PROCEDURAL WIN IN MARYLAND BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On June 10, U.S. District Court Judge George L. Russell, an Obama appointee, issued a ruling in the Maryland ballot access case, Dorsey v Lamone, 1:15cv-2170. The case challenges the number if signatures needed for an independent candidate for statewide office, which is 40,603 this year (1% of the registered voters as of January 2016, including inactive voters).

The ruling does not decide the case, but it rejects Maryland’s attempt to get the case dismissed. Judge Russell wrote, "At this stage of the litigation, Dorsey succeeds in stating a plausible claim that Maryland’s ballot access requirements for unaffiliated candidates are unconstitutional. According, the Court will deny the State Board’s Motion to dismiss."

Dorsey is an independent candidate for U.S. Senate this year. His case was filed in July 2015. The state had asked that the case be dismissed on September 4, 2015, so this case had been awaiting a decision for quite a while.

Dorsey argues that it is obvious that the state doesn’t need over 40,000 signatures to keep the ballot uncrowded, because Maryland only requires hew parties to submit 10,000 signatures, and the only parties that have submitted such petitions in the last fifteen years have been the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties.

The next stage will require the introduction of facts. The only relevantfacts needed in the case that are mentioned in the court order are how many independent candidates have successfully complied with the law in recent years. That evidence will show that, at least for statewide independents, only one has qualified in the last 20 years, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012, S. Rob Sobhani.

There is reason to believe that the Maryland State Elections Board will now concede that the disparity in the number of signatures can’t be defended. Assuming that happens, the decision will be very helpful in winning potential lawsuits against the other states that require more signatures for statewide independent candidates than new parties:

• Arizona requires 35,514 signatures for all statewide independent candidates, but only 20,119 for a new party.
• Florida requires 119,316 for an independent presidential candidate, but zero signatures for other independent candidates and for new parties.
• Hawaii requires 4,347 for an independent presidential candidate, but only 707 for new parties.
• Montana requires 11,823 for an independent candidate for Governor, but only 5,000 for a new party.
• New Mexico requires 15,388 for any statewide independent, but only 2,565 for a new party.
• Oklahoma requires 40,047 for an independent presidential candidate, but only 24,745 for a new party.
• Texas requires 79,939 for an independent presidential candidate, but only 47,086 for a new party.

  ---

  PENNSYLVANIA RULING IMMINENT

As this issue goes to print, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel hasn’t said what the Pennsylvania ballot access rules will be this year. The state is asking him to require 5,000 signatures for statewide office, and the three minor parties who filed the case are asking that they be put on the ballot with no petition. The judge says he is working on his order.

On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge Karen Schreier, a Clinton appointee, issued a ruling in the South Dakota ballot access case. Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Krebs, 4:15cv-4111. The issue is the March 29 petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties if they wish to nominate for all partisan offices. The Constitution Party is a co-plaintiff.

The state already lets new parties qualify as late as July 11 if they are content to only run for President and various lesser statewide state offices. But if a party wants to have candidates for Governor, Congress, or state legislature, it must meet the March deadline.

The ruling denies the state’s request to dismiss the case. The state says a March deadline is needed because all parties nominate by primary for Governor, Congress and legislature, and the primary is in June. But the judge wrote, "Defendants have not explained what interest South Dakota has in requiring new political parties to hold a primary election for their gubernatorial candidates." The order also says that 41 states let new parties avoid a primary, and use conventions instead.

The next phase of the lawsuit is a trial. Other states in which it is impossible for a new party to place nominees on the November ballot with the party label (for non-presidential office) unless it participates in a primary are California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington. In addition, Arizona and Utah laws on party labels for independent candidate petitions are unclear, so arguably they belong on that list.

On June 20, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court that Virginia’s discriminatory listing of candidates on general election ballots is constitutional. Sarvis v Alcorn, 15-1162. Virginia law says the nominees of qualified parties are listed first on the ballot, and the state uses a random procedure to decide whether the Democratic of Republican nominees are on top.

Below them are the nominees of unqualified parties, and below them are independent candidates. Virginia has not had any qualified parties on the ballot, other than the Repubilcan and Democratic Parties, since 1997.

The decision does not mention any of the court decisions that held that the Constitution requires that any candidate have an equal chance to be listed first on the ballot, except it does mention an Oklahoma decision that struck down the law that said Democrats always get the first line on the ballot. Courts that have ruled in favor of equality include the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, the Supreme Courts of California and New Hampshire, and a U.S. District Court in New Mexico.

The decision says the state has an interest in encouraging more voters to vote for the two major parties. It says, "The ballot ordering law may also favor Virginia’s ‘strong interest in the stability of its political system. Maintaining a stable political system is, unquestionably, a compelling state interest.’"

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports this conclusion. The authors of the Constitution would probably be shocked if they knew that, in the future, state governments would pass election laws deliberately designed to prop up old dominant parties and injure all their competitors.

One-third of the states give every candidate an equal chance to be listed first on the ballot.

Rocky De La Fuente is an independent presidential candidate. He is wealthy, so he is able to hire paid petitioners. He has already finished petitioning in six states, and is working in others.

He has also sued four states with very difficult petition requirements for independent presidential candidates: California, Florida, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. He is the first independent presidential candidate in history to sue California, Florida, and North Carolina over the number of signatures each requires. No independent presidential candidate in any of those four states has managed to qualify since 1992, when Ross Perot did so.

De La Fuente had also run for President this year in many Democratic presidential primaries. He has long lived in San Diego, but recently moved to Florida, where he is simultaneously running for U.S. Senate in the August 2016 Democratic primary.

On June 22, the Green Party filed a lawsuit to place its presidential nominee on the Arizona ballot. The party is ballot-qualified, but the law requires all qualified parties to submit the names of their presidential elector candidates by June 1. The party missed the deadline, but filed the list of electors a few days later. But the Secretary of State said the party cannot place its presidential nominee on the ballot without a lawsuit, so the party sued. The case is Arizona Green Party v Reagan, U.S. District Court, 2:16cv-2027.

The Libertarian Party missed the deadline in Arizona in 1996, but won a state court ruling putting the party’s nominee, Harry Browne, on the ballot.

The judge in the 1996 case said the state has no interest in requiring the electors that early. That case included evidence that whenever the Democratic or Republican Parties miss a deadline like this, the state always overlooks the lateness. The major parties have missed deadlines in Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Texas. Arizona does not require independent presidential candidates to submit their elector candidates until September. The reason Arizona has such an early deadline for party candidates for elector is that before 1992, they ran in primaries. When nomination by primary was ended, the state should have changed the deadline, but did not do so.

Georgia: on June 14, an independent candidate for a county partisan office filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the 5% petition requirement violates the Georgia Constitution. Garner v Muscogee County Board of Elections, su16-cv-1720. The plaintiff, Mike Garner, needs 5,226 signatures to get on the ballot for Muscogee County Court Clerk. That is a higher number than the number of votes any candidate running in either major primary for that office received. The case will be heard on July 8.

Nevada: the Green Party will file a lawsuit against the June 2 petition deadline for new parties. The old June 10 Nevada deadline was enjoined in 1992 in Fulani v Lau, and afterwards the deadline was moved to July. But as the years passed, the legislature forgot why it had done that, and moved the deadline to April, and then in 2015 moved it to June. The lawsuit is needed because the Green Party petition, after it was checked, fell 647 signatures short.

New York: on June 13, the Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against the state’s ban on out-of-state petitioners. Merced v Spano, e.d., 1:16cv-3054. New York is one of three states in which out-of-staters can’t work; the others are Missouri and New Jersey.

New York (2): on June 27, Philip Pidot, a Republican candidate for U.S. House, filed a lawsuit for a new primary in his district. He had petitioned to get on the Republican primary ballot in the 3^rd district. He was initially told he didn’t have enough signatures. He went to state court, which said he did have enough signatures, but that it was too late to put him on the ballot. The primary was June 28. On June 27 he asked a federal court to require the state to re-do the primary in his district. Pidot v New York State Bd. of Elections, e.d., 2:16cv-3527.

Virginia: on June 24, a Republican delegate to the national convention filed a lawsuit against a state law that requires delegates to support the candidate (on the first ballot) who won the state’s primary. Donald Trump won that primary and the plaintiff, Carroll Correll, doesn’t want to vote for Trump. Correll v Herring, e.d., 3:16cv-467.

California held presidential primaries for six parties on June 7. Here are the mostly final results for the parties other than Democratic and Republican:

American Independent: Alan Spears 7,834; Arthur Harris 6,970; Robert Ornelas 6,929; J. R. Myers 5,270; Wiley Drake 5,248; James Hedges 4,274; Thomas Hoefling 4.186.

Green: Jill Stein 10,702; Darryl Cherney 1,348; Sedinam Moyowasifsa-Curry 803; William Kreml 574; Kent Mesplay 568.

Libertarian: Gary Johnson 18,525; John McAfee 3,017; Austin Petersen 1,796; Rhett White Feather Smith 1,467; Joy Waymire 888; John Hale 837; Marc Feldman 832; Jack Robinson, Jr. 712; Steve Kerbel 535; Darryl Perry 500; Derrick M. Reid 444; Cecil Ince 401.

Peace & Freedom: Gloria La Riva 2,401; Monica Moorehead 1,450; Lynn S. Kahn 1,009.

A Title in the Making, Perot Movement Laid the Foundation to Take Back America, Where Do We Go From Here? by Patricia Muth Amazon prices vary but start at $34.11. 484 pages.

This book is the most extensive history of the Reform Party yet published. It is also the most detailed account of the 1992 Perot independent candidacy, and the most extensive book about the Perot pressure group United We Stand America, which was very active 1993-1994.

Some major biographies of Ross Perot exist, but they were all published before the 1996 election. Muth not only covers that election in detail, she also covers the 1998-2001 years as well. The only other history of the Reform Party that includes 2000, the year the party nominated Pat Buchanan, is Pat Benjamin’s The Perot Legacy, published in 2013, but that book was only 189 pages.

Muth was an active participant in the Perot independent candidacy, United We Stand America, and the Reform Party, but she relies on far more than her own personal memories. She interviewed 130 people.

She certainly loves the Perot movement, but that doesn’t stop her from narrating the embarrassing parts of the Reform Party story. For example, she describes an event at the party’s national meeting in 2000 in Nashville: "Gargan, holding the microphone close to his mouth, screamed as loud as he could while Melanie Carne, a vivacious original Reformer from San Diego, ran up the aisle to the stage, and yanked the microphone plug from the electrical socket. Then, just as fast as she did, Sue Harris de Bauche, of Virginia, darted to the front and tackled Melanie, bringing her to the floor. As they rolled back and forth in front of the stage several people tried to break them up. In what seemed like seconds, eight police officers barged through the ballroom door."

The chapters on the beginning of the Reform Party in September 1995 are riveting, as the new party struggled to qualify in the difficult states with early deadlines. The party managed to register over 100,000 members in California in only 18 days. Its next three petitions, in Ohio, Maine, and Arkansas, were all rejected by state election officials, but the party sued all three states and prevailed.

The account of fighting the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1992 and 1996 is detailed and riveting.

The title refers to Muth’s belief that the country is still wrestling with the issues that animated the Perot movement, trade and debt.

On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Tuaua v U.S., 15-981. The lower court had ruled that the 14^th amendment does not require that persons born in American Samoa be considered citizens.

The chart below lists the filing deadlines in each state, for write-in candidates. Page four also explains what the law is for write-ins, for the states without write-in filing laws.

The reason this chart has been prepared is that many Bernie Sanders die-hard supporters are determined to cast a write-in vote for him in November. The subject of write-ins for President is probably receiving more press attention this year than in any previous presidential election.

Sanders is extremely unlikely to be willing to file as a declared write-in candidate. But people who are interested in obtaining a tally of how many write-ins he receives are free to find some other individual also named Bernie Sanders, and asking him to file as a declared write-in candidate.

State	Text of Deadline Law	2016 Deadline	Election Code
Alaska	5 days before general election	November 3	15.25.105
Arizona	40 days before general election	September 29	16-312
Arkansas	60 days before general election	September 9	7-5-205
California	14 days before general election	October 25	Election code 7300
Colorado	110 days before general election	July 21	1-4-1102(1)
Connecticut	14 days before general election	October 25	9-175
Delaware	no later than September 30 (4:30 p.m.)	September 30	Title 15, 3402(c)
D.C.	one day before general election (5 p.m.)	November 7	Elec. Regs. 1508.2
Florida	49days before primary (noon)	July 12	99.061(3)(a)
Georgia	Tues. after 1st Monday in September	September 6	21-2-133
Idaho	28 days before general election	October 11	34-702A
Illinois	61 days before general election	September 8	5/17-16.1
Indiana	126 days before general election (noon)	July 5	3-8-2-2.5 & 3-13-1-15(c)
Kansas	Second Mon. bef. Gen. elec. (noon)	October 31	25-305(c)
Kentucky	4th Friday in October	October 23	117.265(2)
Maine	45 days before general election	September 24	21-A sec. 1, sub sec. 51
Maryland	Wed. before gen. election (5 p.m.)	November 2	Art. 33, sec. 17-5(b)
Mass.	60 days before general election	September 9	Chap. 54, sec. 78A
Michigan	2nd Friday before gen. election (4 p.m.)	September 9	168.737a
Minnesota	7 days before general election	November 1	204B.09
Missouri	Friday before general election (5 p.m.)	November 4	115.453(4)
Montana	15 days before general election (5 p.m.)	October 24	13-10-211
Nebraska	2nd Friday before general election	October 28	32-615
N. Mexico	63 days before general election (5 p.m.)	September 6	1-12-19.1A
New York	third Tuesday before general election	October 18	Elec. Code 6-153
No. Car.	90 days before general election	August 10	163-123(a)
No. Dakota	21 days before general election (4 p.m.)	October 18	16.1-12-02.2
Ohio	40 days before general election	September 29	3513.041
Oregon	11 days before general election	October 28	Tit. 23, 249.007
Tennessee	50 days before general election	September 19	2-7-133(i)
Texas	78 days before general election	August 22	Art. 8.021 & regulation
Utah	60 days before election (5 p.m.)	September 9	20A-9-601
Virginia	10 days before general election	October 29	24.2-644C
Wash.	one day before general election	November 7	29.04.180
W. Va.	49 days before general election	September 20	3-6-4a
Wisconsin	14 days bef. general election (4:30 pm)	October 25	8.185(1)
Wyoming	2 days after the election	November 10	22-5-501

The District of Columbia and 36 states provide that write-in candidates should file a declaration of candidacy if they want their write-ins counted. Oddly, though, D.C., Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington won’t count write-ins even for declared write-in candidates unless the vote-counting equipment suggests a write-in candidate might have been elected.

The filing deadlines for write-in filing varies greatly, ranging from July 5 in Indiana, to November for many states. This chart shows the write-in filing deadlines in each state. States that allow write-ins in the general election, and don’t have write-in filing laws, are legally obliged to count all write-ins: Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont. But most of these 8 states won’t tally them, or will tally some but not others. Mississippi law says write-in space is printed on ballots, but write-ins will not be counted unless one of the ballot-listed candidates dies.

Generally the filing deadlines for president and other office are the same. In the few instances at which they are different, the chart above has thep presidential deadlines. Usually, presidential write-in filing requires the names of a slate of presidential elector candieates. Only one state, South Carolina, has a law that says that although write-ins in general elections are permitted, they are not permitted for president. But election officials in Arkansas and New Mexico say they won’t permit presidential write-ins, even though they have permitted write-ins for president in the past in general elections, and the law does not say they are not permitted for president.

2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED				THREE TYPES OF DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB’T	GREEN	CONSTI	ROCKY	Pres Party	Pres. Indp.
Ala.	35,413	5,000	*550	*1,000	*600	0	Mar. 1	Aug. 18
Alaska	(reg) 8,399	#3,005	already on	*3,900	already on	700	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Ariz.	20,119	#35,514	already on	*in court	0	0	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
Ark.	10,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	finished	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Calif.	(es) (reg) 61,000	178,039	already on	already on	*340	in court	July 11	Aug. 12
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $1,000	already on	already on	already on	??	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	*2,500	*2,500	0	0	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Del.	(reg) 654	6,526	already on	*622	*316	0	Aug. 20	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	(est.) #4,600	*0	already on	*0	*0	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Florida	be organized	119,316	already on	already on	already on	in court	Sep. 1	July 15
Georgia	51,912	#7,500	already on	*2,000	*2,500	7,000	July 12	July 12
Hawaii	707	#4,347	already on	already on	already on	0	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
Idaho	13,047	1,000	already on	0	already on	finished	Aug. 30	Aug. 24
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	*finished	*finished	*finished	too late	June 27	June 27
Indiana	no procedure	#26,700	already on	*too late	*too late	too late	June 30	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	*850	1,200	*800	finished	Aug. 19	Aug. 19
Kansas	16,960	5,000	already on	*1,800	0	0	June 1	Aug. 1
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	in court	0	in court	0	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $500	already on	already on	124	0	Aug. 19	Aug. 19
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	*need 300	already on	0	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Md.	10,000	40,603	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Mass.	(est) (reg) 45,000	#10,000	*6,800	already on	0	0	Aug. 2	Aug. 2
Mich.	31,519	30,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 21	July 21
Minn.	98,770	#2,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 23	Aug. 23
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	*1,800	already on	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Mont.	5,000	#5,000	already on	0	0	0	Aug. 17	Aug. 17
Nebr.	5,395	2,500	already on	500	*1,350	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Nev.	5,431	5,431	already on	*in court	already on	finished	June 3	July 8
N. Hamp.	*14,866	#3,000	0	*480	0	0	Aug. 10	Aug. 10
N.J.	no procedure	#800	*500	*400	*already on	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
N. M.	2,565	15,388	already on	already on	already on	finished	June 30	June 30
N.Y.	no procedure	#15,000	*1,000	already on	0	0	*Aug. 2	*Aug. 2
No. Car.	89,366	89,366	already on	*too late	*too late	in court	May 17	June 9
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	already on	0	0	0	Sep. 5	Sep. 5
Ohio	30,560	5,000	in court	already on	0	1,000	July 6	Aug. 10
Okla.	24,745	40,047	already on	0	0	in court	July 15	July 15
Oregon	22,046	17,893	already on	already on	already on	0	Aug. 30	Aug. 30
Penn.	no procedure	21,775	in court	in court	in court	4,000	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
R.I.	16,203	#1,000	0	0	0	0	Sep. 9	Sep. 9
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	May 8	July 15
So. Dak.	6,936	2,775	*already on	0	already on	0	July 11	*Aug. 2
Tenn.	33,816	275	*200	in court	in court	0	Aug. 10	Aug. 18
Texas	47,086	79,939	already on	already on	*too late	too late	May 22	May 9
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	*525	already on	finished	Aug. 15	Aug. 15
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	*375	0	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Virginia	no procedure	#5,000	*1,050	*2,000	*200	0	Aug. 26	Aug. 26
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	*600	*finished	0	50	July 23	July 23
West Va.	no procedure	#6,705	already on	already on	9,650	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	0	Aug. 2	Aug. 2
Wyo.	3,302	3,302	already on	0	already on	0	June 1	Aug. 30
TOTAL STATES ON			33*	20*	18*	0	“	“

#partisan label is permitted on the ballot (other than "independent").
"CONSTI" = Constitution Party.
"ROCKY" means independent candidate Rocky De La Fuente.
* = change since June 1, 2016 issue.

The petitioning chart above doesn’t have room for all parties that are petitioning for President:

• Socialist Workers Party: finished in Colorado, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Washington.
• Party for Socialism & Liberation: finished in Florida, New Mexico, and Vermont.
• Prohibition Party: finished in Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, and Mississippi.
• Socialist Party: finished in Illinois.
• Workers World Party: finished in New Jersey.

  ---

  BETTER FOR AMERICA GROUP STARTS TO PETITION FOR PRESIDENT

"Better for America" is a group founded for the purpose of placing a conservative mainstream presidential candidate on the ballot as an independent. The group has already completed a party petition in New Mexico, using the name "Better for America Party." It hopes to announce its presidential nominee very soon. This is the same group that first suggested David French as a candidate. French seriously considered the offer but declined on June 5.

On May 31, Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke announced that she had changed her voter registration from "Republican" to "Libertarian." She lives in Crete, and was last re-elected in 2014. She has not decided if she will run for re-election in 2018. Although the Libertarian Party has had twelve state legislators in the past (including one currently in Nevada), she is the party’s first woman and the first Senator.

The Independent Party of Oregon is choosing its presidential nominee with a mail ballot, paid for by the party. All registered members of the party, and all independents who participated in the party’s government-administered primary in May, will receive a ballot in early July. The candidates are Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and "None of the above." If NOTA wins, the party will have no nominee. Oregon permits two parties to nominate the same candidate.

The Peace & Freedom Party, and the American Independent Party, will both choose a presidential nominee August 13-14 at their state conventions. Both meetings are in Sacramento.

Florida has been holding primaries since 1914, but has never held a statewide primary for any party other than Democratic or Republican. The state does not hold primaries for parties unless are at least two candidates for a particular nomination. Because two Libertarians filed this year for U.S. Senate, there will be a statewide Libertarian primary. The two candidates are Paul Stanton and and Augustus Invictus.

Florida does not hold presidential primaries for parties unless they have registration of 5%. But all qualified parties are entitled to primaries for other office.

George Will, columnist for the Washington Post, said on June 25 that he had changed his Maryland registration from "Republican" to "independent."