican challenges to the ballot position of minor party or independent candidates in past years. Republican challenges to minor party and independent candidates are so rare, there are no known instances of such challenges to any minor party or independent presidential candidate by Republicans earlier than 1952, and then no others until 2008. In 2024, there were no Republican presidential challenges.
Democrats have only challenged minor party or independent candidates in two states this year so far (other than the Arizona instance mentioned above, which included both major parties):
California: the Democratic Secretary of State removed the Green Party gubernatorial candidate, Butch Ware, from the ballot. That is still pending in federal court.
Illinois: Democrats successfullychallenged two independent candidates for U.S. House in the 4th district, Mayra Macias and Byron Sigcho-Lopez. One or another of them may file lawsuits, but they haven’t yet.
ALASKA WIN
On June 26, an Alaska state trial court put Daniel J. Sullivan, a Republican, back on the primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senator. Another Dan Sullivan, the incumbent Republican, is also on that ballot, as a candidate for re-election. Sullivan v State Division of Elections, 3AN-26-07485 CI.
The Division had removed Daniel J. Sullivan because it believed he had entered the race just to confuse voters and injure Senator Sullivan.
But the court said that the state cannot remove candidates from the ballot just because it believes they are not “good faith” candidates. The court said this is especially true given that no law or regulation exists saying candidates can be removed for lacking “good faith.”
The state appealed, but on June 29, the State Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. The Supreme Court said it would explain its reasoning later (S-19935).
The problem of two candidates having the same name is an old problem, and many states have developed ways of handling the problem. California lists the occupation of each candidate on ballots. Some states indicate on the ballot if a candidate is an incumbent.
FLORIDA WIN
On July 2, a Florida state trial court ruled that Addison Patrick should remain on the ballot for Jacksonville city council. Jacksonville provides that parties don’t have nominees for city council, but candidates may have their party membership listed on the ballot. The challengers said Patrick, a registered Libertarian, had not been registered continuously as a Libertarian for a full year. But the court said the law that requires candidates to have been registered for a full year in their party does not apply to the Jacksonville election system. Republican Executive Committee of Duval County v Patrick, Duval Co., 2026-CA-4155.
WHY PETITIONING IS MORE DIFFICULT NOW
By Bill Redpath
I have been a Libertarian Party member since 1984 and first became a volunteer petitioner in 1988. I began organizing and running LP petition drives in 1990.
I used to have a rule of thumb that a typical professional petitioner could be expected to gather about 750 gross signatures per week. (“Gross” means total signatures, “net” means valid signatures.) Now 500 gross signatures is a good week for an experienced petitioner, in my experience.
What happened? There are several reasons that petitioning is more difficult today than in the past.
The more polarized political environment has made a smaller percentage of potential petition signers willing to sign petitions. Many supporters of one of the two major parties in the US are afraid to allow some candidates on the general election ballot, because they think it will make it harder for their preferred candidates to win. I think this concern sometimes extends to not signing petitions for candidates trying to get on primary ballots to tamp down intraparty competition. I think the community spirit of signing a petition (“Oh, sure, let’s give ‘em a chance.”) simply because a candidate wants to get on the ballot has declined.
When I began petitioning in 1988, I was working full time Mondays through Fridays, so my petitioning was mainly done on weekend days. I went to post offices many Saturday (and sometimes other) mornings in 1988 and had great success. I was not run off by USPS employees.
I do not know the exact chronology of USPS regulations and litigation over those regulations, but sometime in the early 1990s, the USPS decided that it was not going to allow petitioning on “interior sidewalks,” which are not public sidewalks, such as those that run near and parallel to city streets. This effectively makes most, but not all, post offices off limits to petitioning. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 2012 upheld the USPS regulations.
But, even post offices that have public sidewalks in front of them aren’t as good as in the past, because the number of post office visits by USPS customers are down more than 50% since 2000 due to digital communication and online postal services, according to the USPS.
Also, according to Publishers Weekly, the number of public library visits is down 20% to 50% just since the early 2010s. Foot traffic at utility payment offices is also down with more online bill payments.
Other government agencies are now taking a cue from USPS regulations that have been upheld and are now banning petitioning on their own interior sidewalks. Most regrettably, some public libraries have banned petitioning or make petitioners stand 40 feet from the door, much farther than necessary to allow people to easily enter and exit. In early 2025, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles banned petitioning on its interior sidewalks, changing a policy going back several decades. The Arkansas DMV has also banned petitioning at its locations on interior sidewalks.
There may be legal challenges forthcoming to some of these government facility petitioning restrictions.
There also seems to be more problems with government property, such as parks, being temporarily leased to a private organization to hold an event, then that organization claims that the area is temporarily private property and bans petitioning. It is my understanding that this is a legal “gray area,” but it is a problem.
Some states have adopted 300 feet from the entrance electioneering bans at polling places that make petitioning there impossible.
It is extremely rare when private businesses allow petitioning on their property, except when petitioners’ access is mandated by state law, such as in California, Washington and Massachusetts. A supermarket chain in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area that allowed petitioning with prior approval since at least 1992 has now ended that policy, making petitioning more difficult in the DC metro area.
Other reasons petitioning is more difficult is more people in public wearing headphones or talking on cell phones, paranoia about possible identity theft (the AARP has urged its members to not sign anything, I was told my a potential petition signer in 2024), past publicized unscrupulous behavior by some petition circulators that make people skittish about signing now, less foot traffic on downtown sidewalks, fewer college students on campus (partially due to online classes), doorbells with home security cameras, and more “No Soliciting” signs on doors (although one Libertarian I know ignores those and rarely gets pushback from people who come to the door).
The various problems facing petitioners these days make it important that more supporters of third party and independent candidates do more volunteer petitioning to make up for the access problems paid petitioners are facing these days.
PARTIES WIN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWSUIT
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal law limiting the amount of money parties can spend on the campaigns of their own nominees, when the party coordinates with the candidate, is unconstitutional. National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-621. The vote was 6-3. The decision is based on the First Amendment free speech clause.
ARKANSAS INITIATIVE WIN
On June 30, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks, an Obama appointee, issued an opinion in League of Women Voters of Arkansas v Jester, w.d., 5:25cv-5087. This is a lawsuit challenging many new restrictions on the initiative petitioning process. The decision strikes down these laws:
- Forcing initiative petitioners to show everyone they approach the petitioner’s photo I.D,
- Forcing petitioners to tell everyone they approach that petition fraud is a criminal offense,
- Forcing sponsors of initiatives to submit a list of all the petitioners, before the drive can even start,
- A ban on any circulator who has ever been convicted of a crime, and
- A requirement that the sponsors of the initiative pay the state for the costs of running legal notices about the initiative in newspapers,
There will be a trial later on the new law that bans out-of-state circulators and bans paying circulators on a per signature basis.
The state has filed a notice of appeal.
SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY FILES LAWSUIT TO GET A CLOSED PRIMARY
On July 5, the South Carolina Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit to obtain a closed primary for itself. South Carolina has always had open primaries, meaning that any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. South Carolina Republican Party v Bolchoz, 3:26cv-2699. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis, an Obama appointee.
A similar lawsuit was filed last year by the Texas Republican Party. It is moving very slowly.
U.S. SUPREME COURT CITIZENSHIP DECISION
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Trump v Barbara, 25-365. It rejects President Trump’s executive order that says persons born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents were neither citizens nor admitted for permanent residency.
If the decision had gone the other way, certain minor party and independent presidential and vice presidential candidates in the past probably would not have been permitted to run. Peter Camejo was the Socialist Workers Party presidential nominee in 1976, and he was also the running mate with Ralph Nader’s independent candidacy in 2004. He was born in New York, but his parents were Venezuelan citizens. His mother had had medical problems with her first delivery, so when she was pregnant with Peter, she traveled to New York City to have better medical care. That is the only reason Camejo was born in the United States. His autobiography North Star relates this story.
Another example is Butch Ware, the Green Party vice presidential nominee in 2024. He also was born in New York, and his parents were likewise neither citizens nor admitted for permanent residency.
LEGISLATIVE NEWS
California: on July 1, the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed AB 1539. It requires all presidential candidates, even write-in candidates, to certify that they are not in violation of the 22nd Amendment, the part of the Constitution that sets term limits on presidents.
Delaware: on July 1, the legislature adjourned, without having passed the HB 188, the bill to let independents vote in partisan primaries. It had passed in the House, but was never brought up in the Senate. Also the legislature didn’t pass HB 65, moving the non-presidential primary to April.
RANKED CHOICE VOTING NEWS
- California: on July 14, the City Council of Irvine voted to ask voters if they wish to use Ranked Choice Voting for elections for city offices. Irvine has a population of over 300,000, and is one of the hundred most populous cities in the U.S.
- Hawaii: on July 21, the Honolulu Charter Revision Commission voted to ask voters if they wish to use Ranked Choice Voting for city/county elections. The Commission also put nineteen other ideas on the ballot.
TOP-TWO NEWS
- California: On July 21, the Attorney General released his summary of the initiative, which would appear on the petition. It says, “Repeals law adopted by voters in 2010 that (1) allows voters to vote in primary elections for any candidate for congressional and state elective state, regardless of the voter’s party affiliation, and (2) advances to the General Election the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of their political party (e.g., two Democrats or two Republicans could advance if they receive the most votes). Requires Legislature to establish new process for primary elections for congressional and state offices, whereby each party’s candidate who receives the most votes would advance to the General Election.”
- Massachusetts: an initiative to establish a top-two system has qualified for the ballot. If it passed, it would make it far more difficult for a party to become a qualified party. Currently a group that polls 3% for any statewide race becomes a qualified party, but if the initiative passed, parties would no longer have nominees, except for President. So they could only become a qualified party if they polled 3% for President, or if they had registration of approximately 50,000 voters.
LAST TIME MINOR PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WON A CONSTITUTIONAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT
| STATE | YEAR | CASE NAME AND HOLDING |
| Ala. | 2016 | Hall v Bennett: 3% petition in special elections for U.S. House is too difficult |
| Alas. | 1990 | Sykes v McAlpine: August 1 is too early for independent candidates to get on ballot |
| Ariz. | 2026 | Houlihan v Lytle: unimportant petition errors can’t keep candidates off the ballot |
| Ark. | 2022 | Libt Pty of Arkansas v Thurston: 3% petition for new parties is too difficult |
| Calif. | 2012 | Justice Committee v Bowen: January deadline for a new party is too early |
| Colo. | 2000 | Campbell v Davidson: state can’t require a candidate for Congress to be a registered voter |
| Conn. | 2016 | Libt Party of Ct v Merrill: out-of-state circulators can’t be banned |
| Del. | 2023 | Adams v Carney: state can’t bar independent voters from becoming state court judges |
| D.C. | 2013 | LaRiva v DC Bd of Elec.: in a contagious health emergency, must ease petition requirements |
| Fla. | 1992 | Fulani v Krivanek: state can’t charge to check signatures of minor political party |
| Ga. | 2020 | Cooper v Raffensperger: in a contagious disease emergency, states must ease petition numbers |
| Hi. | 2013 | Justice Party v Nago: February is too early for new party to get on ballot for president |
| Ida. | 2024 | Kennedy v McGrane: March is too early for an independent presidential petition deadline |
| Ill. | 2020 | Libt. Party v Cadigan: in a contagious disease emergency, states must ease petition numbers |
| Ind. | 1990 | Paul v Election Bd: state must print write-in space on ballot and count write-ins |
| Iowa | 2022 | Libertarian Party v Pate: March is too early for independent petition deadline |
| Kan. | 2002 | Natural Law Party v Thornburgh: must let party have two words in its name |
| Ky. | 2020 | Sweeney v Crigler: January is too early for an independent candidate candidacy declaration |
| La. | 1979 | Socialist Workers Party v Hardy: oath that candidate is not a subversive person is void |
| Me. | 2021 | Baines v Bellows: party that goes off the ballot can keep its registrants |
| Md. | 2016 | Dorsey v Lamone: states can’t require more signatures for statewide indp than new party |
| Mass. | 1985 | Serrette v Connolly: May deadline for independent candidates is too early |
| Mich. | 2021 | Graveline v Benson: 30,000 signatures for a statewide independent is too many |
| Minn. | 2004 | Candidacy of Independence v Kiffmeyer: state can’t require minimum no. of votes in primary |
| Miss. | 1969 | Allen v State Bd of Elections: federal Voting Rights Act applies to ballot access |
| Mo. | 2016 | Consti. Party v St. Louis Co.: must have procedure for new parties to run for county office |
| Mt. | 2021 | Mt. Green Pty v Jacobsen: county distribution requirement for new party petition is void |
| Neb. | 2018 | Bernbeck v Gale: 10% of registered voters is too many for independent candidates |
| Nev. | 1992 | Fulani v Lau: June petition deadline for new parties, independent candidates, is too early |
| N.H. | 2020 | Libt Pty of NH v Sununu: in contagious health emergency, states must ease petition numbers |
| N.J. | 2021 | Arsenault v Way: out-of-state circulators must be allowed to petition |
| N.M. | 2013 | Constitution Party v Duran: April is too early for new party to get on ballot |
| N.Y. | 2022 | Schmidt v Kosinski: out-of-state circulators must be allowed to petition |
| No.C. | 2004 | Ortiz v N.C. Bd of Elections: if party has enough valid signatures, Board must put it on ballot |
| No.D. | 1980 | McLain v Meier: 15,000 signatures is too many for a new political party |
| Ohio | 2014 | Libt Pty v Husted: state can’t add new access barriers and have it take effect immediately |
| Okla. | 1984 | Libertarian Party v Elec. Bd: 90 day period is too short for new party petition |
| Ore. | 2002 | Freedom Soc. Party v Bradbury: party can use name even if similar to another party name |
| Pa. | 2018 | Constitution Party v Cortes: county distribution requirement for independents is void |
| R.I. | 2011 | Block v Mollis: party petition must be allowed to circulate in odd years |
| So.C. | 2006 | Working Families Party v Elec. Comm: new parties can’t be forced to hold meetings in March |
| So.D. | 2018 | Libt Pty of SD v Krebs: March is too early for new party petition |
| Tenn. | 2014 | Green Pty v Hargett: if old parties get 2 chances to meet vote test, new parties must also |
| Tex. | 1996 | Texas Indp. Pty v Kirk: indp. petition need not carry each voter’s voter affidavit number |
| Utah | 2023 | Maxfield v Henderson: January is too early for independent pres. candidate deadline |
| Vt. | 2013 | Anderson v State: state must allow photocopies of petitions to be submitted to town clerks |
| Va. | 2020 | Consti Pty v Bd: in contagious health emergency, state must ease petition requirements |
| Wash. | 2004 | Libt Pty v Reed: 1% vote test in primary invalid when party has more than one candidate |
| W.V. | 2016 | Daly v Tennant: January is too early for indp. candidates to file declaration of candidacy |
| Wis. | 2026 | Strange v Elections Comm: party can be on for president even if it has no legis. candidates |
| Wy. | 1997 | Spiegel v State: May is too early for new party to get on ballot |
2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES
| Party sigs | Indp sigs | LIB’T | GREEN | CONSTIT | FORWRD | Pty due | Indp due | |
| Alabama | 42,459 | 42,459 | too late | too late | too late | too late | May 19 | May 19 |
| Alaska | (reg) 5,000 | #Pay fee | already on | too late | too late | too late | 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 | *too late | too late | too late | April 28 | May 1 |
| Calif. | (reg) *76,413 | 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 | *762 | *219 | 2 | Aug 25 | July 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | #3,000 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | – – | Aug 5 |
| Florida | be organized | 0 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Apr 24 | Apr 24 |
| Georgia | 72,680 | #70,083 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | 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 | too late | too late | too late | too late | – – | May 25 |
| Indiana | no procedure | #36,944 | already on | too late | too late | too late | – – | June 30 |
| Iowa | no procedure | #3,500 | *already on | too late | too late | too late | – – | 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 | too late | too late | too late | too late | Feb 13 | Feb 13 |
| Maine | (reg) 5,000 | #4,000 | already on | already on | too late | too late | Jan 2 | June 1 |
| Maryld. | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | July 1 | Aug 3 |
| Mass. | (reg) 45, 500 | #10,000 | *finished | *too late | *too late | *too late | Feb. 1 | July 28 |
| Michigan | 44,618 | 12,000 | already on | already on | already on | *too late | July 16 | July 16 |
| Minn. | 163,621 | #2,000 | *already on | *already on | too late | *already on | May 2 | June 2 |
| Miss. | be organized | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | too late | Feb 2 | Feb. 2 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | July 27 | July 27 |
| Montana | 5,000 | #12,788 | already on | too late | too late | too late | March 2 | May 26 |
| Nebraska | 6,726 | 4,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | Sept 1 |
| Nevada | 14,271 | 250 | already on | too late | already on | too late | May 12 | May 12 |
| N.Hamp | 24,375 | #3,000 | *finished | 0 | *finished | 0 | Aug 4 | Aug 4 |
| N Jersey | no procedure | #2,000 | too late | too late | too late | too late | – – | June 2 |
| N Mex | 3,560 +14,246 | 14,246 | *too late | too late | too late | *in court | June 25 | June 25 |
| N York | no procedure | #45,000 | too late | too late | too late | too late | – – | May 26 |
| No Caro | *14,310 | 83,874 | already on | already on | *too late | too late | 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 | too late | too late | too late | July 1 | May 4 |
| Okla | 34,599 | 0 | already on | too late | too late | 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 | *finished | 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 | too late | too late | too late | 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 | too late | too late | 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 | *too late | too late | too late | too late | — | June 16 |
| Wash. | no procedure | #0 | too late | too late | too late | too late | – – | 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 | too late | April 1 | June 1 |
| Wyoming | 5,201 | 5,201 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | June 1 | Aug 24 |
| #ON | *32 | *18 | 12 | *5 |
* means change since July 1, 2026 B,A,N.
BUTCH WARE POLLS 22,493 WRITE-IN VOTES IN CALIFORNIA PRIMARY
On June 2, California held a top-two primary. Butch Ware, the Green Party candidate for Governor, polled 22,493 write-in votes. There were 61 gubernatorial candidates on the ballot, and Ware outpolled 49 of them. He received more votes than any other write-in candidate in the history of the California top-two primary.
The previous write-in record for a California top-two primary had been held for Linda Blankenship in 2020. She was a Republican running for State Senate in San Diego, in a race in which there was only a Democrat on the primary ballot, and no others on the ballot. She received 18,643 write-ins.
Ware was not on the ballot because the Secretary of State was not satisfied with the copies of his tax returns. Ware is in federal court, hoping to win a ruling that the requirement that gubernatorial candidates reveal the last five years of their income tax returns is unconstitutional.
ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY HAS FIRST U.S. HOUSE NOMINEES ON BALLOT SINCE 2014
This year, the Arizona Libertarian Party has nominees for U.S. House in the First, Second, and Sixth districts. This is the first time the party has been able to run candidates for U.S. House since 2014. In 2015, the Arizona legislature passed a law that requires Libertarian Party members to submit a massive number of signatures of registered Libertarians and independents to get the candidates on the Libertarian primary ballot. This ended almost all Libertarian ballot access, except for President. The law only applies to third parties that have been on the ballot continuously for four years. It does not apply to the state’s other qualified minor parties, the Green Party and No Labels Party.
NO LABELS PARTY NEWS
- Arizona: the party hopes to elect its nominee for State Senate, 12th district, which is in Tempe. The nominee is Anthony Jason Ramirez, an attorney active in civic affairs. His only opponent is the Democratic nominee, State Representative Patty Contreras.
The party still wants to change its name to Arizona Independent Party, and has filed an appeal in the lawsuit on that issue.
In the party’s July 21 primary, Teri Ann Hourihan defeated Hugh Lytle for the gubernatorial nomination.
2 Kansas: on July 15, the party filed a lawsuit in state court to regain its ballot status. Miller v Schwab, Shawnee County District Court, SN2026cv-563. The Secretary of State removed the party from the ballot earlier this year because the old party officers requested that. But, previously, the party had held a convention and elected new officers, and the new officers want to preserve the party.
LINCOLN PARTY ON IN INDIANA
Indiana election officials say that the Lincoln Party has enough signatures to place its nominee for Secretary of State on the ballot. If he polls 2%, the party will become ballot-qualified. The petition required 36,944 signatures. The party spent $780,000 on its that drive.
ERRATA: MARYLAND LIBERTARIAN REGISTRATION
The July 1 B.A.N. showed the number of registered voters in each party. However, it showed zero in Maryland for the Libertarian Party, because the state did not furnish the number in time. But the state now says the party has 13,383 members. Therefore, the correct national total for the Libertarian Party is 709,162, which is .56% of the national total.