MOST BALLOT CHALLENGES AGAINST MINOR PARTY AND INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN HISTORY
Even though the petition deadlines for minor party and independent presidential candidates have not yet passed in most states, already eight minor party and independent presidential candidates are facing challenges to their ballot access. This is the highest number of such candidates in history.
“Challenge” means an outside individual or group initiated an administrative action or a lawsuit to keep someone off the ballot. It does not mean that the state election office itself kept a candidate off the ballot.
Generally, when challenges are mounted to a minor party or independent presidential candidate, only one such candidate is the target, or two at the most. But 2024 is very different, as this list shows:
1936: Congressman William Lemke, the Union Party candidate, was challenged in New York and Pennsylvania. Also, the Socialist Labor nominee, John W. Aiken, was challenged in New York. But no others were challenged.
1940: Earl Browder, the Communist candidate, was challenged in many states, but no others were.
1948: Henry Wallace, Progressive Party nominee and past vice president, was challenged in Illinois and Oklahoma, but no other presidential candidates were challenged.
1952: Vincent Hallinan, Progressive Party nominee, and Stuart Hamblen, Prohibition Party nominee, were challenged in Illinois.
1956: Eric Hass, Socialist Labor nominee, and Farrell Dobbs, Socialist Workers nominee, were challenged in New York.
1960: the same two candidates as in 1956 were again challenged in New York.
1968: George Wallace, an independent running under many party labels, was challenged in Massachusetts and Oklahoma.
1972: John G. Schmitz, American Party nominee, was challenged in Arkansas.
1976: Eugene McCarthy, independent candidate, was challenged in New York.
1980: John Anderson, independent, was challenged in Kentucky, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
2004: Ralph Nader was challenged in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
2008: Bob Barr, Libertarian, was challenged in Pennsylvania.
2012: three candidates were challenged in Pennsylvania: Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Virgil Goode (Constitution Party). Goode was also challenged in Illinois.
2016: Darrell Castle, Constitution nominee, was challenged in Illinois.
2020: Howie Hawkins, Green nominee, was challenged in Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Don Blankenship, Constitution nominee, was challenged in Illinois.
2024: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has been challenged so far in Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Texas.
Chase Oliver, Libertarian, has been challenged in Illinois and Oregon. Jill Stein has been challenged in Georgia, Illinois, and Nevada. The Legal Marijuana Now Party was challenged in Minnesota even before it nominated a presidential candidate. No Labels was challenged in Arizona even before it had a candidate. Claudia De La Cruz, Socialism & Liberation, has been challenged in Georgia. Cornel West has been challenged in Georgia. Randall Terry, Constitution nominee, has been challenged in Illinois.
Thus eight groups that were or are involved in the 2024 presidential race have faced challenges. Never before had more than three candidates faced challenges.
Furthermore, there is time for new challenges to be filed. The overwhelming number of challenges so far have been filed by Democrats. Thanks to Darcy Richardson for help with this article.
PROCEDURAL WIN IN TEXAS ACCESS CASE
On June 5, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, said that the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit against the new filing fee law may proceed to a trial. The Libertarian Party nominates by convention in Texas. The law, which still hasn’t been enforced, says the party can’t consider nominating anyone at its convention who hasn’t already paid a filing fee. A trial is set for September 2025 (not 2024). Bilyeu v Esparza, w.d., 1:21cv-1089. The state had ried to get the lawsuit dismissed even before any trial.
ILLINOIS MAKES BALLOT ACCESS WORSE
On July 1, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker signed HB 4488. It moves the petition deadline for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties from June to May. It also shrinks the petitioning period from three months to two months.
The new law doesn’t take effect until 2025, and is likely to be held unconstitutional. Petition deadlines in June have been struck down in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, and South Dakota. May deadlines have been struck down in Idaho and Massachusetts. The case against early deadlines is even stronger now than it has been in the past, because of the unexpected events of July 13 (the attempted killing of former President Donald Trump) and July 21 (the withdrawal of President Joe Biden). The U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that early deadlines are bad policy because they don’t let voters react to important surprising political events that occur in the middle of election years.
Most state legislatures have voluntarily eased the ballot access laws during the last fifty years. But the Illinois legislature hasn’t voluntarily eased them since 1927.
GEORGIA SETS RULES FOR NEW PRESIDENTIAL ACCESS PROCEDURE
On July 15, the Georgia Secretary of State fleshed out the new procedure that says a minor party that is on the ballot for President in twenty states (including D.C.) is also on automatically for President in Georgia. The party must submit evidence about its ballot access in other states by August 23. That deadline is irrational because five states have deadlines in September, so logically the Georgia deadline should be in September. The Secretary of State is free to revise the policy.
SECOND CIRCUIT UPHOLDS DISCRIMINATORY CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
On July 3, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s discriminatory contribution limits. Upstate Jobs Party v Kosinski, 21-2518. Individuals may give more than twice as much money to the nominees of qualified parties than to the nominees of unqualified parties. Also, qualified parties can give unlimited contributions to their own nominees, but unqualified parties cannot.
The U.S. District Court had struck down these laws, but the state had appealed in 2021. The decision implies that the Upstate Jobs Party is not really a party, but just a handful of individuals. The decision is in conflict with Davis v FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal laws that gave higher contribution limits for supporters of candidates who had opponents who were self-funding their own campaigns. It is also in conflict with Riddle v Hickenlooper, 742 F.3d 922, in which the Tenth Circuit struck down Colorado laws that let individuals donate twice as much money to a major party candidate than to an independent candidate. If the Upstate Jobs Party appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is a good chance the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case. The decision is by Judge Debra Ann Livingston, a Bush Jr. appointee. It is also signed by Judge Reena Raggi, a Bush Jr. appointee; and Judge William J. Nardini, a Trump appointee.
DEMOCRATIC RULES
On July 22, the Democratic Party said anyone who wants to be considered for the presidential nomination needs 300 signatures of delegates. There are about 4,600 delegates. Only Kamala Harris submitted such a petition.
LAWSUIT NEWS
Alabama: on June 26, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the state is required to produce a list of individuals who were denied the ability to register to vote because of a felony convnction, and a list of voters who were removed from the rolls because of a conviction. Greater Birmingham Ministries v Merrill, 22-13708. The majority said Alabama can charge for the list, but Judge Nancy Abudu dissented on that point. The other two judges were Britt Grant, a Trump appointee; and Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee.
Montana: on July 16, a Montana state trial court ruled that inactive voters may sign petitions. Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights v Jacobsen. The Secretary of State then asked the State Supreme Court to hear her appeal, but on July 23, it refused.
New Jersey: on July 26, a state court heard Salmon v Kennedy, Mercer Superior Court, MER-L241-24. The plaintiff is suing to keep Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. off the ballot on the grounds that he is a “sore loser” because he received some write-in votes in the June 4 Democratic presidential primary.
New York: on July 30, the Libertarian and Green Parties moved to intervene in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s. federal ballot access lawsuit. Kennedy v Berger, s.d., 1:24cv-03897.
North Carolina: on July 30, some voters who want to vote for Cornel West’s party, Justice for All, argued in U.S. District Court that the party should be put on the ballot. Ortiz v North Carolina State Board of Elections, e.d., 5:24cv-420. The Board had kept the party off, even though the county boards said it had enough valid signatures, because some voters claimed they don’t remember signing the petition, and other voters said the circulators didn’t explain the purpose of the petition.
BOOK REVIEW: THE PRIMARY SOLUTION
The Primary Solution: Rescuing Our Democracy from the Fringes, by Nick Troiano, 2024.
Nick Troiano is the founding executive director of Unite America, a venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform nationally.
The book has four parts: (1) Origins of the Primary Problem; (2) A Lose-Lose-Lose-System; (3) The Better Alternative; (4) The Path Toward Nationwide Reform. The purpose of the book is to persuade readers that we would be better off if parties were no longer able to nominate candidates. The book’s jacket says, “We should abolish partisan primaries.” Page 222 says, “I believe the North Star of election reform should be to abolish partisan primaries…Let’s align around and articulate a single, simple goal: solving the Primary Problem in American politics.”
That does not mean the author advocates a return to party conventions as the means of nominating candidates. On page 130, he writes, “I am not proposing a return to the old system in which party leaders were able to determine the only options for all of the voters. Gone forever are the days of party bosses handpicking candidates for each office.”
Instead, the author praises the five states in which parties no longer nominate candidates: the top-two states (California and Washington); the top-four state (Alaska); Louisiana (in which there are no primaries and all candidates run in the general, with a run-off if no one gets 50%); and Nebraska, for legislature only, completely non-partisan elections with no party labels on the ballot.
To make the case that government works better when parties don’t nominate candidates, the author cites examples.
His test for a good legislature is one that accepted the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. He compares Louisiana with Mississippi, pointing out that Louisiana accepted the program, but Mississippi didn’t. He says that in Louisiana, parties don’t have nominees; but in Mississippi, they do. He says otherwise the two states are similar.
The problem is that the Nebraska non-partisan legislature, which the author admires, always refused to accept Medicaid Expansion. The only reason Nebraska has Medicaid Expansion is due to a voter initiative passed in 2018. The Nebraska example contradicts his thesis that there is a correlation between Medicaid Expansion and abolishing party nominations. The book does not mention Nebraska in connection with Medicaid.
Troiano lists many examples of centrist members of Congress who were defeated in partisan primaries. He cites statistics to show that in many of these primaries, few voters participated. He argues that the moderate candidates would have been elected in the general election, if only they had survived their primaries.
But he undercuts this argument by mentioning the examples of Senators Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006, and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska in 2010. Both are considered centrists. Both lost their primaries. But both still won the general election the same year, because they were permitted to run in the general election even though they had lost their primaries (although Murkowski was forced to do it as a write-in, but she still won).
One can conclude from the Lieberman and Murkowski examples that the easier, simpler solution to the problem is to abolish “sore loser” laws. Troiano logically could have made this the primary point of the book, because it solves the problem that he is most concerned about.
There are over 100 nations in the world that use elections to choose the national legislature, and none of them other than Iran, and four states of the United States, hold such elections without party nominees. Abolishing the ability of parties to have nominees is an idea that is not even imagined in most of the world. Troiano recognizes that parties are useful, even necessary, to a well-governed country. Pages 128-130 praise parties, concluding with “That’s why no democracy in the world has endured for long without some kind of stable party system to mediate engagement in a complex society and political system.” Given that viewpoint, the book needs a clear statement as to why abolishing party nominations is the key to a better system.
A major flaw in the book is that it does not mention the harm that top-two, top-four, and top-five systems do to minor parties. These systems eliminate the ability of minor parties to have candidates in the general election. In California and Washington, the top-two states, no minor party candidates for Governor or U.S. Senator have ever placed higher than sixth in the primary, which shows that even if those states had top-five systems, the exclusion for those two offices would be total.
Chapter Ten lists seven objections to his proposal, but makes no mention of harm done to minor parties. He asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld top-two systems. Actually, the Court only remanded the case back to the lower courts, to gather more evidence on whether top-two violates Freedom of Association. Footnote eleven of the decision says that the court is not deciding the ballot access issue.
Troiano writes on page 152-153, “Abolishing partisan primaries has five main benefits…The playing field will be more level for independent and third-party candidates.” He does not elaborate, nor does he discuss minor parties elsewhere in the book.
VOTE TESTS FOR POLITICAL PARTY STATUS IN 2024
| STATE | VOTE TEST | GAIN? | RETAIN? | IMMUNE |
| Al | 20% any statewid | – – | – – | – – |
| Ak | 3% President | – – | Green, Consti, Aurora | Ak Indpc, Libt |
| Az | 5% President | – – | Green | Libt |
| Ar | 3% President | – – | Libt, Green, Const, AS | – – |
| Co | 1% any statewide | – – | Libt, Gr, Con, U,AV,Ctr | |
| Ct | 1% each office | Green | Libt, WkFam, Indp | – – |
| DC | 7,500 any | – – | Green | – – |
| Ga | 1.5% President | Green, PSL, Justice | Libt | – – |
| Hi | Several vote tests | – – | Green, We, AS | Libt |
| Id | 3% President | – – | – – | Libt, Consti |
| Il | 5% President | – – | – – | – – |
| Ia | 2% President | We, PSL, AS, Green, J | Libt | – – |
| Ks | 1% any statewide | – – | Libt, Kan United | – – |
| Ky | 2% President | Libt, Gr, Con, | – – | – – |
| Me | 5% President | – – | – – | Green, Libt. |
| Md | 1% President | – – | Libt | Green |
| Ma | 3% any statewide | Green, We, PSL | Libt | – – |
| Mi | ½ of 1% any stwd | – – | Gr, Const,NL,WkClass | – – |
| Mn | 8% any statewide | Grn,Marij, Libt,We,PSL | – – | – – |
| Mo | 2% any statewide | Green, Better | Libt | |
| Mt | 3% any statewide | – – | Libt, Green | – – |
| Ne | 5% any statewide | – – | – – | Libt, Marijuana |
| Nv | 1% any statewide | – – | Libt | Consti |
| NH | 4% Governor | Libt | – – | – – |
| NM | ½ of 1% Pres. | – – | Libt, Free NM, Green | – – |
| NY | 2% President | We the People | WF, Conservative | – – |
| NC | 2% Pres or Gov | – – | Const, We | Libt, Green |
| ND | 5% Pres or Gov | We the People | Libt | – – |
| Oh | 3% Governor | – – | Libt | |
| Ok | 2.5% any statewide | – – | – – | Libt |
| Or | 1% any statewide | – – | Consti | Libt,Gr,Indp, WF, Prog |
| RI | 5% President | Libt, Gr, Team, PSL,SW | – – | – – |
| SD | 2.5% any statewide | – – | Green | Libt |
| Tn | 5% Pres or Sen | – – | – – | – – |
| Tx | 2% any statewide | – – | Green | Libt |
| Ut | 2% any | – – | Green, United U, Const | Libt, Indp Amer |
| Va | 10% Pres or Sen | Libt, Green | – – | – – |
| Wa | 5% President | We, Libt, Gr, SW,PSL, J | – – | – – |
| Wis. | 1% any statewide | We, Justice | – – | Libt, Green, Consti |
| Wyo. | 2% several | – – | Libt, Consti | – – |
The column “Gain?” lists minor parties which are not now qualified, but which might become qualified in November.
The column “Retain?” lists parties that are qualified, but which will lose that status if they don’t meet the vote test.
The column “Immune” lists parties that are qualified and which don’t need to pass any vote test in 2024.
Some states aren’t listed because they have no vote test in presidential years, or they don’t have a vote test at all.
Abbreviations: AS = American Solidarity; AV = Approval Voting; Con = Constitution; Ctr = Center; J = Justice for All; NL = Natural Law; SW = Socialist Workers; Team = Team Kennedy; U = Unity; We = We the People; WF = Working Families.
2024 PRESIDENTIAL PETITIONING
| State | Requirements | Signatures or Registrations Obtained | Deadline | |||||
| Full Party | Candidate | Libertarian | Green | Constitut. | RFK Jr. | West | ||
| Ala. | 42,458 | 5,000 | *2,000 | *6,000 | 0 | *6,000 | *1,000 | *Aug. 23 |
| Alaska | (reg) 5,000 | 3,614 | already on | *already on | already on | *already on | already on | Aug. 7 |
| Ariz. | 34,116 | *41,090 | already on | already on | 0 | *finished | *1,500 | Aug. 17 |
| Ark. | 10,000 | 5,000 | already on | already on | 0 | *finished | *300 | Aug. 1 |
| Calif. | (reg) (es) 75,000 | 219,403 | already on | already on | 271 | already on | 0 | Aug. 9 |
| Colo. | 10,000 | 12,000 | already on | already on | already on | *finished | already on | Aug. 7 |
| Conn. | no procedure | #7,500 | already on | *7,400 | 0 | *10,000 | 0 | Aug. 7 |
| Del. | *(reg) 769 | *7,690 | already on | *718 | finished | already on | *130 | Aug. 20 |
| D.C. | no procedure | *4,583 | *0 | already on | *0 | *3,500 | *3,000 | Aug. 7 |
| Florida | 0 | 145,040 | already on | already on | already on | *already on | *already on | Sept. 1 |
| Georgia | 69,884 | #7,500 | already on | already on | 0 | *finished | *finished | July 9 |
| Hawaii | 862 | *5,798 | already on | already on | 0 | already on | *100 | Aug. 7 |
| Idaho | 17,359 | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | finished | 0 | Aug. 30 |
| Illinois | no procedure | #25,000 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *finished | 0 | June 24 |
| Indiana | no procedure | #36,944 | already on | *too late | *too late | *finished | *too late | July 1 |
| Iowa | no procedure | #3,500 | already on | *200 | 0 | finished | *1,700 | Aug. 16 |
| Kansas | 20,180 | 5,000 | already on | *670 | 0 | *4,000 | *500 | Aug. 5 |
| Ky. | no procedure | #5,000 | *1,500 | *300 | 0 | 0 | *1,000 | Sept. 6 |
| La. | (reg) 1,000 | #pay fee | already on | already on | 161 | *already on | 0 | Aug. 23 |
| Maine | (reg) 5,000 | #4,000 | already on | already on | 0 | *finished | *too late | Aug. 1 |
| Md. | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | *11,500 | 0 | *finished | *800 | Aug. 5 |
| Mass. | *(reg) 47,816 | #10,000 | already on | *finished | (reg) 330 | *finished | *too late | July 30 |
| Mich. | 44,478 | *12,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | *finished | July 18 |
| Minn. | *125,534 | #2,000 | *1,500 | 0 | 0 | *3,000 | *1,000 | Aug. 20 |
| Miss. | be organized | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | *already on | *already on | Sept. 6 |
| Mo. | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | *17,500 | 2,000 | *finished | *too late | July 29 |
| Mont. | 5,000 | #5,000 | already on | already on | 0 | *9,000 | 0 | Aug. 14 |
| Nebr. | 6,605 | 2,500 | already on | *4,000 | 0 | finished | *already on | Aug. 1 |
| Nev. | 10,096 | 10,096 | already on | finished | already on | *finished | *too late | July 5 |
| N. Hamp. | 18,575 | #3,000 | *4,000 | *200 | 0 | finished | *100 | Aug. 7 |
| N.J. | no procedure | #800 | *finished | *finished | *finished | *finished | *finished | July 29 |
| N. M. | 3,562 | 3,562 | already on | already on | 0 | *already on | *too late | June 27 |
| N.Y. | no procedure | #45,000 | *in court | *in court | too late | *finished | *too late | *in court |
| No. Car. | 13,757 | 82,542 | already on | already on | *already on | *already on | *in court | May 18 |
| No. Dak. | 7,000 | 4,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | *2,000 | 0 | Sept. 3 |
| Ohio | 40,345 | 5,000 | finished | *9,000 | 0 | finished | 0 | Aug. 7 |
| Okla. | 35,592 | pay fee | already on | *too late | *too late | already on | *too late | July 15 |
| Oregon | 29,294 | 23,737 | already on | already on | already on | *finished | already on | *disputed |
| Penn. | no procedure | #5,000 | *finished | *finished | *finished | *finished | *finished | Aug. 1 |
| R.I. | 17,884 | #1,000 | *100 | 0 | 0 | *700 | *300 | Sept. 6 |
| So. Car. | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | already on | *already on | already on | July 15 |
| So. Dak. | 3,502 | 3,502 | already on | *200 | 0 | *6,000 | 0 | Aug. 6 |
| Tenn. | 43,498 | 275 | in court | 0 | *100 | *finished | *200 | Aug. 20 |
| Texas | 81,030 | 113,151 | already on | already on | *too late | finished | too late | May 28 |
| Utah | 2,000 | #1,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | already on | June 1 |
| Vermont | be organized | #1,000 | already on | *700 | 0 | *finished | already on | Aug. 1 |
| Virginia | no procedure | #5,000 | *6,200 | *4,500 | *1,500 | *8,000 | *2,500 | Aug. 23 |
| Wash. | no procedure | #1,000 | *finished | *finished | *finished | *finished | *finished | July 27 |
| West Va. | no procedure | #7,948 | already on | already on | *too late | *finished | *too late | Aug. 1 |
| Wisc. | 10,000 | #2,000 | already on | already on | already on | *4,00 | *,2500 | Aug. 6 |
| Wyo. | 3,879 | 3,879 | already on | 0 | already on | *1,500 | 20 | Aug. 27 |
| Total States On | 37 | *22 | *13 | *13 | *9 | |||
#partisan label permitted. “Organizing” refers to qualifying a party in the states that don’t require a petition for that. “Deadline” column shows the deadline for the latest way to get on. * means entry changed since the July 1 issue.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. , GETS SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION
On July 15, the Secret Service announced that it would start protecting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The decision came only two days after the attempted killing of former President Donald Trump. Kennedy is the first non-major party candidate to receive such protection since John Anderson in 1980. Protection was offered to Ross Perot, but he did not want it.
OHIO LIBERTARIAN PETITION
Recently, the Ohio Libertarian Party submitted a petition to qualify itself. It submitted 88,000 signatures to meet the requirement of 40,345 signatures. This is the first time the party has petitioned for party status in Ohio since 2018. The drive was very expensive and would not have happened without financial help from persons associated with the Democratic Party.
CORNEL WEST NOMINATED
During July, Cornel West received the nomination of three ballot-qualified parties: the Legal Marijuana Now Party of Nebraska, and the Natural Law Parties of Florida and Mississippi.
CHASE OLIVER ON IN COLORADO
On July 24, the Colorado Secretary of State said Chase Oliver will be listed as the Libertarian nominee for president. Colorado law allows the secretary of a national convention to certify the party nominee, and the party’s national convention secretary did so, even though the state party officers do not support Oliver.
MINNESOTA PARTY NOMINATES
On July 6, the Legal Marijuana Now Party of Minnesota nominated Dennis Schuller for president. The party is not ballot-qualified but expects to place Schuller on the ballot by petition.
FREE & EQUAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
On the evening of July 12, the presidential nominees of the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties debated each other. The debate was sponsored by Free & Equal. The moderators were Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie and Christina Tobin, who founded Free & Equal. The event was in Las Vegas at Freedom Fest. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was at the event but was not willing to be in the debate.
WE THE PEOPLE HAS NORTH CAROLINA CANDIDATES OTHER THAN ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
The We the People Party in North Carolina was formed to assist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. with ballot access. But, it has other candidates as well, one for State Senate and one for a county office. If Kennedy polls as much as 2%, the party will remain on the ballot for 2026 and 2028.
BRITISH ELECTION
The United Kingdom held a parliamentary election on July 4. Twelve parties won at least one seat in the House of Commons. The Green Party, which had previously only held one seat, won four.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Daily_Brew
AUG 29 —
RCV ITEMS ON NOV 2024 BALLOTS
CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
What’s the status of the Retard Party and their nominee Thomas W Jones?
From Cascade Party Washington’s official website
Washington Secretary of State Approves Request to Omit Presence on 2024 Presidential Ballot
(August 26, 2024)
The Cascade Party of Washington (CPW) has qualified as an official minor party in the state. This designation grants CPW access to campaign finance rules that govern the major parties in Washington.
To qualify as a minor party, CPW held a series of conventions at locations across the state, combining elements of a political gathering with celebrations of music and civic engagement.
The party successfully met state-mandated petition requirements, collecting 1,812 valid signatures from Washington State voters out of 2,372 submitted. Notably, the Washington Secretary of State approved CPW’s appeal to withdraw from the 2024 presidential ballot.
CPW Chair Krist Novoselic expressed relief, stating, “I believe strongly in respecting the integrity of the ballot.” He further noted, “There was also the potential for controversy and misunderstanding. By not appearing on the 2024 Washington presidential ballot, we can avoid those complications.”
Statewide conventions held a prominent role in achieving Washington voter support. Recalling the convention effort, Board member Erik Raistakka stated “It was a great opportunity to talk with community members and validate our beliefs that people are looking for civil, common sense alternatives in politics. Throughout the conventions we have been consistent with our message: our goal was to meet the state requirements and then focus on building a party to support candidates in local elections beginning in 2025.”
The Cascade Party does not have candidates running in the 2024 Washington election, choosing rather to focus on developing its innovative HumHub party membership forum. With the November elections poised to dominate the political landscape, CPW aims to focus on its future, working toward organizing a convention in 2025.
I believe the Retard Party is on the ballot in Puerto Rico. I know they were also trying for the Virgin Islands and Guam. Those zero electoral votes up for grabs are very important.
Guam is very important. The returns from Guam usually predict the outcome.
Seriously.
Yep, Guam is 9 for 11 as a presidential predictor. But that doesn’t mean campaigning heavily in Guam will guarantee you the election.
ANY 1944 JAPANESE MILITARY STILL ON GUAM — VOTING FOR JAPAN EMPEROR ???
But, Guam also has the advantage that the polls there close hours before they do anywhere else because they are just across the International Date Line.
Guam is also one of the most forwardly deployed bases of US nuclear weapons – which means that they would probably be obliterated in the first wave of a nuclear war.
I remember one convention where there was terrible feedback on the delegation microphone, so the vote results were like:
G-u-a-M-M-M-m-m-m-…. where America’s day begins. I don’t remember the party, year, or who the delegates voted for.
Guam should let a small village announce its result as soon as all voters have voted. Hopefully it will have a resort hotel with very few of the workers living in the village, so that you have dozens of Japanese tourists looking confused as the results from the Dixville Notch of the Pacific are announced midday on Monday. Yahoo News will have a news story from the Agana Free Press which will be linked to on BAN, and Thomas “AZ” Jones will wonder how many of the voters who were centenarian Japanese military veterans.
It appears that the candidates of both the Libertarian and Green Parties will be on the ballot in nearly all of the critical swing states. In a close election, their votes may determine the outcome.
At the very least, large swing states should have run-off voting for President.
It seems petty that New York has blockaded every effort of third party candidates to place their Presidential nominees on the ballot there. Is there any doubt who will carry the state?
Here are a couple points of caution about renewal of Arkansas ballot access. First, the Prohibition Party and not the Constitution Party received presidential ballot access. Second, the Libertarians qualified as a “political party” (with full ballot access), but the Greens, Solidarians, and Prohibitionists qualified as a “political group” (with just presidential ballot access). This chart assumes that both types are eligible for renewal with 3%. However, I thought that only a political party was eligible and that a political group had only a one-time existence. I might be wrong, though.
“That does not mean the author advocates a return to party conventions as the means of nominating candidates. On page 130, he writes, “I am not proposing a return to the old system in which party leaders were able to determine the only options for all of the voters. Gone forever are the days of party bosses handpicking candidates for each office.””
Let’s hope he’s wrong.
“His test for a good legislature is one that accepted the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion”
Precisely backwards.
“Troiano recognizes that parties are useful, even necessary, to a well-governed country. Pages 128-130 praise parties, concluding with “That’s why no democracy in the world has endured for long without some kind of stable party system to mediate engagement in a complex society and political system.” Given that viewpoint, the book needs a clear statement as to why abolishing party nominations is the key to a better system.”
…
Abolishing party nomination is effectively abolishing parties. It turns them into meaningless and deceptive ballot labels.
Guano is where the Retard Party is qualified.
AZ is a bot, not Thomas Jones.
The election will not be close.
Trump will, fittingly, become the first Republican since Reagan to carry new York.
Let’s not forget the 1998 ballot access challenge of Jim Tobin Libertarian for Governor in Illinois, where are the Chicago Tribune confirmed that George Ryan use Secretary of State employees on state time to challenge the statewide Slate off the ballot.
They have done that many times.