U.S. DISTRICT COURT STRIKES DOWN SOUTH DAKOTA FEBRUARY PETITION DEADLINE FOR INITIATIVES

On August 29, U.S. District Court Judge Camela C. Theeler, a Biden appointee, struck down South Dakota’s petition deadline for initiative petitions.  Dakotans for Health v Johnson, 4:25cv-4050.  The deadline is the first Tuesday in February, which is approximately nine months before the election.

The rationale is that petitioning is free speech activity, and the deadline effectively “bans petition circulation for the nine months before an election.”  That means the state was banning the type of expressive activity that petitioning represents for a very lengthy period.

The decision is based on a pair of U. S. Supreme Court decisions.  Meyer v Grant in 1988 had struck down Colorado’s ban on paying petitioners, and Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation in 1999 struck down a Colorado law that said petitioners had to be registered voters.  Both decisions said that petitioning for initiatives is free speech activity, something that had not previously been settled by the Supreme Court.

The recent South Dakota decision is also based on a 2023 Eighth Circuit decision that struck down South Dakota’s petition deadline for initiative petitions of November of the year before the election.  That case was SD Voice v Noem, 60 F.4^th 1071.

The new South Dakota ruling will be a useful precedent to attack similar early deadlines for new parties and independent candidates.  Two states, Arizona and Utah, require petitions that qualify new parties to be completed in the odd year before an election year.  Neither deadline has been challenged in court.  The Arizona deadline was created in 2019, and the Utah deadline in 2017.

Sometimes states try to defend early petition deadlines (for new parties) by saying that the early deadline is needed in order to give new parties their own primary.  But that argument has failed in courts in Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  Plaintiffs pointed out that those states are free to allow newly-qualifying parties to nominate with a convention instead of a primary.  And in all seven states, after those states lost the lawsuit against early deadlines, the legislature did then provide that new parties should nominate by convention.

The new South Dakota precedent may also be used against state laws that make it illegal for a group to circulate petitions for a new party, or an independent candidate, as early as they wish.  See the charts on pages four and five to see which states bar such petitioning.

When the first ballot access laws were written starting in 1889, no state restricted how early a ballot access petition could circulate.   The first state to set a start date was Pennsylvania, in 1939, followed by New York in 1954.  In 1961, both California and Minnesota set a start date for independent candidate petitions, but not petitions for new parties.  Rhode Island passed a start date in 1975, and Illinois did so in 1985.  So all states were without prohibitions on early petitioning for 50 years, and to this day most states still don’t ban early petitioning.

Prohibitions on early petitioning are especially egregious when one notes that many new parties and independent candidacies were launched in non-election years.  For example, the Peoples Party was formed on May 19, 1891.

The biggest new party petition drives in the 21^st century were those of Americans Elect and No Labels.  Americans Elect wanted to run for president in 2012 and started petitioning in 2010.  It spent $1,157,723 on ballot access in 2010, and over $11,000,000 in 2011.  No Labels intended to run for president in the 2024 election and petitioned in mid-2022 and all of 2023, as well as early 2024.

The biggest petition drive for an independent presidential candidate in the 21^st century was that of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  He started petitioning in October 2023.

The biggest petition drive for a new party in the 1990’s was Ross Perot’s work to create a new party.  He determined to do that in September 1995 but didn’t actually get started until November 6, 1995, after he had chosen “Reform” as the name of his new party.

---

PENNSYLVANIA ACCESS PROCEDURAL WIN

On September 11, U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, a Trump appointee, issued an order in West v Pennsylvania Dept. of State, w.d., 2:24cv-1349.  This is the lawsuit filed in 2024 by Cornel West against Pennsylvania’s policy of requiring a petitioning presidential candidate to submit notarized declarations of candidacy from all of his or her presidential elector candidates.  Also, a full slate of electors is required.  By contrast, the major parties don’t need to submit any documents from their elector candidates at all; they just submit a list of the electors.

The judge rejected the state’s attempt to get the lawsuit dismissed on ripeness and mootness grounds.  The case will proceed to a trial.

---

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ALLOWS FLORIDA PETITIONER RESIDENCY LAW TO BE ENFORCED

On September 9, the Eleventh Circuit ruled 2-1 that while the lawsuit Florida Decides Healthcare v Byrd, 25-12370, is pending, Florida may enforce its new ban on out-of-state circulators for initiatives.  The decision is by Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, and is also signed by Judge Elizabeth Branch (Trump).  Judge Nancy Abudu (Biden) dissented.

The lower court had enjoined the law earlier this year.  The Eleventh Circuit action is shocking, because bans on out-of-state petitioners had been struck down in seventeen states and D.C. in the past 25 years.  Many of these decisions say that a “consensus” exists among courts that the bans violate the First Amendment.

The majority wrote a very lengthy dissertation against fraud in the petitioning business, but nowhere included any evidence that a ban on out-of-state circulators helps the fight against fraud.  The majority tried to disguise the fact that only one other Circuit had upheld such a ban (the North Dakota case from 2001, Initiative & Referendum Institute v Jaeger), and didn’t mention that in that case, the plaintiffs didn’t present any evidence.

The majority cited Biddulph v Mortham, an Eleventh Circuit decision, and said that case compels the court to act as it did.  But Biddulph was on the subject of the single-subject rule for initiatives, a different issue.

The majority cited a Fifth Circuit opinion from Texas, Voting for America v Steen, but that upheld a law banning out-of-state volunteers from helping register voters.  But that is not a decision about petitioning.

The majority acknowledged some of the precedents against out-of-state petitioner bans, but not all of them.  Here is a list:

Alaska:  Bonner v Bahnke, 3:17cv-202 (2017), in which the state didn’t even try to defend its ban on out-of-state circulators for initiatives.

Arizona:  Nader v Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (2008), in which the Ninth Circuit struck down the ban for candidate petitions.

Colorado:  Goodall v Williams, 324 F. Supp 3d 1184 (2018), in which a U.S. District Court struck down a ban for candidate petitions.  The state appealed to the Tenth Circuit but then dropped its appeal.

Connecticut:  Wilmoth v Merrill, 3:16cv-223 (2016), struck down the ban for primary candidate petitions.  Libertarian Party of Connecticut v Merrill, 3:15cv-1851 (2016), struck down the ban on general election candidate petitions.

District of Columbia:  in Libertarian Party v Danzansky, 1:12cv-1248 (2012), the Board of Elections didn’t even try to defend its ban.

Idaho:  in Daien v Ysursa, 711 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (2010), a U.S. District Court struck down the ban for candidate petitions.

Illinois:  the Seventh Circuit struck down the ban for candidate petitions in Krislov v Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (2000).

Kansas:  Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, 5:10cv-4043, in which the state didn’t even try to defend its ban for petitions to create a new party.

Maine:  the First Circuit struck down the ban for initiatives in We the People PAC v Bellows, 40 F.4^th 1 (2022).  The state tried very hard to win this case and asked for rehearing en banc after it lost, but that request was denied.

Montana:  the Ninth Circuit struck down the ban for initiative petitions in Pierce v Jacobsen, 44 F.4^th 853 (2022).

Nebraska:  a U.S. District Court struck down the ban for initiative petitions in Citizens in Charge v Gale, 810 F.Supp 2d 916 (2011).

New Jersey:  the Third Circuit ruled in Wilmoth v Secretary of State of New Jersey, 731 F Appx 97 (2018), that bans are subject to strict scrutiny.  It then remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, which then struck down the ban for primary candidates.  On remand the case was called Arsenault v Way, 3:16cv-1854 (2021).

New York:  a U.S. District Court struck down the ban for candidate petitions in Schmidt v Kosinski, 1:22cv-2210 (e.d., 2024).

Ohio:  the Sixth Circuit struck down the ban for candidate petitions in Nader v Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459 (2008).  The ban for initiatives was challenged in Friedlander v Brunner, 2:10cv-378 (s.d., 2010), and the state did not defend its ban.

Oklahoma: the Tenth Circuit struck down the ban for initiative petitions in Yes on Term limits v Savage, 550 F.3d 1023 (2008).

Pennsylvania:  a U.S. District Court invalidated the ban for general election candidates in Green Party v Aichele, 89 F.Supp 32 723 (e.d., 2015).  The Third Circuit struck down the ban for primary candidates in Benezet Consulting v Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 26 F.4^th 580 (2022), but only for petitioners who are members of the same party as the candidate they are working for.

South Dakota:  a U.S. District Court struck down the ban for initiatives in League of Women Voters v Noem, 4:22cv-4085 (2023).  The state did not try to defend its ban.

Virginia:  the Fourth Circuit struck down the ban for candidates in Libertarian Party v Judd, 718 F.3d 308 (2013).  The state then asked the Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court declined.

The Eleventh Circuit did not mention the Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kansas, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, or South Dakota precedents, although some of them are not reported.

---

BOOK REVIEW: CAMPAIGN OF CHAOS

Campaign of Chaos:  Trump, Biden, Harris, and the 2024 American Election, edited by Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and J. Miles Coleman,  2025.  256 pages.

In this book, sixteen experts on U.S. elections contribute separate chapters on the 2024 presidential election.  The authors include political scientists, journalists, researchers at think tanks, and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.   Most of the chapters include data on specialized topics.  The book includes not only the presidential election, but U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state office elections.

Specialized topics for the presidential election show which types of voters voted for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.  Chapter 8 is titled, “Trump Made Further Gains with Latino Voters in 2024,” and has details for many types of Latinos, such as Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.  Chapter 10 is titled, “How Trump eluded a backlash to abortion bans to Retake the White House.”  Chapter 1 has numerous tables showing the vote by age, marital status, financial status, party, ideology, race, religion, region, sex, and attitude toward various political issues.

Chapter 4, “Educational Polarization, Racial Depolarization:  Demographic Trends in Trump’s Elections” reveals the huge swing away from the Democratic Party among Arab American voters.  It says, “Arab-majority areas like Dearborn, Michigan swung to the right by more than 50 percentage points.”

Chapter 9 covers polling.  Chapter 11 covers campaign finance and reveals that Harris outspent Trump.  It also has a useful history of primary season matching funds, and why major party candidates no longer apply for them.  Chapter 12 describes how each type of media influenced the election outcome.  The book has 34 tables.

The final two chapters are “Why a Narrow Loss Sparked Such Deep Doubts for Democrats”, and “Democracy at a Crossroads at Dawn of Second Trump Administration.”

The book is a must-have resource for anyone who wants to understand the 2024 election in statistical detail.

However, all of the authors ignore the existence of voters who did not support either Trump or Harris.  They don’t even alert the reader to the fact that no candidate received a majority of the popular vote, except for a single sentence on page one that says, “Trump was able to secure nearly half the popular vote”.  No author mentioned that the Green Party more than doubled its presidential vote, despite being on the ballot before only 79% of the voters.  No author mentioned the Democratic Party’s war on No Labels and on the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign.  Democratic hostility toward the Kennedy campaign motivated Kennedy to withdraw and to endorse Trump, which alone probably tipped the election.

The final chapters, which look toward the future and try to imagine how the nation’s polarized status might be repaired, do not even hint at the thought that a new major party might be overdue.

2025 polls by Gallup, Wall Street Journal, and Pew Research all agree that the Democratic Party is very unpopular.  All three polls agree that the percentage of voters who do not approve of the Democratic Party ranges from 63% to 65%.  Voters who disapprove of the Republican Party range from 54% to 56%.  In a free country, that type of public opinion would lead to the formation of a new major party.

New parties have won the presidency in recent years in France, Mexico, Ukraine, and Argentina.  And even in the United Kingdom, a new party, the Labour Party, elected the Prime Minister in 1924.

New major parties were formed in the United States three times:  National Republican in 1826, Whig in 1836, and Republican in 1854.  But for 171 years, the U.S. has had the same two major parties, because of our ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, practices relating to candidate debates, and the existence of primary elections.  These policies suppress new parties.

---

REDISTRICTING

1. California: voters will decide on November 4 whether to suspend the state’s normal procedure for drawing districts, in favor of a recent legislative plan that creates a gerrymander that injures Republicans.
2. Missouri: on September 12, the legislature passed HB 1, which creates a gerrymander that injures Democrats. However, Governor Mike Kehoe, a Republican, hasn’t signed the bill.  It has a drafting flaw and puts one precinct in two different districts.
3. North Dakota: the U.S. Supreme Court is fairly likely to hear  Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe, 25-253.  It concerns legislative redistricting.  The Eighth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs because it believed groups can’t file Voting Rights Act Section Two cases.  This was a conclusion that contradicts many other precedents.  Even the state agrees the issue can only be settled by the Supreme Court.

---

PRIMARIES

1. Florida: on October 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear Polelle v Byrd, 25-147. The case was filed by an independent who argues that closed primaries are unconstitutional.
2. Texas: on Septembeer 4, the Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit demanding a closed primary for itself. Hunt v State, n.d., 2:25cv-200.

---

LENGTH OF 2026 PETITIONING WINDOWS FOR NEW PARTIES    

State	Start Date	Deadline	Reference	Days
Ala.	No limit	May 19, 2026	17-6-22 and Ala. Sec. of State e-mail of Oct. 2022	No limit
Alaska	No limit	May 4, 2026	15.25.010 (registration drive, not a petition)	No limit
Ariz.	No limit	Nov. 28, 2025	16-801(A)	No limit
Ark.	Jan. 1, 2025	April 28, 2026	7-7-204	483
Calif.	No limit	Dec. 31, 2025	Election code 5100(b) (registration drive)	No limit
Colo.	No limit	Jan. 9, 2026	1-4-1302	No limit
Del.	No limit	Aug. 25, 2026	Title 15, 3001 (registration drive)	No limit
Fla.	No limit	April 24, 2026	99.096 (mere submission of officers and bylaws)	No limit
Ga.	No limit	July 14, 2026	21-2-180; petition must be done in 15 months	455
Hawaii	No limit	Feb. 20, 2026	Title 2, 12-6	No limit
Idaho	Aug. 30, 2005	Aug. 30, 2006	34-708	365
Kansas	No limit	June 1, 2026	25-302a & 25-205; pet. must be done in 180 days	180
La.	No limit	June 17, 2026	Title 18, sec. 441 (registration drive)	No limit
Maine	Dec. 15, 2024	Jan. 2, 2026	Title 21, sec. 303	383
Md.	No limit	July 1, 2026	$-102(b)(2); petition must be done in 2 years	730
Mass.	No limit	Feb. 1, 2026	Chap. 50, sec. 1 (registration drive)	No limit
Mich.	No limit	July 16, 2026	168.685(1); petition must be done in six months	182
Minn.	No limit	.June 1, 2026	200.02(7); petition must be done in one year	365
Miss.	No limit	March 1, 2026	23-15-1051 (mere submission of officers names)	No limit
Mo.	No limit	July 27, 2026	Title 9, sec. 115.315	No limit
Mont.	No limit	March 2, 2026	13-10-606	No limit
Neb.	No limit	August 3, 2026	32-716	No limit
Nev.	No limit	May 12, 2026	Title 24, 293.1715	No limit
N.H.	Jan. 2, 2026	.Aug. 4, 2026	655:40a, 655:43, 655:41	215
N.M.	No Limit	June 25, 2026	1-7-2A & state’s brief in Constitution Pty v Duran	No limit
No.C.	No limit	May 17, 2026	163A-950	No limit
No D.	No limit	April 6, 2026	16.1-11-30,1-01-50; pet. must be done in one year	365
Ohio	No limit	July 1. 2026	3517.01	No limit
Okla.	No limit	March 2, 2026	Tit 16, sec 1-109,108.2; pet. must be done in one yr	365
Ore.	No limit	Aug. 11, 2026	249.735	No limit
R.I.	No limit	Aug. 3, 2026	Decision in Block v Mollis	No limit
So.C.	No limit	May 3, 2026	7-11-70	No limit
So.D.	No limit	July 1, 2026	12-5-1	No limit
Tenn.	No limit	Aug, 5, 2026	2-104(27)b	No limit
Texas	Mar. 12, 2026	May 26, 2026	Elec. Code sec. 181.006	75
Utah	No limit	Nov. 30, 2025	20A-8-103	No limit
Vt.	No limit	Dec. 31, 2025	Title 17, 2313 & 2318 (mere submission of officers)	No limit
Wis.	Jan. 1, 2026	April 1	Title 2, sec. 8.20(4)	90
Wyo.	April 1, 2025	June 1	22-4-402(e)	426

This chart shows the how much time groups have to work toward getting qualified party status.  Most procedures involve petitions, but some states have registration drives instead, or the submission of other types of paperwork, such as names of party officers.  STATES THAT ARE NOT MENTIONED DON’T HAVE PROCEDURES FOR NEW PARTIES; they just have provisions for candidate petitions.

Most states let a group start as early as the group wishes, but some states make it illegal for the work to be carried out in parts of the calendar.  The chart above shows which states have this limitation, and how severe it is.

Petitioning is First Amendment activity, and courts have long held that restrictions on First Amendment activity can only be justified if the state can show that the restriction is needed for a compelling reason.  An example of a court applying that reasoning to petitioning is illustrated on the front page story about South Dakota.  It seems plausible that similar lawsuit victories could be won against the states that don’t permit petitioning to qualify new parties during parts of the year.  Although deadlines are obviously necessary for election administration, it doesn’t follow logically that petitioning to qualify a new party should ever be illegal at any time.  If the group misses the deadline for a particular election, the petition could still be used to qualify the group for the next election.

---

LENGTH OF 2026 PETITIONING WINDOWS FOR GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES 

State	Start Date	Deadline	Code Reference	How Many Days
Ala.	No limit	May 19, 2026	17-7-1(a)(2)	No limit
Alaska	No petition	June 1	15.25.140	No petition
Ariz.	No limit	May 6	16-341.G	No limit
Ark.	Jan. 31	May 1	7-7-103(b)	90
Calif.	Dec. 19, 2025	March 6	Elec code 8020,8106	77
Colo.	May 6	July 9	1-4-802	61
Ct.	Jan. 2	Aug. 10	9-453i	220
Del.	No limit	July 15	Title 15, sec. 3002	No limit
Fla.	No petition	April 24	99.0955	No petition
Ga.	No limit	July 14	21-2-132; petition must be done in 180 days	180
Hawaii	No limit	June 2	12-6, 12-41	No limit
Idaho	No limit	March 21	34-708	No limit
Ill.	Feb. 24	May 25	10 ILCS 5/10-4	90
Indiana	No limit	June 30	3-8-6-10	No limit
Iowa	No limit	June 2	45.1	No limit
Kansas	No limit	August 3	25-3602; petition must be done in six months	182
Ky.	Nov. 5, 2025	August 11	118.365	279
La.	March 31	July 1	Title 18, sec. 465	92
Maine	Jan. 1	June 1	Title 21A, sec. 354.8	152
Md.	No limit	August 1	Art. 33, 5-703(f); pet. must be done in two years	730
Mass.	Feb. 17	July 28	Chap. 53, sec. 47	161
Mich.	No limit	July 16	168.590c(2); petition must be done in six months	182
Minn.	May 19	June 2	204B.09	14
Miss.	No limit	Feb. 2	23-5-134	No limit
Mo.	No limit	July 27	115.321, 115.329	No limit
Mont.	No limit	May 26	13-10-504	No limit
Neb.	No limit	Sep. 1	32-618	No limit
Nevada	No limit	May 12	298.109	No limit
N.H.	Jan. 1	Aug. 4	655:40	216
N.J.	No limit	June 2	19:13-9 and Arsenault v Way, p. 7 (2021) decision	No limit
N.M.	March 4	June 25	1-8-52C, 1-8-12, 1-22-4	113
N.Y.	April 14	May 26	Election code 6-138.4	42
No.C.	No limit	March 3	163A-1005	No limit
No.D.	June 2	August 31	16.1-11-15	90
Ohio	No limit	May 4	3513.257, 3513.262; pet. must be done in one year	365
Okla.	No petition	April 10	26-5-110	No petition
Ore.	No limit	August 11	249.722(1)	No limit
Pa.	March 11	August 1	Title 25, sec. 2913 and Libt Party v Davis (1984)	143
R.I.	May 31	July 10	17-14-4, 17-12-11	10
So.C.	No limit	July 15	7-13-351	No limit
So.D.	Jan. 1	April 28	12-7-1, 12-7-1.1	117
Tenn.	Jan. 9	March 10	3-8-6-3	61
Tex.	March 4	May 11	142.006	69
Utah	No limit	June 15	20-4-9.5	No limit
Vt.	No limit	August 6	Title 17, sec. 2402 & 2356	No limit
Va.	Jan. 2	June 16	24.2-507	165
Wash.	No petition	May 8	29A.24.050	No petition
W.V.	No limit	August 3	3-5-23	No limit
Wis.	April 15	June 1	8.20(8)(a)	47
Wyo.	No limit	August 24	22-4-402(d)	No limit

This chart shows the 2026 requirements for when petitioning can be carried out for an independent candidate for Congress or statewide state office.  Compare it to the chart on page four that shows similar information for petitions or other procedures to create a new qualified party.  Most states let both types of petition begin to circulate as early as the group or candidate desires.  Restrictions on when petitioning may be carried out may violate the First Amendment.

---

 SPECIAL U.S. HOUSE ELECTIONS

Arizona:  on August 23, a special election was held to fill the vacancy in the Seventh U.S. House District.  The results:  Democratic 68.55%; Republican 29.77%; Green 1.11%; No Labels .56%.  When this seat was up in November 2024, the results had been:  Democratic 63.45%; Republican 36.55%.  The district comprises southern Arizona.

Virginia:  on August 9, a special election was held to fill the vacant Eleventh District U.S. House seat.  The results:  Democratic 76.27%; Republican 23.73%.  When this last seat had last been up, the results had been:  Democratic 66.99%; Republican 33.01%.  The district comprises Fairfax City and part of Fairfax County.

---

VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS

On November 4, Virginia elects all 100 members of the State House of Delegates.  There are 99 Democrats, 84 Republicans, three independents, two Libertarians, and two Forward Party nominees.  Two years ago, when the same seats were up, there were 85 Democrats, 80 Republicans, three independents, and two Libertarians.

This is the first time the Forward Party has had any candidates on the ballot in Virginia for state office.

---

2026 PETITIONING

The Constitution Party has completed its 2026 petition for party status in Hawaii, and the state has accepted it.  The requirement was 861 signatures, and the party submitted 4,000.  The Arkansas Libertarian Party is almost done with its 2026 petition.

---

ARIZONA NO LABELS PARTY LIKELY TO CHANGE ITS NAME

The Arizona No Labels Party, which is ballot-qualified, is asking its members whether the party should change its name.  So far it appears likely that members prefer “Arizona Independent Party.”

It is not yet known if the state will permit the name change; the issue has never before arisen in Arizona.  If it is permitted, it is not known if all the registrants will automatically be re-registered under the new name.  The party is only on the ballot for 2028 because it has registration of more than two-thirds of 1% of the state total, but it might lose its status if the registrants aren’t automatically transferred.

---

IOWA INDEPENDENT WINS

On August 26, Madison County, Iowa, held a special election to fill the vacancy in the Auditor’s position.  Michele Brant, an independent, defeated her only opponent, a Republican.

It is very rare for independents to win in Iowa.  The state has never had an independent Governor, nor an independent member of Congress.  No independent has been elected to the legislature since 1922.

---

MORE INSTANCES OF PARTIES THAT WERE ALLOWED TO CHANGE NAME

The September 1, 2025 B.A.N. listed instances when a qualified party was allowed to change its name.  Here are some additional instances that were not included:  (1) the Independence Fusion Party of New York changed to the Independence Party in 1994; (2) the United Citizens Party of South Carolina changed its name to the New Alliance Party in early 1994, and later that it year it changed its name again, to the Patriot Party; (3) the Reform Party of South Carolina changed its name in 2004 to the Independence Party.

Also, the chart said that the Alliance Party of South Carolina had changed its name to the Reform Party in 2023.  Actually it was the Independence Party of South Carolina that changed its name to the Forward Party.

---

NEW JERSEY GREEN PARTY REMOVED FROM GUBERNATORIAL RACE

Even though the New Jersey Green Party successfully petitioned for a place on the gubernatorial ballot in June, it will not be on the ballot.  The party’s nominee withdrew for health reasons.  The law says that when a petitioning candidate withdraws, the group cannot replace the candidate with mere paperwork.  Instead, replacement can only proceed if the group does an entirely new petition, due in August.

The Green Party did a new petition, and submitted 2,450 signatures to meet the requirement of 2,000.  However, that petition was challenged, and was found not to have enough valid signatures.

No other state requires an entirely new petition.  As a result, there are only four candidates on the ballot:  the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Socialist Workers Parties.  A poll released on September 25 by Emerson College Polls showed these results:  Democratic 43%; Republican 43%; “someone else” 3%, undecided or no response 11%.