WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE REPEALS LAW THAT ALMOST KEPT GREEN PARTY OFF 2024 BALLOT
On October 14, the Wisconsin legislature passed AB 149, which repeals a law that forced qualified parties to run candidates for the legislature if they wanted to be on the ballot for president.
The law says that qualified parties must choose their presidential elector candidates at an October meeting of the party’s legislators or their nominees for the legislature. The meeting must be in the state capitol. The law was passed in 1878 and had not been enforced in recent years. Qualified minor parties don’t generally have any candidates for the Wisconsin legislature, because it is difficult for their members to get on their own party’s primary ballot. For instance, in 2024, none of the three minor parties (Green, Constitution, and Libertarian) had any nominees for the legislature. Their candidates need 200 signatures to get on the primary ballot for State House, and 400 for State Senate.
In 2024, an employee of the Democratic National Committee who lives in Wisconsin filed a legal document asking the Elections Commission to keep Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential nominee, off the ballot because the Green Party had not chosen its presidential elector candidates according to the law, because it couldn’t. The Commission refused to remove Stein. If it had done so, logically it should also have removed the Libertarian and Constitution Party presidential nominees from the ballot, because their parties didn’t follow the law either.
When the Commission refused to enforce the law, the Democratic objector sued the Commission in the State Supreme Court. Strange v Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2024AP1643.
The State Supreme Court asked for briefs. Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor, Tony Evers, filed an amicus brief and asked that Stein be removed on the grounds that laws should be followed. But the Court refused to remove Stein, even though a majority of the justices were Democrats. It issued a one-sentence opinion, saying “We determine that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks.”
The bill says that a qualified party chair may choose presidential elector candidates and certify their names to the Elections Commission, or a party may continue to nominate electors by the original method.
The old law could have been harmful to Americans Elect in 2012 and No Labels in 2024. Both groups wanted to nominate a presidential candidate but not have any nominees for any other office.
The bill had seven sponsors in the State House, all of them Republicans. An identical bill in the State Senate, SB 143 had six sponsors, also all Republicans. No legislator voted “no” on either bill.
The bill still hasn’t been sent to the Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat. It is likely that he will sign it, because no legislator voted against it. Also, because the State Supreme Court refused to enforce the old law last year, it is a dead law.
MAINE EASES PRIMARY PETITION BURDEN
On June 20, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed LD 1977, an omnibus election law bill. Among other provisions, it says a qualified party may tell the Secretary of State that it wants to let independent voters sign petitions for that party’s primary candidates.
Maine has very difficult petition requirements for candidates seeking a place on their own party’s primary ballot. The law doesn’t take into account how many registered voters the party has.
The law requires 2,000 signatures for statewide office, and 1,000 for U.S. House, regardless of how may registered voters a party has. It is so difficult for Greens and Libertarians to complete these petitions, neither party has ever been able to nominate candidates for either House of Congress since they have been qualified parties. Instead, they had to run their candidates as independents.
The notice, telling the Secretary of State that a party wants to let independents sign its primary petitions, must be filed by December 31 of any odd year.
A somewhat similar bill, LD 1320, failed to pass in 2023.
Although the bill does not reduce the number of signatures for primary petitions, it makes it much easier for members of small qualified parties to collect these signatures, now that independent voters can sign. 30% of Maine voters are registered independents.
Other Provisions
The bill also lets qualified parties that wish to dissolve themselves do so. No Labels took advantage of this new law earlier this year and is no longer a qualified party.
A third provision of the bill says that if an unqualified party is conducting a registration drive to get on the ballot, but it falls short, it can ask the Secretary of State to let it keep its registrants. Then, if it continues the registration drive, it doesn’t need to start all over from zero.
CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO HEARING POSTPONED
On October 15, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney postponed the status conference in Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308, from October 24 to February 27, 2026. She did it because both sides asked her to. There is a motion pending to dismiss the case, filed by the state. Both sides felt it would be better to wait for the judge to rule on that motion before holding a status conference.
TEXAS CLOSED PRIMARY LAWSUIT
As noted in the October B.A.N., on September 4, the Texas Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit to require that the state let the party close its primary. On October 9, the Attorney General said he would not defend the state law that mandates an open primary. But on October 13, the Secretary of State, Jane Nelson, said she does support the open primary law. She said her office would hire outside attorneys to defend the state law.
SEVENTEEN STATES FILE AMICUS IN FLORIDA CASE ON OUT-OF-STATE PETITIONERS
On October 15, seventeen states filed an amicus curiae brief in the Eleventh Circuit in Florida Decides Healthcare v Byrd, 25-12370. The brief defends Florida’s new ban on out-of-state circulators for initiatives. It is filed by Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. All of these states have Republican Attorneys General.
Nine of these states don’t have the statewide initiative process. Of those that do have the initiative, only North Dakota has a ban in place. Arkansas also has a ban, but Arkansas did not sign the brief.
ADELITA GRIJALVA SUES U.S. HOUSE
On October 21, Adelita Grijalva and the state of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit over the refusal of U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson to administer the oath of office. She was elected to Congress on September 23 in a special election in Arizona, but the Speaker so far hasn’t been willing to swear her in. Arizona v House of Representatives, 1:25cv-3740. It is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee in the District of Columbia.
The case is based on the U.S. Supreme Court precedent Powell v McCormack, 395 U.S. 486. In that case, New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been re-elected in 1966, but the House refused to seat him because of ethics lapses on his part. The Supreme Court said that the Constitution requires that persons who are elected and who meet the constitutional qualifications must be seated.
U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TALK ABOUT MINOR PARTIES
On October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568. This is the case in which a Republican Congressman from Illinois sued to overturn an Illinois law that says absentee postal ballots may be counted if they arrive in the elections office up to two weeks after the election. Bost argued that an 1872 federal law telling the states to hold congressional elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November means that all ballots must be received by that day.
The Seventh Circuit ruled that Bost did not have standing to challenge the law, because it didn’t harm him. He always wins re-election by a huge margin. In 2024, he got 74.2% in a two-way race.
Then the Supreme Court took the case, just to settle whether he has standing. The Court will not consider the merits of his claim about when absentee ballots must arrive.
At the hearing, several justices brought up minor parties to make the point that if the Seventh Circuit is right that Bost had no standing because he was going to win re-election anyway, what about minor parties, who aren’t going to win regardless of the challenged law.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “I want to turn to your colloquy with Justice Sotomayor for a minute because it does seem to me that whatever is required, it can’t be a showing that you would have won or lost the election as the candidate. You pointed to Illinois v Socialist Workers case. Boy, they had zero chance of winning the election, zero chance. So that wouldn’t be the injury that’s required, it seems to me.”
A few minutes later, he again raised the point. He said, “But imagine a law like the one in Jenness or Illinois Socialist Workers where a state requires, you know, a lot of signatures to get on the ballot, minor party candidate has no chance of winning. Standing you think?”
In between Gorsuch’s comments, Justice Samuel Alito asked, “How would candidates for very minor parties fare under your rule where they have no chance whatsoever of winning?”
Earlier in the argument, when Paul Clement, the attorney for Bost, had mentioned the Socialist Workers Party and also 1980 independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had wise-cracked, “Those are interesting bedfellows you are taking.”
The Bost attorney responded, “But I’m delighted to have those bedfellows because that’s the way we think about elections in this country. We don’t think just give me the bottom-line result, give me the binary result, winner or loser.”
BOOK REVIEW: 107 DAYS
107 Days, by Kamala Harris, 2025, 305 pages.
This is former Vice President Kamala Harris’s account of her campaign for the presidency in 2024. The title refers to the number of days between the day President Joe Biden announced he would not run for re-election and election day. Each of the eighty-four chapters is titled by a calendar date. Thus, the book is structured like a diary, although not all days have a chapter. Some of the chapters are as short as a single page.
The book is highly personal, and anyone who is interested in political strategy will find it engaging. Once I started reading it, I couldn’t put it down until I was finished.
Harris emphasizes how close the election was. Page 234 says, “Ours was the third-closest presidential election in a century”, and that is accurate. Only 1960 and 2000 were closer. Page 295 says “Trump’s victory was whisker-thin.”
The book also mentions that Harris was leading in the polls for much of the campaign. Page 144 says, “as of September 5, most polls had us pulling ahead by more than three points.” And that was even before the presidential debate of September 10.
But nowhere does Harris make any reference to the candidates in the race other than Donald Trump and herself. Page 57 does say, “I wished the protestors would understand that sitting out the election or voting for a third candidate would elect Trump”, but otherwise the book makes no mention that anyone else was running.
Therefore, there is no discussion whatsoever about the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign. The book doesn’t even mention his name, except in the November 1 chapter when she says she attacked Trump for saying he would give Kennedy a big role in health care.
The election returns show that Harris would have won if the Trump vote had been 4% smaller in Pennsylvania, 3% smaller in Michigan, and 2% smaller in Wisconsin. If the Democratic Party had not exhibited extreme hostility toward the Kennedy campaign, he would have remained in the race. There is a consensus that the second-choice preference for voters who supported Kennedy was Trump. For example, see Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. Page 207 says, “On August 23, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent bid for the presidency. Many of his Democratic-leaning supporters had already lined up behind Harris, meaning that his third-party candidacy could derail Donald Trump. Though he registered in the low to mid single digits of most multi-candidate surveys, he was in a position to play spoiler. Kennedy had built a following through an unorthodox coalition that included vaccine skeptics. Trump had long pursued Kennedy’s endorsement, and its delivery promised to give him new voters.”
The actual returns show that Kennedy received .98% of the vote in the states in which he was on the ballot, even in the face of his appeal to his voters to vote for Trump. If he had not withdrawn from the race, he would have been on the ballot of all states except New York. It is easy to imagine that he would have polled 4%, which would have reversed the election outcome.
Harris writes in her book that free and fair elections are high on her list of values (see page 205). But her book gives no hint that she believes the right to vote for minor party and independent candidates is an aspect of a free and fair election. The book 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf, says on page 65-66 that Harris wanted to “shut down” third parties.
The Democratic Party has an 80-year habit of challenging the ballot position of minor party and independent presidential candidates. It has taken such action in a majority of all presidential elections starting in 1936. Harris is the titular leader of the Democratic Party. If her book had acknowledged that her party erred by driving Kennedy out of the race, the effect on future Democratic Party attitudes could have made a profound gain for voting rights.
ARIZONA LETS PARTY CHANGE NAME
On October 16, the Arizona Secreetary of State ruled that No Labels Party may change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. All of the party’s registrants will be enrolled in the AIP. This is the first time that Arizona had ever let a party change its name. This action will help to persuade the Michigan Secretary of State to let the U.S. Taxpayers Party change its name to the Constitution Party.
WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE PASSES WITHDRAWAL BILL
On October 14, the Wisconsin legislature passed AB 35, which lets independent candidates withdraw. Assuming the Governor signs the bill, that leaves California as the only state in which independent candidates cannot withdraw.
NEW JERSEY COURT RULES THAT OFFICE-GROUP BALLOTS ARE ILLEGAL
On October 10, a New Jersey state court ruled that counties, which generally have the freedom to design their own ballots, must not use office-group ballots in general elections. Gloucester County Republican Committee v Hogan, L1286-25. As a result, Gloucester County had to reprint all its November 2025 ballots.
2026 MAJOR PARTY U.S. SENATE PRIMARY PETITION REQUIREMENTS
This chart shows how many signatures a Republican for U.S. Senate needs to get on a primary ballot in 2026. It shows that major party candidates need far fewer signatures than minor party and independent candidates do. Most states do not require Democrats or Republicans to submit petitions, if they pay filing fees. If the chart had featured Democrats, the numbers would have been different in Arizona, Iowa, New Mexico, and South Dakota.
This is evidence that stringent petition requirements are not needed to keep ballots from being flooded with too many candidates. Primary ballots are not overly crowded.
| State | Number Sigs. | Percent | Code Reference | Formula |
| Ala. | 0 | .00% | 17-16-15 | pay filing fee |
| Alaska | 0 | .00% | 15.25.050 | pay fee, then place in top 4 in primary |
| Ariz. | 7,205 | .16% | 16-322.A.1 | one-fourth of 1% of indp + pty members |
| Ark. | 0 | .00% | 7-7-301(a) | pay filing fee |
| Cal. | 65 | .00%+ | Election code 8103 & 8062 | number stated in law, plus filing fee |
| Colo. | 0 | .00+% | 1-4-601 | automatic if support at party meeting |
| Ct. | 0 | .00+% | 9-382 thru 9-450 | automatic if support at party meeting |
| Del. | 0 | .00+% | Title 15, sec. 3103 | pay filing fee |
| Fla. | 0 | .00% | 99.061 | pay filing fee |
| Ga. | 0 | .00% | 21-2-131(a)(2) | pay filing fee |
| Hi. | 25 | .01% | Title 2, sec. 12-5, 12-6 | number stated in law, plus filing fee |
| Ida. | 0 | .00% | 34-701 | pay filing fee |
| Ill. | 5,000 | .09% | 10 ILCS 5/7-10 | number stated in law |
| Ind. | 4,500 | .15% | 3-8-2-8 | number stated in law |
| Iowa | 3,546 | .21% | Title 4, sec. 43.20 | One-half of 1% of party’s 2022 gub. vote |
| Ks. | 0 | .00% | 25-206 | pay filing fee |
| Ky. | 0 | .00% | Title 10, sec. 118.255 | pay filing fee |
| La. | 0 | .00% | Title 18, sec. 464 | Pay filing fee |
| Me. | 2,000 | .24% | Title 21-A, sec. 335 | number stated in law |
| Md. | 0 | .00% | Art. 33, sec. 5-401 | pay filing fee |
| Mass. | 10,000 | .28% | Ch. 53, sec. 44 | number stated in law |
| Mich. | 15,000 | .26% | 168.93 | number stated in law |
| Minn. | 0 | .25% | 1-4-802 | pay filing fee |
| Ms. | 0 | .00% | 23-15-297 | pay filing fee |
| Mo. | 0 | .00% | 115.357 | pay filing fee |
| Mt. | 0 | .00% | 13-10-202 | pay filing fee |
| Neb. | 0 | .00% | 32-608 | pay filing fee |
| Nev. | 0 | .00% | 293.193 | pay filing fee |
| N.H. | 0 | .00% | Title 4, 655:19(c) | pay filing fee |
| N.J. | 2,500 | .02% | 19-23-8 | number stated in law |
| N.M. | 2,351 | .25% | 1-8-33 | 2% of party’s primary vote for Gov 2022 |
| N.Y. | 0 | .00% | Ch. 17, sec. 6-104 | show support at party meeting |
| No.C. | 0 | .00% | 163-107 | pay filing fee |
| No.D. | 0 | .00% | 16.1-11-06 | show support at party meeting |
| Ohio | 1,000 | .02% | 3513.05,3513.10 | number stated in law |
| Okla. | 0 | .00% | Title 26, sec. 5-112 | pay filing fee |
| Ore. | 0 | .00% | Title 23, sec. 249.056 | pay filing fee |
| Pa. | 2,000 | .03% | Title 25, sec. 2872.1 | number stated in law |
| R.I. | 1,000 | .19% | 17-14-7 | number stated in law |
| So.C. | 0 | .00% | 7-11-210 | pay filing fee |
| So.D. | 2,171 | .51% | 12-6-4 | 1% of party’s 2022 gub. vote |
| Tenn. | 25 | .00+ | 2-5-101(b) | number stated in law |
| Texas | 0 | .00% | Elec. Code 172.024 | pay filing fee |
| Utah | 0 | .00% | 20A-9-201 | Show 40% support at party meeting |
| Vt. | 500 | .27% | Title 17, sec. 2355 | number stated in law |
| Va. | 0 | .00% | 24.2-521 | show support at party meeting |
| Wash. | 0 | .00% | 29.18.050 | pay filing fee |
| W.Va. | 0 | .00% | 3-5-8 | pay filing fee |
| Wis. | 2,000 | .06% | Title 2, sec. 8.10,8.15 | number stated in law |
| Wyo. | 0 | .00% | 22-5-208 | pay filing fee |
This chart shows the 2026 petition requirements for a Republican Party candidate for U.S. Senate, for candidates who have substantial support at a state party meeting. For Virginia, it assumes the party is nominating by convention. The percentage is the number of signatures divided by that state’s presidential vote in November 2024.
2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES
| Party sigs | Indp sigs | LIB’T | GREEN | CONSTIT | FORWRD | Pty due | Indp due | |
| State | Party sigs | Indep sigs | Libertar. | 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 | *1,506 | *765 | 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 | *12,150 | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 28 | *May 1 |
| Calif. | (reg 75,000 | 65 | already on | already on | *226 | *1,096 | Dec 31 25 | March 6 |
| Colorado | 10,000 | 8,000 | already on | already on | already 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 | *221 | 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 | *finished | *finished | 0 | Feb 20 | June 2 |
| Idaho | 18,102 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | already 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 | *700 | 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 | *4,700 | 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 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | 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 | *200 | 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 | *2,000 | 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 | *1,800 | 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 | *10,000 | 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 | 81,030 | 81,030 | already on | already on | can’t start | can’t start | May 26 | *May 11 |
| Utah | 2,000 | #1,000 | already on | *already on | 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 | *18 | 12 | *4 |
* entry has changed since Sep. 2026 BAN
PARTY FOR SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION WILL ENTER 2026 RACES
The Party for Socialism and Liberation has almost never run candidates under its own name for any office except President. However, it is changing that policy for 2026. It has already nominated candidates for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts and Ohio, and will petition for them. It needs 10,000 signatures in Massachusetts and 5,000 in Ohio.\
THREE-WAY DEBATES IN IRELAND AND NEW YORK CITY
On October 16, and again on October 22, a three-way debate was held for some candidates for Mayor of New York City. The debaters were the Democratic and Republican nominees, and independent Andrew Cuomo. No mention of voting rights occurred in either debate, although Cuomo might have been attacked for having made New York state ballot access far more difficult in 2020 when he was Governor.
On September 29 and October 5, all three candidates for President of Ireland debated each other. After the October 5 debate, one of the three candidates withdrew, although it is too late to remove his name from the ballot. Only the two remaining candidates debated on October 21. Ireland uses ranked choice voting for its presidential elections. The election was October 24.
KSHAMA SAWANT, INDEPENDENT SOCIALIST RUNNING FOR CONGRESS, HAS RAISED $183,688
Kshama Sawant, an independent socialist running for U.S. House from Washington’s 9th district, raised $183,588 during the period April 1, 2025 through September 30, 2025. She is a former member of the Seattle city council.
The incumbent, Adam Smith, a Democrat, raised $625,845 during the same period. No one else has announced for that seat.
FORWARD PARTY’S STATE SENATOR RESIGNS; FORWARD PARTY WILL CHOOSE REPLACEMENT
On October 22, State Senator Daniel Thatcher of Utah said he will resign this year. He is the only Forward Party state legislator in the nation who is not a major party member. Under Utah law, when a legislative vacancy occurs, the party of the former legislator chooses a replacement. The Forward Party will choose a replacement by holding an online primary. Candidates must file with the party by November 11 and must be Forward Party members. All registered voters in the district will be eligible to vote.
GALLUP POLL ON A NEW PARTY
On October 20, Gallup Polls released results that ask voters if they favor a new major political party. 62% of respondents said they do favor such a party. Gallup has been asking this question for decades, and 62% is the highest ever, except in 2013 63% said “yes”.
NO LABELS IS STILL ON BALLOT IN FOUR STATES
No Labels is still a qualified party in Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, and Oregon. It remains on in three of those states because it has more registered voters than are required for party status. It has been trying to remove itself from the ballot in all states, but in those four states, there is no authority for the state to let a party remove itself.
ABOLISH THE MINORITY RULE USA SENATE / MINORITY RULE USA H REPS / MINORITY RULE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
UNIFORM DEFINITION OF ELECTOR-VOTER IN ALL OF THE USA
PR – ALL LEGIS BODIES
APPV -ALL EXECS/JUDICS
TOTSOP
https://arabamericannews.com/2025/11/23/wayne-county-certifies-alharbis-six-vote-victory-in-hamtramck-mayoral-race-mahmood-seeks-recount/
6 VOTES WIN ???
https://apnews.com/article/election-security-cisa-2026-secretaries-state-midterms-6d18799c6c5fdd1bc001544b2dca12bf
FORN HACKS OF 2026 ELECTIONS ???
Spambots gonna spambot.