SECOND CIRCUIT RULES STATES HAVE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED POWER TO CENSOR BALLOT LABELS
On August 21, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in Walden v Kosinski, 25-764. This is the case over the state law that says no independent candidate can choose “independent” or “independence” as a ballot label. The plaintiff, Jim Walden, is an independent candidate for Mayor of New York City, and he wanted “Independence” as his label. The Second Circuit had refused to give him injunctive relief on May 2 and said it would explain later. Finally, the explanation has been issued.
The opinion only has one sentence to explain the state interest in the ban. The Court said that without the ban, “that would lead unaffiliated voters to mistakenly believe that this designation was intended to represent all unaffiliated/independent voters, rather than a specific political organization.”
The paternalism behind this sentence is breathtaking. The same logic would justify banning any label that identifies any group.
One could say that no candidate should be able to use “Workers” because that might cause voters to believe that the candidate represents all workers. Other words that could be banned under the same logic include “Farmers”, “Taxpayers”, “American”, “Populist”, “Conservative”, “Christian”, “Hispanic”, “Patriot”, “Progressive”, or “Veteran.”
One could even say that “Democratic” should be banned, because that label might mistakenly cause people to believe that the candidate represents all people who believe in democracy.
New York is the only state that bans a long list of words from appearing on the ballot.
In half the states, a petitioning candidate may choose any label desired, except that the label must not be obscene, cannot mimic the name of a qualified party, and can’t be too long.
But New York not only bans “independent” and “independence”, but “American”, “Empire State”, and any word that is not an English language word or phrase, such as “La Raza Unida”. The New York restrictions on those other words have never been challenged in court and have existed since 1955.
The other half of states do not let a petitioning candidate choose any label, and must have one of these terms: “independent”, “unaffiliated”, “nonpartisan”, or “party preference: none.” But all those states have separate procedures for groups to qualify as political parties. New York has no procedure for a group to qualify as a party in advance of an election. Among the states that do have procedures for a group to qualify as a political party in advance of an election, no states enforce bans on any prohibited words, except that obscene words are banned (also the party name must not be too long).
In the past, some states banned “Communist” or “Nazi”, but courts have struck down all such laws. Such court decisions were issued in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. The Arizona and Illinois laws, though long ago held unconstitutional, are still on the books.
The Second Circuit based its opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court decision Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, a 1997 decision that upheld Minnesota’s ban on fusion.
There are many court opinions that have said the First Amendment applies to ballot labels, but the Second Circuit only mentioned one of them, a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that struck down the ban on “independent”. The Second Circuit said that precedent was issued before the Timmons decision and therefore is not convincing precedent.
Other decisions striking down state policies restricting or forcing unwanted ballot labels were not mentioned by the Second Citcuit.
They include two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Anderson v Martin, a 1964 case that struck down a Louisiana law saying the race of each candidate should be on the ballot, and Gralike v Cook, a 1995 decision that said states could not print a statement on the ballot next to the name of each candidate for Congress or legislature giving that candidate’s view on congressional term limits.
Other court precedents that struck down restrictions on labels include decisions that say states can’t give exclusive use of the word “Socialist” to just one party, when there are two parties that have that word in their name. Those decisions are from federal court in Pennsylvania and state court in Oregon. Also, in 1992, the Sixth Circuit said it is unconstitutional for Ohio to have denied any ballot label whatsoever to petitioning candidates.
The recent Second Circuit opinion only deals with whether injunctive relief should have been granted. Technically, there is still no opinion on the constitutionality of the New York ban. Walden could ask for declaratory relief, but it is virtually certain that he wouldn’t receive it. He could then seek U.S. Supreme Court review.
TEXAS DISCRIMINATORY FILING FEE LAW UPHELD
On August 6, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, upheld the discriminatory Texas law on who gets the revenue from candidate filing fees. Bilyeu v Esparza, w.d., 1:21cv-1089. This is a Libertarian Party lawsuit.
In Texas, large qualified parties nominate by primary, and small qualified parties nominate by convention. Filing fees paid by members of large parties are given to the political party of that candidate. But filing fees paid by members of small qualified parties are given to the state government.
The opinion says that policy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because large parties are not “similarly situated” to each other. Of course, this is simply another way of saying that minor parties in the United States have no protection under the Equal Protection Clause.
The opinion also says that the Fifth Circuit already upheld that policy in 2024 in Miller v Nelson. But that decision merely said that all candidates are treated alike, so there is no problem. That decision didn’t discuss the difference between how the large and small parties are treated.
Oddly, in Texas, independent candidates do not need to pay a filing fee.
CALIFORNIA LAWSUIT AGAINST TOP-TWO
Last December, the Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, and American Solidarity Parties filed a federal lawsuit against the top-two system. The state filed a motion to dismiss the case. That motion had a hearing date of August 22. However, on August 15, the U.S. District Court cancelled the hearing. But on August 25, the Court set a status conference for October 24, on zoom. Anyone can watch.
CONGRESSSIONAL BILL TO OUTLAW MID-DECADE DISTRICTING
On August 5, Representative Kevin Kiley, a California Republican, introduced HR 4889. It outlaws U.S. House redistricting in the middle of a decade, unless the old districts are invalidated by a court.
Similar bills have been introduced in past sessions of Congress, but none have passed. However, mid-decade redistricting is suddenly happening. On August 21, California passed new districts, although they will not go into effect unless the voters approve the idea on November 4, 2025. On August 23, the Texas legislature passed new districts.
Other states that are thinking about new districts are Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and New York. All of these states are controlled by one major party.
One would think that HR 4889 could conceivably pass. Yet, as of the day this newsletter is being printed, the bill has no co-sponsors.
The bill is constitutional. Article One lets Congress write election laws that relate to congressional elections. In 1967, Congress required all states that have at least two U.S. House members to use single-member districts. Prior to that, Hawaii and New Mexico, each of whom had two members, elected both of them in at-large elections. Other states that in the past had at-large elections for U.S. House, even though they had more than two members, were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
UTAH LETS TWO BALLOT-QUALIFIED PARTIES MERGE
In July, Utah state elections officials let two ballot-qualified parties merge with each other. They are the Forward Party and the United Utah Parties. The two parties desired to have the name “Forward Party”.
This was only the second time in the last 100 years that two ballot-qualified parties within a single state have merged. The first instance was in 1944, when Minnesota let the Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party merge, under the name “Democratic-Farmer-Labor”.
One tricky problem when two parties merge is how to handle the voter registration records. Minnesota has never had registration by party, so that issue didn’t arise in 1944. But Utah does have registration by party. Utah handled it by automatically re-enrolling the United Utah registrants as Forward Party registrants. The voters were not asked about their wishes.
TEXAS REPUBLICANS BEGIN PROCESS TO EXCLUDE PRIMARY CANDIDATES
Last year, the Texas Republican state convention passed a resolution for the party to begin excluding candidates from the Republican primary if the candidate is deemed not to be a loyal member of the party.
Now, the party is compiling a list of specific issue stances that would trigger the exclusion. Once the list is complete, the party will have a standard by which to judge candidates.
Opponents of the party’s planned action have warned that they will sue to stop the process. The only state in which the Republicans already have such a process, and use it, is Alabama, but the party is pressing to do it in Georgia also.
GEORGIA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE HEARS ABOUT BALLOT ACCESS
In August, the Georgia House Election Law Study Committee began holding meetings around the state, seeking the public’s ideas for better election laws. Libertarians have testified at all these meetings, advocating that the minor party petition for statewide office be reduced from approximately 75,000 signatures to exactly 7,500 signatures.
ARIZONA NO LABELS PARTY MAY CHANGE ITS NAME
The Arizona No Labels Party, which is ballot-qualified, is polling its members, asking if they favor changing the party’s name. If the idea is approved, the party will ask the Secretary of State to allow the name change.
Arizona has never before had a ballot-qualified party that changed its name. The chart on page four lists instances in the last 80 years in which parties in other states have been allowed to change their names.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear three election law cases in October:
- Illinois: Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568, will be argued on October 8. The issue is whether a candidate has standing to challenge the state law on when absentee ballots must have been received.
- Louisiana: Louisiana v Callais, 24-109, will be argued on October 15. It concerns redistricting and the federal Voting Rights Act.
- national: National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-621, will probably be argued in January. It concerns the federal law that limits how much money parties can spend on the campaigns of their own nominee. Both sides agree that the law is unconstitutional.
LAWSUIT NEWS
Florida: on August 8, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee, issued a ruling in Florida State Conference of the NAACP v Byrd, n.d., 4:2325. He struck down a new law that says only citizens can distribute voter registration forms.
Florida(2): on August 21, Judge Walker enjoined any criminal penalties for out-of-state residents who circulate initiative petitions. He also enjoined the law that says volunteers who collect more than 25 signatures for an initiative must register themselves with the Secretary of State as a “circulator” and obtain a circulator number. The law enjoined also says that anyone caught with more than 25 signatures who hasn’t registered is guilty of a felony.
Georgia: on August 7, the Catoosa County Republican Party renewed its attempt to persuade a U.S. District Court to let it exclude candidates from its primary ballot if the party believes the candidates are not bona fide. Catoosa County Republican Party v Co. Bd of Elections, n.d., 4:24cv-95. The party had lost in U.S. District Court, but then its lawsuit was revived by the Eleventh Circuit.
Illinois: on August 20, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Kness, a Trump appointee, asked for oral argument in the pending ballot access case Team Kennedy v Illinois State Board of Elections, n.d., 1:24cv-7027. This is Kennedy’s last remaining ballot access case.
Louisiana: on August 14, the Fifth Circuit agreed with a U.S. District Court that the state legislative districts violate the federal Voting Rights Act. The opinion is unsigned, but the three judges on the case are James L. Dennis (Clinton appointee), Catharina Haynes (Bush Jr.) and Irma Carillo Ramirez (Biden). On August 15, the state asked for a stay, and no decision on that has been handed down. The next legislative elections in Louisiana are in 2027.
Michigan: on July 10, the Court of Claims denied a request by the state chair of the U.S. Taxpayers Party that the party be allowed to change its name to the Constitution Party. Brandenburg v Brader, 25-000052. The decision is based on procedure, not substance.
Mississippi: on August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Sharion Aycock, a Bush Jr. appointee, struck down the state’s boundaries for districts that elect State Supreme Court members. The state has three such districts, and each district elects three justices. The basis is the federal Voting Rights Act. No Black candidate has ever won one of these elections, although there have been four Black appointed justices in the past.
New Jersey: on August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi asked for more briefing in Kim v Hanlon, 3:24cv-1098. This is the case in which the primary ballot format was enjoined because it treated different candidates unequally. The plaintiffs are now asking for declaratory relief. The judge wants to know if any of the candidate plaintiffs plan to run in future elections. The lead plaintiff, U.S. Senator Andy Kim, presumably will say he intends to run again in 2030, when his term is up.
Pennsylvania: a lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court that says no write-in candidate can be nominated in a primary unless he or she receives 10 write-in votes. The case was filed by a Republican candidate for Mayor of Lyons Borough, Berks County. He received six write-ins at the May 2025 primary. No one else filed to appear on the primary ballot, nor the general election ballot. Lyons Borough is very small and only 41 Republicans cast a ballot. Pugh v Berks Co. Board of Elections, e.d., 5:25cv-3267. If Brandon Pugh doesn’t win this case, there will be no candidates for Mayor on the November 2025 ballot, although a Mayor could be elected by write-ins. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John M. Gallagher, a Trump appointee.
2024 INDEPENDENT U.S. SENATE PETITION REQUIREMENTS
| State | Number Sigs | Percent | Code Reference | Formula |
| La. | 0 | .00% | Title 18, sec. 465C | pay filing fee |
| Alaska | 0 | .00% | 15.25.010,15.25.030 | pay fee, then place in top 4 in primary |
| Okla. | 0 | .00% | Title 26, 10-101 | pay filing fee |
| Fla. | 0 | .00% | 97.021 | pay filing fee |
| Wash. | 0 | .00% | 29A.24.091 | pay fee, then place in top 2 in primary |
| Tenn. | 25 | .00+% | 2-5-101 | number stated in law |
| Hi. | 25 | .00+% | Title 2, sec. 12-6 | number stated in law |
| Cal. | 65 | .00+% | Election code 8062 | must place in top 2 in primary |
| N.J. | 800 | .02% | 19:13-5 | number stated in law |
| Nev. | 250 | .02% | Title 24, 293.200 | number stated in law |
| Minn. | 2,000 | .06% | 204B.08 | number stated in law |
| Wis. | 2,000 | .06% | Title 2, sec. 8.20(4) | number stated in law |
| Pa. | 5,000 | .07% | Consti. Pty of Pa v Cortes | number in court settlement |
| Utah | 1,000 | .07% | 20-3-38 | number stated in law |
| Miss. | 1,000 | .08% | 23-15-359 | number stated in law |
| Ohio | 5,000 | .08% | 3513.257 | number stated in law |
| Idaho | 1,000 | .12% | 34-708A | number stated in law |
| Vt. | 500 | .14% | Title 17, sec. 2402(b) | number stated in law |
| R.I. | 1,000 | .14% | 17-4-7 | number stated in law |
| Iowa | 3,500 | .21% | Title 4, sec. 45.1 | number stated in law |
| Mich. | 12,000 | .22% | Graveline v Johnson | number from 2018 court order |
| Ky. | 5,000 | .23% | Title 10, sec. 118.315(2) | number stated in law |
| Colo. | 8,000 | .25% | 1-4-802 | 1,000 signatures each US House dist. |
| Va. | 10,000 | .25% | 24.2-543 | number stated in law |
| Mass. | 10,000 | .28% | Chapter 53, sec. 6 | number stated in law |
| No. D. | 1,000 | .28% | 16.1-12-02 | number stated in law |
| Md. | 10,000 | .33% | elec. law 5-703(e) | number stated in law |
| Mo. | 10,000 | .33% | Title 9, sec. 115.321 | number stated in law |
| Ks. | 5,000 | .36% | 25-303 | number stated in law |
| N.H. | 3,000 | .37% | Title 4, sec. 655:42 | number stated in law |
| S.C. | 10,000 | .40% | 7-9-10 | number stated in law |
| Ill. | 25,000 | .41% | 10 ILCS 5/10-2 | number stated in law |
| Ct. | 7,500 | .41% | 9-453(d) | number stated in law |
| Neb. | 4,000 | .42% | 32-620 | number stated in law |
| Me. | 4,000 | .49% | Title 21, sec. 494.5 | number stated in law |
| N.Y. | 45,000 | ..52% | Chap. 17, sec. 6-142 | number stated in law |
| Tx. | 80,778 | .71% | Elec. code 181.005 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Ark. | 10,000 | .82% | 7-302(5)(B) | number stated in law |
| S.D. | 3,502 | .83% | 12-7-1 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| W.V. | 7,790 | .98% | 3-5-23 | 1% of 2020 Senate vote |
| Ore. | 23,744 | 1.00% | 249.735 | 1% of 2020 pres. vote |
| Ind. | 36,944 | 1.22% | 3-8-6-3 | 2% of 2022 Sec. of State vote |
| Ariz. | (est.) 45,000 | 1.33% | 16-341.E | 3% of no. of registered indps. |
| Wyo. | 3,879 | 1.40% | 22-4-402(d) | 2% of 2022 US House vote |
| Ga. | 70,083 | 1.40% | 21-2-170 | 1% of reg. voters as of Nov. 2022 |
| No.C. | 82,542 | 1.49% | 163-122 | 1.5% of 2020 gub. vote |
| Del. | (est.) 7,550 | 1.50% | Title 15, sec. 3001 | 1% of reg voters as of Dec 2023 |
| N.M. | 14,246 | 1.54% | 1-8-51 | 2% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Ala. | 42,459 | 1.83% | 17-9-3(a)(3) | 3% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Mt. | 16,659 | 2.76% | 13-10-601 | 5% of winner’s vote Senate 2020 |
This chart shows the 2024 petition requirements for an independent candidate for U.S. Senate. States with easier requirements for a new party than for a US Senate independent candidate are Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont. The percentage is the number of signatures divided by that state’s 2020 presidential vote cast.
2024 INDEPENDENT U.S. SENATE PETITION REQUIREMENTS
| State | Number Sigs | Percent | Code Reference | Formula |
| La. | 0 | .00% | Title 18, sec. 465C | pay filing fee |
| Alaska | 0 | .00% | 15.25.010,15.25.030 | pay fee, then place in top 4 in primary |
| Okla. | 0 | .00% | Title 26, 10-101 | pay filing fee |
| Fla. | 0 | .00% | 97.021 | pay filing fee |
| Wash. | 0 | .00% | 29A.24.091 | pay fee, then place in top 2 in primary |
| Tenn. | 25 | .00+% | 2-5-101 | number stated in law |
| Hi. | 25 | .00+% | Title 2, sec. 12-6 | number stated in law |
| Cal. | 65 | .00+% | Election code 8062 | must place in top 2 in primary |
| N.J. | 800 | .02% | 19:13-5 | number stated in law |
| Nev. | 250 | .02% | Title 24, 293.200 | number stated in law |
| Minn. | 2,000 | .06% | 204B.08 | number stated in law |
| Wis. | 2,000 | .06% | Title 2, sec. 8.20(4) | number stated in law |
| Pa. | 5,000 | .07% | Consti. Pty of Pa v Cortes | number in court settlement |
| Utah | 1,000 | .07% | 20-3-38 | number stated in law |
| Miss. | 1,000 | .08% | 23-15-359 | number stated in law |
| Ohio | 5,000 | .08% | 3513.257 | number stated in law |
| Idaho | 1,000 | .12% | 34-708A | number stated in law |
| Vt. | 500 | .14% | Title 17, sec. 2402(b) | number stated in law |
| R.I. | 1,000 | .14% | 17-4-7 | number stated in law |
| Iowa | 3,500 | .21% | Title 4, sec. 45.1 | number stated in law |
| Mich. | 12,000 | .22% | Graveline v Johnson | number from 2018 court order |
| Ky. | 5,000 | .23% | Title 10, sec. 118.315(2) | number stated in law |
| Colo. | 8,000 | .25% | 1-4-802 | 1,000 signatures each US House dist. |
| Va. | 10,000 | .25% | 24.2-543 | number stated in law |
| Mass. | 10,000 | .28% | Chapter 53, sec. 6 | number stated in law |
| No. D. | 1,000 | .28% | 16.1-12-02 | number stated in law |
| Md. | 10,000 | .33% | elec. law 5-703(e) | number stated in law |
| Mo. | 10,000 | .33% | Title 9, sec. 115.321 | number stated in law |
| Ks. | 5,000 | .36% | 25-303 | number stated in law |
| N.H. | 3,000 | .37% | Title 4, sec. 655:42 | number stated in law |
| S.C. | 10,000 | .40% | 7-9-10 | number stated in law |
| Ill. | 25,000 | .41% | 10 ILCS 5/10-2 | number stated in law |
| Ct. | 7,500 | .41% | 9-453(d) | number stated in law |
| Neb. | 4,000 | .42% | 32-620 | number stated in law |
| Me. | 4,000 | .49% | Title 21, sec. 494.5 | number stated in law |
| N.Y. | 45,000 | ..52% | Chap. 17, sec. 6-142 | number stated in law |
| Tx. | 80,778 | .71% | Elec. code 181.005 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Ark. | 10,000 | .82% | 7-302(5)(B) | number stated in law |
| S.D. | 3,502 | .83% | 12-7-1 | 1% of 2022 gub. vote |
| W.V. | 7,790 | .98% | 3-5-23 | 1% of 2020 Senate vote |
| Ore. | 23,744 | 1.00% | 249.735 | 1% of 2020 pres. vote |
| Ind. | 36,944 | 1.22% | 3-8-6-3 | 2% of 2022 Sec. of State vote |
| Ariz. | (est.) 45,000 | 1.33% | 16-341.E | 3% of no. of registered indps. |
| Wyo. | 3,879 | 1.40% | 22-4-402(d) | 2% of 2022 US House vote |
| Ga. | 70,083 | 1.40% | 21-2-170 | 1% of reg. voters as of Nov. 2022 |
| No.C. | 82,542 | 1.49% | 163-122 | 1.5% of 2020 gub. vote |
| Del. | (est.) 7,550 | 1.50% | Title 15, sec. 3001 | 1% of reg voters as of Dec 2023 |
| N.M. | 14,246 | 1.54% | 1-8-51 | 2% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Ala. | 42,459 | 1.83% | 17-9-3(a)(3) | 3% of 2022 gub. vote |
| Mt. | 16,659 | 2.76% | 13-10-601 | 5% of winner’s vote Senate 2020 |
This chart shows the 2024 petition requirements for an independent candidate for U.S. Senate. States with easier requirements for a new party than for a US Senate independent candidate are Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont. The percentage is the number of signatures divided by that state’s 2020 presidential vote cast.
INSTANCES WHEN A STATE LET A QUALIFIED PARTY CHANGE ITS NAME
| Year | State | Old Name | New Name | Motivation |
| 1944 | Minn | Farmer-Labor | Democratic-Farmer-Labor | Two state parties merged |
| 1944 | Minn | Democratic | Democratic-Farmer-Labor | Two state parties merged |
| 1956 | ND | Democratic | Democratic-NP League | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1972 | Alas | Independent Party | American Party | State party wished to join national party |
| 1972 | Ks | Conservative | American Party | State party wished to join national party |
| 1975 | Minn | Republican | Independent-Republican | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1978 | Hi | Indps for Godly Govt | Aloha Democratic | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1979 | Ala | Prohibition | National Statesman | National party had changed its name |
| 1979 | Ks | Prohibition | Statesman | National party had changed its name |
| 1979 | NM | Prohibition | National Statesman | National party had changed its name |
| 1982 | Hi | Independent Party | Independent Democratic | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1983 | Ky | Anderson Coalition | National Unity | State party wished to join national party |
| 1983 | Ks | Statesman | Prohibition | National party had changed its name |
| 1983 | NM | National Statesman | Prohibition | National party had changed its name |
| 1991 | Mass | Hi-Tech Independents | Independent Voters | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1993 | Ore | Independent Initiative | American | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1993 | Penn | Pennsylvanians for Perot | Patriot | State party wished to join national party |
| 1993 | SC | American | U.S. Taxpayers | State party wished to join national party |
| 1994 | NY | Tax Cut Now | Freedom | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 1994 | SC | United Citizens | Patriot | State party wished to join national party |
| 1995 | Va | Independent Party | Reform | State party wished to join national party |
| 1995 | Ore | New Alliance | Socialist | Defunct party doing a favor |
| 1995 | Minn | Independent-Republican | Republican | State party wished to use national name |
| 1996 | Ore | American | Reform | State party wished to join national party |
| 1996 | Minn | Independence | Reform | State party wished to join national party |
| 1996 | Penn | Patriot | Reform | Two national parties merged |
| 1998 | Idaho | U.S. Taxpayers | American Heritage | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 2000 | Idaho | American Heritage | Constitution | National party had changed its name |
| 2000 | Ore | Natural Law | Reform | Attempt to help two nat. parties merge |
| 2000 | Mo. | U.S. Taxpayers | Constitution | National party had changed its name |
| 2000 | SC | U.S. Taxpayers | Constitution | National party had changed its name |
| 2000 | SC | Patriot | United Citizens | Defunct party doing a favor |
| 2000 | Mn | Reform | Independence | State party seceded from national party |
| 2002 | SC | Natural Law | Green | Defunct party doing a favor |
| 2005 | Idaho | Natural Law | United | Defunct party doing a favor |
| 2009 | Ore | Peace | Progressive | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 2014 | NY | Stop Common Core | Freedom | Believed to enhance appeal |
| 2018 | SC | American | Alliance | State party wished to join national party |
| 2023 | SC | Alliance | Forward | Two national parties merged |
This chart shows all instances in the last ninety years in which a state permitted a ballot-qualified party to change its name, without having to qualify all over again as a new party.
Most states don’t have any law on the subject of whether a party may change its name. The only ones that do are Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. Also New York permits a newly-qualified party to change its name.
As far as is known, no party has ever before filed a lawsuit on this issue, except for the lawsuit filed this year by the chair of the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan. However, the party itself was not a plaintiff. The case was pro se.
The Attorneys General of at least four states have ruled that parties may change their name, in the absence of any law on the subject. Those Opinions were issued by Hawaii, Kansas, Oregon, and South Carolina.
Although Wisconsin law lets parties change their name, there is no instance at which the law has been used.
2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES
| State | Party sigs | Indp sigs | Libertarian | Green | Constitution | Forward | Pty Due | Indp Due |
| Alabama | 42,459 | 42,459 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | *May 19 | May 19 |
| Alaska | (reg) 5,000 | Pay fee | already on | *1,503 | *760 | 0 | May 4 | June 1 |
| Arizona | 34,127 | (est) 48,000 | already on | already on | 0 | 0 | Nov 28, 25 | May 6 |
| Arkansas | 10,000 | 10,000 | *10,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 28 | *May 1 |
| Calif. | (reg 75,000 | 65 | already on | already on | 189 | *2,000 | Dec 31 25 | March 6 |
| Colorado | 10,000 | 8,000 | already on | already on | clready on | *already on | Jan 9 | July 9 |
| Conn. | no procedure | 7,500 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | Aug 10 |
| Del. | (reg) 780 | 7,800 | already on | already on | *223 | *10 | Aug 25 | July 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | 3,000 | can’t start | already on | can’t start | can’t start | – – | Aug 5 |
| Florida | be organized | 0 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Apr 24 | Apr 24 |
| Georgia | 72,680 | 70,083 | *500 | 0 | *0 | *0 | July 14 | July 14 |
| Hawaii | 861 | 25 | already on | *1,300 | 0 | 0 | Feb 20 | June 2 |
| Idaho | 18,102 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | clready on | 0 | Aug 30 | March 21 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | May 25 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 36,944 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 30 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 3,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | *June 2 |
| Kansas | 20,180 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | June 1 | Aug 3 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | can’ t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | Aug 11 |
| Louisiana | 1,000 + 5,000 | 5,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | June 17 | *July 1 |
| Maine | (reg) 5,000 | 4,000 | already on | already on | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | June 1 |
| Maryld. | 10,000 | 10,000 | *1,200 | already on | 0 | 0 | July 1 | Aug 3 |
| Mass. | (reg) 45, 500 | 10,000 | 15,672 | 3,545 | 289 | 35 | Feb. 1 | July 28 |
| Michigan | 44,618 | 12,000 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | July 16 | July 16 |
| Minn. | 163,621 | 2,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | May 2 | June 2 |
| Miss. | be organized | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | March 1 | Feb. 2 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | *150 | 0 | Muly 27 | July 27 |
| Montana | 5,000 | *12,788 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | March 2 | May 26 |
| Nebraska | 6,726 | 4,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | Sept 1 |
| Nevada | 14,271 | 250 | already on | 0 | already on | *500 | May 12 | May 12 |
| N.Hamp | 24,375 | 3,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | Aug 4 | Aug 4 |
| N Jersey | no procedure | 2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 2 |
| N Mex | 3,560 +14,246 | 14,246 | already on | already on | 0 | *1,000 | June 25 | June 25 |
| N York | no procedure | 45,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | May 26 |
| No Caro | 13,979 | 83,874 | already on | already on | *400 | *7,000 | May 17 | March 3 |
| No Dak | 7,000 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 6 | Aug 31 |
| Ohio | 57,678 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | *3,000 | July 1 | May 4 |
| Okla | 34,599 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | March 2 | April 10 |
| Oregon | 29,294 | 22,445 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | Aug 11 | Aug 11 |
| Penn. | no procedure | 5,000 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | Aug 3 | |
| R.I. | 17,884 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | July 10 |
| So.Car. | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | May 3 | July 15 |
| So.Dak. | 3,502 | 3,502 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | July 1 | April 28 |
| Tenn | 43,498 | 25 | *0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5 | *March 10 |
| Texas | 71,030 | 71,030 | already on | already on | can’t start | can’t start | May 26 | *May 11 |
| Utah | 2,000 | #1,000 | already on | 0 | 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 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | — | June 16 |
| Wash. | no procedure | 0 | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | can’t start | – – | May 8 |
| W.Va. | no procedure | 7,478 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | – – | Aug 3 |
| Wisc. | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | already on | already on | can’t start | April 1 | June 1 |
| Wyoming | 5,201 | 5,201 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | June 1 | Aug 24 |
| #ON | *30 | *16 | 12 | *4 |
*entry changed since May 1 issue.
GREEN INCLUDED IN CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE
On August 16, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) held a California gubernatorial debate in Sacramento. It included the Green Party candidate, Butch Ware. It also included six leading Democrats. This is believed to be the first instance since the start of the top-two system in 2011 in which a minor party candidate for Governor or Senator was included with front-running major party candidates for the same office.
The Democrats who participated were Toni Atkins, Xavier Becerra, Stephen Cloobeck, Katie Porter, Tony Thurmond, and Betty Yee.
The debate was not broadcast, except internally to various SEIU meeting halls. The leading Republican, Steve Hilton, was invited but chose not to participate.
Ware was the Green Party’s vice presidential nominee in 2024.
NO LABELS ENDORSES ANDREW CUOMO DESPITE HIS BALLOT ACCESS RECORD
On August 14, No Labels endorsed Andrew Cuomo for Mayor of New York City. This is believed to be the first time No Labels has endorsed any candidate who is running as an independent. It is odd that No Labels took this step, because Cuomo did more to damage the proposed 2024 No Labels presidential campaign than any other individual.
During 2020, when he was Governor, he virtually forced the legislature to triple the statewide petition requirement from 15,000 to 45,000 signatures. Also while he was Governor, in 2019, he supported moving the petition deadline from August to May. New York has no procedure for a group like No Labels to petition before it has a nominee. Therefore, if No Labels had proceeded with its plans to run an independent presidential candidate in 2024, it would have been extremely difficult for that candidate to get on the New York ballot, because it probably wouldn’t have chosen its nominee as early as May.
DEMOCRATIC U.S. HOUSE MEMBER IS ALSO A FORWARD PARTY MEMBER
On August 14, Donald G. Davis, a U.S. House member from North Carolina, participated in a Forward Party meeting. He told the group that even though he is a Democrat, he also considers himself a member of the Forward Party. Davis represents the First District, which is in the northeast corner of the state and which is very closely divided between the major parties. In 2024, the margin was only 6,307 votes.
LIBERAL PARTY IS ONLY THIRD PARTY TO APPEAR ON PENNSYLVANIA 2025 STATEWIDE BALLOT
Pennsylvania holds two statewide elections for judicial office in November 2025. These are partisan elections. The only minor party or independent candidate on the ballot in either of these elections is from the Liberal Party. Its nominee, Daniel Wassmer, is on for Superior Court. The Liberal Party also has a few nominees for local office. It is an offshoot of the Libertarian Party.
ARIZONA SPECIAL U.S. HOUSE ELECTION
Arizona will hold a special election for U.S. House on September 23. Each qualified party had its own primary on July 15. The Green Party and the No Labels Party each nominated someone by write-in. The Green Party candidate got 42 write-ins, and the No Labels candidate received one write-in. They were able to advance to the general election, because parties that have been qualified for less than four years have more lenient rules for nominating by write-in in their own primaries. There is no minimum number of write-ins.
By contrast, the Libertarians had a candidate in their primary, but he can’t advance. He got 19 write-ins. Because the Libertarian Party has been ballot-qualified for more than four years, it needs as many write-ins in its own primary as the number of signatures the candidate would have needed to appear on the ballot.
ONLY ***LEFT/RIGHT STATIST*** BALLOT LABELS ALLOWED ???
https://abcnews.go.com/US/responds-trump-escalator-malfunction/story?id=125885502
WILL TYRANT TRUMP STOP EVERYTHING ???
ESP ALL LIFE ON MOTHER EARTH ???
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/graham-says-support-third-trump-120754022.html
SEN DOOFUSS AT WORK
LITTLE WONDER THAT TYRANT TRUMP IS TYRANT TRUMP
WITH SUPER-MORONS LIKE SEN. G IN DEVIL CITY SENATE
The ballot is not the place for campaign labels, slogans or icons. The state should not print any on ballots and there would be nothing to litigate either.
Isn’t the Communist Party still banned in Texas?
The communist party still exists in Texas. They call themselves Democrats.
In the article on HR 4889, the bill to ban mid-decade redistricting, there is a list of the two states that were electing two or more members of the House at large when single-member districts were mandated in 1967 and the thirty-nine states that had done so previously. It might have been more interesting to list the nine states that never had done so, Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Alaska and Wyoming never had more than one Representative in the house, and that might also be true of Delaware and Nevada (as of 1967, they have more now).
It’s interesting that West Virginia is on the list, because their state constitution provides for multi-member districts in the lower house of their state legislature, and they have used that provision until the redistricting after the 2020 census. For example, in the redistricting after the 2010 census, their were 67 districts for 100 seats. Most districts were single-member, but the 33 more members than districts were because of the multi-member districts. They didn’t use proportional election methods, so one four-member district elected four Democrats and a five-member district elected four Republicans and one Democrat.
Richard Winger needs to stop encouraging assassination by censoring the Ifo questions. And the AZ 666 SPAMBOT needs to stop changing the subject and answer them.
True!
I agree.
Pardon me, can anyone point me on path to test nonpartisan fed. election reform proposal against, historic reform efforts, likely challenges?
Require that all candidates may ONLY use Public Media to communicate during campaigns/election periods, and only as moderated by NONPARTISAN citizen election commissions, granting equal Air Time to all candidates, regardless of any party affiliation; moderation to include requirement to submit all platform/public information to be fact-checked and verified by citizen election commission prior to permitting broadcast/telecast/web posting.
Proposal aims to eliminate need for money from private or corporate sources for federal elections – as they are inherently corrupting. Model of fair, reasonable, ethical, nonpartisan regulation of candidate speech is based on long standing practices in all U.S. law courts for 240 years, as well as model of town halls and federal agencies practices in decisions on candidate employees as well as decisions on commercial contract bids to all levels of U.S. government.
thank you
Sounds communist and retarded.