Link to Tennessee Official Candidate List for Federal, State Office

Here is a link to the Tennessee Elections office list of candidates for November, for all federal and state office. The list is somewhat historic because this is the first time minor party candidates, with their party name, have been listed in Tennessee since 1972. For elections 1974 through 2010, many minor party candidates appeared on the Tennessee general election ballot, but none of them had their party label on the ballot. Instead they were all labeled “independent.” This is because independent candidate ballot access has been so easy in Tennessee, whereas the procedure for a newly-qualifying party has been so difficult that it hasn’t been used since 1968. The American Party qualified in 1968 and remained on the ballot through 1972.

The reason the Constitution and Green Parties are on the ballot this year is because of the lawsuit won in February 2012, called Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett.

It is true that in 2000, various Green, Libertarian and Reform Party nominees were permitted to have their party label on the November ballot, under a law that only applied to the year 2000. But in 2000, all those minor party candidates were still listed in the independent column, and were considered to be independent candidates by the state. This year, the Green and Constitution Parties have their own party columns, in the counties that use party column ballots.

Alabama Democratic Party Removes its Nominee for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court

On August 17, the Alabama Democratic Party State Executive Committee voted to remove its nominee for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. See this story. The removal was based on comments that the nominee, Harry Lyon, had been making. The party replaced him with Bob Vance, a lower state court judge.

Alabama has partisan elections for State Judicial elections. Alabama law already permitted state political parties to prevent candidates from seeking a place on a primary ballot, based on whether the party perceives that the candidates is a loyal member of the party. But it seems somewhat surprising that Alabama also permits parties to remove their nominees, based on what the nominees say about political issues, after the primary is over. Lyon had been the only person who filed to run in the Democratic primary, which had been held in March.

Ballot Access News August 2012 Print Edition

Ballot Access News
August 1, 2012 – Volume 28, Number 3

This issue was printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. AMERICANS ELECT NATIONAL OFFICE SHUTDOWN LEAVES CONTROL OF BALLOT LINES WITH IN-STATE ACTIVISTS
  2. MISSOURI BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED
  3. NORTH CAROLINA BILL DEFEATED
  4. CALIFORNIA BILL IS DEFEATED, WOULD HAVE HURT ACCESS
  5. SAN FRANCISCO INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING SURVIVES
  6. BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT NEWS
  7. OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
  8. GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTION VOTE
  9. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  10. PARTIES NOT ON PETITIONING CHART
  11. GREEN PARTY NATIONAL CONVENTION
  12. GARY JOHNSON RECEIVES MORE MATCHING FUNDS
  13. JUSTICE PARTY NOMINATES FOR VICE-PRESIDENT
  14. KANSAS REFORM PARTY
  15. COFOE MEETING
  16. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

Kentucky Equalizes All Political Parties on the Issue of Donation Limits on Political Parties

On August 29, the Kentucky State Board of Elections unanimously resolved to treat all political parties equally, in the matter of how much money parties may contribute to their own nominees. Existing law provides that ballot-qualified parties may contribute up to $10,000 to any party nominee. Furthermore, if the nominee raised more than $10,000 from other sources, the cap on the party’s contribution rose to match the amount received from other sources. But the law seemed to limit donations from unqualified parties to their nominees to only $1,000.

Under the new policy, the unqualified parties will be treated the same as qualified parties, for purposes of determining limits on party contributions to party nominees. The Libertarian Party is responsible for raising this issue. Thanks to Ken Moellman for the news.

California Legislature Passes Bill Making it Illegal to Pay Registration Drive Workers on a Per-Registration Card Basis

On August 30, the California legislature passed AB 145, which makes it illegal for voter registration groups to pay workers on a per-registration card basis, “directly or indirectly.” The bill now goes to Governor Jerry Brown, who vetoed a similar bill last year.

There are even more reasons for Governor Brown to veto the bill this year than last year. A U.S. District Court in Texas this month said not letting registration organizations pay based on performance is likely unconstitutional. Ironically, the case was won by the Texas Democratic Party. Yet in California, Democrats supported AB 145 and Republicans opposed it.

The bill has no penalty for breaking the law. The author was forced to omit the penalty, because of procedural problems. All bills that create crimes must go through the Public Safety Committees, and due to legislative rules, it was impossible to get the bill through those committees.