LEAST VOTER CHOICE FOR U.S. HOUSE SINCE 1990
AND LEAST CHOICE FOR LEGISLATIVE RACES SINCE AT LEAST 1986

At the November 5, 2024 election, voters nationwide will see fewer candidates for U.S. House on their ballots than at any time since 1990.

The situation is even worse for state legislative races.  There are fewer candidates for legislature on the ballot than at any time since 1986, and possibly even before that.  Data on the number of legislative candidates for years before 1988 is not readily available.

The reason for fewer candidates for both types of office is that there are fewer minor party and independent candidates.  The number of Democratic and Republican candidates this year is fairly ordinary.  For U.S. House, this year there are 419 seats with a Republican, and 416 seats with a Democrat.  There are 436 seats, counting Delegate from the District of Columbia.   Each of the major parties always contests at least 380 seats.

But the number of independents running for U.S. House this year is only 57, the lowest since 2004.  And the number of minor party candidates for U.S. House is only 155, the second lowest since 1990 (only 2022 was worse, with 139).

This year, Libertarians only have 71 candidates for U.S. House, the lowest since 1990.  Because the Libertarian Party always has more candidates than any other minor party (something that has been true starting in 1976), when the Libertarian total plunges, that has a big impact on the total number of candidates.  The Libertarian high point of 255 candidates was reached in 2000.  The Libertarian Party is the only third party to have ever had candidates in a majority of districts since the Socialist Party contested a majority of seats in 1934.

Legislative Elections

Similarly, this year the number of legislative seats with a Democrat or a Republican is typical.  There are 5,791 legislative seats up this year, in the 43 states that have regularly scheduled legislative elections in presidential years (Nebraska is excluded because it has nonpartisan elections for legislature, with no party labels).

Republicans have a candidate for 4,694 legislative seats (81.1% of the total seats), and Democrats have one for 4,647 (80.2%).   This is normal.

But, as for U.S. House, there are fewer minor party and independent candidates for legislatures.  There are only 170 independent candidates on the ballot for state legislature, the lowest number since 2004.  And there are only 239 minor party candidates, the lowest since 1990.  By contrast, in 2002, there were 1,084 minor party legislative candidates.  Of those, 628 were Libertarians.

Courts and Legislatures Caused the Shrinkage

Minor party and independent candidates are in short supply this year because in recent years, legislatures have made ballot access more difficult in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (especially), and Texas.  Also the top-two systems in place in California starting in 2012, and Washington starting in 2008, have shrunk the number of choices.

Courts are responsible because they have become increasingly unlikely to strike down onerous ballot access laws.

This year, no state ballot access law affecting minor party or independent candidates has been declared unconstitutional, except for the early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates in Idaho and Utah.  Minor parties and independents have lost constitutional cases in 2023 and 2024 in Georgia, Indiana, New York, Tennessee, and Texas.

It is ironic that the chief rationale cited by courts for severe ballot access laws is the need to keep ballots from being too crowded.  United States ballots generally have far fewer parties and candidates than the ballots of other democratic countries.  In Canada and the United Kingdom, parliamentary ballots consistently have an average of six candidates.  But in the U.S., the average number of candidates on the ballot for U.S. House always ranges between two and three.   In Massachusetts this year, because it is so difficult for candidates for U.S. House to get on a primary ballot, six of the nine races have only one candidate on the ballot.

---

PRESIDENTIAL BALLOTS STILL UNSETTLED IN THREE STATES

As of Monday morning, October 28, the day this newsletter is being printed, presidential ballots are still unsettled in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to remove him in Wisconsin.  Jill Stein is asking the Sixth Circuit to allow her votes to be counted in Ohio.  And Cornel West is asking the Third Circuit to put him back on the Pennsylvania ballot.  All three are longshots, but the Ohio case has the best chance.

---

BALLOT ACCESS CASES

Georgia:  on September 26, the Libertarian Party appealed to the Eleventh Circuit in its long-running lawsuit against the petition requirement for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House.  Cowen v Raffensperger, 24-13164.  The case had originally lost, but then the legislature had changed the law on presidential ballot access, potentially adding a strong new argument for the plaintiffs.  But the U.S. District Court then refused to allow the Complaint to be amended to recognize the change in the law.

Idaho:  on September 4, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill refused to dismiss Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s. lawsuit against the law that requires independent presidential candidates to list a vice presidential running mate.  Team Kennedy v McGrane, 1:24cv-83.  Kennedy is the first independent presidential candidate to challenge a state requirement that a vice presidential candidate must be on the petition.  Generally, in the past, independent presidential candidates accepted the requirement, and used a stand-in if they hadn’t already found their actual running mate.  The case is based on equal protection, because in all states, major parties need not identify their vice presidential nominees until the late summer.  The case will undergo discovery in 2025.

Nebraska:  on October 17, U.S. District Court Judge John M. Gerrard, an Obama appointee, refused to issue an injunction putting Shiva Ayyadurai on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate.  Lauters v Evnen, 4:24cv-03175.  Ayyadurai had enough valid signatures, but the Secretary of State rejected his petition because Ayyadurai was born in India.  The opinion is thoughtful and discusses the point that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, and they meet the qualifications to hold the office of presidential elector.

Ohio:  on October 9, Jill Stein filed a federal lawsuit to force the Secretary of State to count her votes.  She is on the Ohio ballot, but the Secretary of State had said her votes will not be counted because he felt she had withdrawn.  Actually, she had not withdrawn.  An Ohio Green Party officer, who had no formal connection to the Ohio independent petition for Stein, had tried to withdraw the stand-in vice presidential candidate and substitute the actual vice presidential nominee.  But it was too late to add the name of that actual nominee.  At the trial held on October 22, the Green Party official testified that she had filed the paperwork without permission.  But U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled on October 23 that the case belongs in state court, not federal court.  Stein appealed that immediately.  The case is now in the Sixth Circuit, Stein v LaRose, 24-3923.

Pennsylvania:  on October 10, U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Banjan, a Trump appointee, refused to issue an injunction putting Cornel West on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate.  West v Pennsylvania Department of State, w.d., 2:24cv-1349.  However, he based his decision on the impracticality of adding another name after the ballots had already been printed.  He virtually said the law that kept West off the ballot is unconstitutional.  It requires petitioning presidential candidates to choose electors before they begin to petition, and to have each presidential elector candidate file a declaration of candidacy.  The case is still alive, and it seems very likely that after the election the judge will strike down the requirement for presidential elector declarations of candidacy, on the basis that the elector candidates of the qualified parties need not file anything at all.  The judge also virtually stated that there is no state interest in requiring the presidential elector candidates to be registered independents.

Even though this was a very good opinion for ballot access, West appealed to the Third Circuit, hoping to persuade that court to put him on the ballot.

Tennessee:  on October 26, U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee, dismissed the lawsuit Lupo v Tennessee Secretary of State, m.d., 3:24cv-1088.  The case had been filed by presidential elector candidates pledged to independent presidential candidate Shiva Ayyadurai.  His petition had enough signatures, but he was kept off the ballot because he was born in India.    Like the similar Nebraska case mentioned on this page, the decision thoughtfully considered the argument that the candidates for presidential elector are eligible for the job they are seeking, so why should they be kept off the ballot?  But. the judge said that even though it is true that they are the true candidates in November, it is the presidential candidate whose name is printed on the ballot, not the elector candidates.  The decision does confirm that the suit was not moot.

Wisconsin:  on October 1, Shiva Ayyadurai filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit.  Marshall v Wisconsin Election Commission, 24-2746.  This is another of his ballot access cases.  The U.S. District Court had dismissed his Wisconsin case with a four-page order that said the lawsuit is “frivolous”, in sharp contrast to the similar Nebraska and Tennessee cases.

Wisconsin(2):  on September 27, the State Supreme Court refused Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s request to withdraw from the ballot.  Kennedy v Wisconsin Election Commission, 2024WI37.  He had argued the law is discriminatory because independents can never withdraw (unless they die), but party nominees can.  The State Supreme Court didn’t decide the constitutional issue but said it was too late.  Kennedy is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

---

PRESIDENTIAL WRITE-IN STATUS

Most states have a procedure by which presidential candidates who are not on the ballot may file as declared write-in candidates.  Then, that state will tally their write-ins.  Unfortunately, though, in recent years some of the states that have such a procedure still won’t tally the write-ins.  The Eighth Circuit ruled in McLain v Meier, 851 F.2d 1045 (1988), on page 1051, “The state has an obligation to count all votes properly cast.”  Therefore, if any of the declared write-in candidates sue either or both Nebraska or North Dakota (the two states in the Eighth Circuit that won’t tally write-ins even for declared write-in candidates), they might win.

Another state that won’t tally write-ins for declared candidates is Virginia, yet the Virginia State Constitution explicitly protects the right to cast a write-in vote in the general election, so legal action against Virginia is also possible.

Among the minor party and independent presidential candidates who are on the ballot in at least five states, here is a list of where those candidates have declared write-in status:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Randall Terry, and Rachele Fruit did not file for write-in status in any state.

Chase Oliver:  all four jurisdictions in which he isn’t on the ballot, i.e., D.C., Illinois, New York, and Tennessee.

Jill Stein:  D.C., Illinois, Kansas, and New York.

Claudia De la Cruz:  Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia.

Cornel West:  Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

Peter Sonski:  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,  Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Shiva Ayyadurai:  Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia.

---

N.Y. TIMES FAULTY COVERAGE OF BALLOT ACCESS

Recently, the New York Times has run several articles about some of the minor party and independent presidential candidates.  The newspaper has covered Chase Oliver, Jill Stein, Cornel West, and Claudia De la Cruz.

However, none of these articles has mentioned that none of these candidates are on the ballot in New York.  There has been no mention in the Times that New York is the only jurisdiction in the nation in which Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are the only listed candidates.  The Times has received several press releases and letters, pointing out New York’s deficiency this year, but the paper chooses to ignore these communications and to suppress that content.

The paper’s op-ed page is also myopic.  On October 22, it ran a column by Bret Stephens titled, “If Trump wins, Who, or What, Will Liberals Blame?”  But nowhere does the column mention Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  It seems obvious that the Democratic Party made a huge mistake when it attacked Kennedy’s ballot access in twelve states.  Those attacks drove him from the race, and led him to endorse Trump and vigorously campaign for him.  If Democrats had been content to let him remain on various ballots, Kennedy would not have left the race.

---

ELECTION LAW LAWSUITS

Nebraska:  on October 16, the State Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of State to let ex-felons register to vote.  The legislature had passed a law letting them register.  But then, the Secretary of State said he would not allow it because he believed the new law violated the State Constitution.  The Court said the Secretary had no authority to decide that.  State exl rel Sprung v Evnen, S-24-563.

New Jersey:  on October 31, settlement talks will be held concerning the lawsuit over New Jersey discriminatory ballot format in primary elections.  Some of the Defendant county clerks have already dropped out of the lawsuit because they no longer wish to defend the old ballot format, which was enjoined earlier this year.  Conforti v Hanlon, 3:20cv-8267.

New York:  on October 9, a State Supreme Court Justice in the Fifth District struck down the 2023 law that moved many county, town and village elections from odd years to even years.  An appeal is underway.

Pennsylvania:  on October 23, the State Supreme Court ruled that if a voter forgets to enclose the inner envelope in his or her postal ballot, that voter is free to then cast a provisional ballot at the polls.  The vote was 4-3.  Genser v Butler County Board of Elections, 26 WAP 2024.

---

JILL STEIN RECEIVES PRIMARY SEASON MATCHING FUNDS

During September, the Federal Election Commission sent $379,983 to Jill Stein.  She had earlier this year qualified for primary season matching funds, although the FEC delayed sending her the money for several months.  The only other presidential candidate who received any matching funds this year is Mike Pence, who has received $1,128,977.

---

VOTER REGISTRATION TOTALS

	Dem.	Rep.	Indp, misc	Lib’t.	Green	Consti.	Wk Fam	NoLabe	other
Alaska	75,066	146,161	357,730	6,675	1,522	809	?	?	21,970
Arizona	1,266,536	1,562,091	1,471,309	31,132	4,187	?	?	32,338	– –
Arkansas	88,969	140,291	1,581,556	736	115	?	?	?	– –
Calif.	10,279,189	5,534,782	5,110,344	236,071	105,610	242	?	40,335	1,023,383
Colorado	1,022,195	910,618	1,903,650	36,955	8,471	11,362	?	15,097	10,577
Conn.	798,205	466,908	919,524	2,996	1,350	?	298	?	29,155
Delaware	353,212	206,770	205,954	2,004	776	239	319	1,639	15,562
Dt. Col.	337,509	22,052	79,644	?	3,838	?	?	?	– –
Florida	4,421,790	5,499,717	3,616,170	35,964	9.089	19,708	?	16,163	330,567
Idaho	133,323	616,949	276,500	11,812	?	4,347	?	?	– –
Iowa	476,193	643,051	475,029	10,047	2,146	?	?	?	– –
Kansas	512,630	893,180	561,916	24,580	0	0	0	2,183	131
Kentucky	1,508,617	1,659,088	358,834	16,604	2,630	1,487	?	176	876
Louis’na	1,138,681	1,055,855	678,807	15,816	2,765	149	0	2,118	149,768
Maine	341,925	281,904	275,560	5,236	36,724	?	?	?	– –
Md.	2,219,417	1,009,323	972,342	19,423	4,732	?	?	6,166	– –
Mass.	1,336,825	415,438	3,167,286	16,307	3,599	292	722	?	16,934
Nebraska	333,902	614,665	273,862	17,899	?	?	?	1,029	8,151
Nevada	593,223	574,270	703,407	15,942	?	88,248	?	?	– –
N. Hamp.	268,943	308,223	318,221	?	?	?	?	?	– –
N. Jersey	2,528,917	1,611,688	2,440,927	25,194	11,520	12,544	?	?	29,173
N. M.	585,974	427,585	327,791	15,211	3,810	?	?	?	754
N. York	5,778,841	2,695,185	2,887,960	17,330	18,153	?	49,586	?	476,626
No. Car.	2,437,503	2,327,013	2,948,570	49,735	3,533	463	?	24,513	1,711
Okla.	654,363	1,260,649	475,046	23,097	?	?	?	?	– –
Oregon	1,005,275	730,249	1,122,393	19,802	8,030	3,798	8,184	?	150,885
Penn.	3,971,607	3,673,783	1,384,400	45,970	12,823	?	?	?	– –
Rhode Is.	272,850	103,329	346,827	?	?	?	?	378	– –
So. Dak.	144,745	312,463	155,786	2,944	?	?	?	49	– –
Utah	245,487	928,390	489,008	20,443	472	6,863	?	7,608	78,141
W. Va.	353,995	493,148	341,112	10,848	2,621	?	?	?	– –
Wyo.	26,789	189,676	17,916	1,199	0	398	?	312	– –
TOTAL	45,512,696	37,314,494	36,245,381	737,972	248,516	150,949	59,109	150,104	3,344,364
Percent	36.77%	30.15%	29.29%	.60%	.20%	.12%	.05%	.12%	2.70%

The entries are in the “other” column are:  Ak, Alaskan Independence 19,080, Veterans 1,565, Moderate 416, Progressive 260, Clowns 224, Patriots 220, Owl 108, Freedom Reform 9, Aurora 8; Ca., American Independent 861,468, Peace & Freedom 142,311, Common Sense 19,198, Forward 406; Co, Approval Voting 4,846, Unity 3,159, Center 2,375, Forward 197; Ct, Independent Party 29,136, We the People 19; De, Independent Party 11,280, Nonpartisan Party 1,207, Conservative 833, Liberal 729, American 537, American Delta 449, We the People 183, Socialist Workers 140, Blue Enigma 80, Natural Law 74, Reform 50; Fl, Independent Party 276,467, Conservative 30,022, Boricua 9,297, Coalition with a Purpose 4,247, Ecology 3,264, Socialism & Liberation 2,172, American Solidarity 1,966, Peoples 1,553, Forward 735, Natural Law 656, Reform 188; Ks, United Kansas 131; Ky, Socialist Workers 649, Reform 227; La, Independent Party 147,941, Reform 804, Conservative 783, Solidarity 104, Socialist 96, Forward 32, Socialism & Liberation 8; Ma, United Independent 14,469, Socialist 1,615, We the People 481, Workers 183, Reform 113, Natural Law 54, Prohibition 19; Ne, Legal Marijuana Now 8,151; NJ, Conservative 14,348, Socialist 7,793, Natural Law 5,535, Reform 1,497; NM, Socialism & Liberation 402, Free New Mexico 352; NY, Independence 322,070, Conservative 154,128, SAM 428; NC, We the People 1,263, Justice for All 448; Or, Independent Party 146,899, Progressive 3,818, We the People 168; Ut, Independent American 75,593, United Utah 2,435, Forward 113.

It is not the purpose of the chart to identify which state parties are affiliated with any particular national party.  Therefore, the New Mexico entry for the Libertarian Party is not intended to suggest that the New Mexico Libertarian Party is aligned with the national Libertarian Party.

Totals May 2024:  Dem. 45,137,430 (37.60%), Rep. 36,073,810 (30.05%), indp. & misc. 35,317,058 (29.42%), Lib’t. 735,936 (.61%), Green 241,285 (.20%), Constitution 146,791 (.12%), Working Families 61,136 (.05%), No Labels 112,016 (.09%), other 2,233,746 (1.86%).

Totals Oct. 2020:  Dem. 47,106,084 (39.67%), Rep. 35,041,482 (29.51%), indp. & misc. 33,696,700 (28.38%), Lib’t. 652,261 (.55%), Green 240,222 (.20%), Constitution 129,556 (.11%), Working Families 49,758 (.04%), Reform 9,004 (.01%), other 1,814,973 (1.53%).

Totals Oct. 2016:  Dem. 45,690,825 (40.60%), Rep. 33,052,332 (29.37%), indp. & misc. 31,200,104 (27.72%), Lib’t. 497,535 (.44%), Green 256,560 (.23%), Constitution 92,483 (.08%), Reform 5,294 (.00+%), Working Families 61,517 (.05%), other 1,662,329 (1.50%).

Totals Oct. 2012:  Dem. 43,512,746 (41.85%), Rep. 31,298,863 (30.10%), indp. & misc. 26,808,810 (25.79%), Lib’t.  330,811 (.32%), Green 250,682 (.24%), Constitution 77,918 (.07%), Reform 22,880 (.02%), other 1,665,945 (1.61%).

Totals Oct. 2008:  Dem. 43,933,901 (43.62%), Rep. 30,944,590 (30.72%), indp. & misc. 24,157,259 (23.98%), AIP/Const. 438,222 (.44%), Green 255,019 (.25%), Lib’t. 240,328 (.24%), other 708,941 (.70%).

Totals October 2004:  Dem. 37,301,951 (42.19%), Rep. 28,988,593 (32.79%), indp. & misc. 20,471,250 (23.15%), Constitution 320,019 (.36%), Green 298,701 (.34%), Lib’t. 235,521 (.27%), Reform 63,729 (.07%), other  695,639 (.83%).

---

LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT

This chart shows the number of legislative districts that each party is contesting.  No candidate is counted twice; if the candidate is the nominee of two parties, he or she is listed in the party of membership.  If a party has more than a single candidate in any particular race, that party is still only credited with one entry.  This happens in California and Washington.

	# seats	Rep.	Dem.	Lib’t.	indp.	Green	Consti	other(1)	other(2)	oth(3)
Alas	50	36	28	3	16	0	0	3	1	0
Ariz	90	75	74	0	2	4	0	0	0	0
Ark	118	102	71	9	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cal	100	87	93	0	0	0	0	2	0	0
Colo	83	75	78	9	2	0	0	3	2	0
Ct	187	155	173	0	8	3	0	7	1	0
Del	51	33	40	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Fla	140	119	140	5	5	0	0	1	0	0
Ga	236	178	171	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hi	64	45	62	2	0	2	0	1	0	0
Id	105	99	79	2	4	0	4	0	0	0
Ill	142	100	114	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Ind	125	109	90	8	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iowa	125	102	99	6	3	0	0	0	0	0
Kan	165	143	126	8	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ky	119	106	67	0	3	0	0	0	0	0
Maine	186	167	166	0	15	0	0	0	0	0
Mass	200	60	180	0	20	0	0	2	1	1
Mich	110	109	110	5	0	4	0	6	0	0
Minn.	135	130	134	1	1	1	0	1	1	0
Mo	180	157	147	9	0	3	0	0	0	0
Mont	125	125	106	3	2	0	0	0	0	0
Nev	52	46	46	5	2	0	1	0	0	0
NH	424	376	397	0	4	0	0	0	0	0
NM	112	73	87	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
NY	213	154	190	0	1	0	0	11	1	0
NoC	170	137	167	28	0	1	1	1	0	0
NoD	69	66	38	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Ohio	115	106	107	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
Okla	127	113	49	4	7	0	0	0	0	0
Ore	75	62	67	4	2	1	0	2	0	0
Pa	228	151	154	5	0	0	1	0	0	0
R I	113	40	111	0	8	0	0	0	0	0
So C	170	141	100	6	0	0	0	3	2	1
So D	105	102	52	3	6	0	0	0	0	0
Tenn	115	100	85	0	19	0	0	0	0	0
Tex	165	122	142	7	1	0	0	0	0	0
Utah	90	89	59	1	7	0	2	6	1	0
Vt	180	122	143	1	16	0	0	7	0	0
Wash	123	97	105	2	5	0	0	0	0	0
W Va	117	115	67	1	2	1	1	0	0	0
Wis	115	95	114	0	4	0	0	0	0	0
Wyo	77	75	19	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	5791	4694	4647	140	170	20	10	57	10	2

Parties in the “other(1)” column:  Ak, Alaskan Independence; Cal, American Independent; Co, Unity; Ct, Independent Party; De, Conservative; Fl, Independent Party; Hi, We the People; Ma, Workers; Mi, Working Class; Mn, Forward; NY, Conservative; NC, We the People; Or, Independent Party; SC, Workers; Ut, United Utah; Vt, Progressive.

Parties in the “other(2)” column are:  Ak, Veterans; Co, Center; Ct, We the People; Ma, Pirate; Mn, Alliance; NY, Working Families; SC, Alliance; Ut, Forward.

Parties in the “other(3)” column:  Ma, Forward; SC, United Citizens.

---

REGISTRATION DATA TIMING

All of the data in the Voter Registration chart is as of October 2024, except for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York, which have not released any new data since the spring of 2024.  Therefore, for those four states, the data is from the spring of 2024.  The four states will have new data soon, but not in time to be included in this issue of BAN.

---

CALIFORNIA MOCK ELECTION RESULTS

Several hundred public high schools in California participated in a mock presidential election on October 8.  The Secretary of State gathered some of the returns.  For president, the results were:  Harris 33,397; Trump 24,174; De la Cruz 4,695; Kennedy 4,136; Stein 1,299; Oliver 895.  Write-ins were not reported.

---

ERRATA:  TWO NEW MEXICO PARTIES HAVE NOT CHANGED THEIR NAMES

The Oct. 1 BAN said that the Free New Mexico Party had changed its name to the Libertarian Party, and the previous Libertarian Party had changed its name to the Liberal Party USA.  That was incorrect.

Each of the two parties has a presidential nominee, and the New Mexico Secretary of State surprisingly let each party’s presidential nominee have a different label than the actual name of the party.  The Free New Mexico Party, which nominated Chase Oliver, was permitted to use the label “Libertarian” in the presidential part of the ballot.  The Libertarian Party was permitted to have the label “Liberal USA” next to the name of its presidential nominee, Laura Ebke.

---

GREEN PARTY REGAINS PARTY STATUS IN DELAWARE

Delaware defines a qualified party as a group with registration of at least one-tenth of 1% of the state total.  The Green Party went off the ballot after the 2020 election because it lost registrations.  Recently, the party did a successful registration drive and is now back on the ballot.  However, the drive was not finished in time for the party to appear on the 2024 ballot.