In California, qualified minor parties are entitled to a presidential primary, and by custom, the Secretary of State lets party leaders tell her which candidates’ names to list. On January 13, leaders of the American Independent Party submitted a list of 14 names. At this point the individuals on the list have not necessarily agreed to have their names on the ballot. The Secretary of State’s office will contact each one and ask if they wish to be listed.

The fourteen names include former Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia, who is believed to desire the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination, although he hasn’t formally announced. The other names are: Philip Berg of Pennsylvania, Laurie Roth of Washington state, Todd Palin of Alaska, Wiley Drake of California, Ed Noonan of California, George Peabody of Hawaii, Marvin Antelman of Massachusetts, Max Riekse of Michigan, Diane Beall of California, Walter Nayakik of Alaska, Veronica Piva of California, D. Clark Ambassador for Christ (that is his legal name) of California, and Robert Sisilo, who is a U.S. citizen who is not registered to vote and who lives outside the United States.

The most crowded presidential primary ballot in California history, for a single party, was the 1976 Democratic presidential primary, when ten names appeared. It is not likely that all fourteen individuals who are on this list will consent to be listed, so the number of candidates who will appear on the AIP presidential primary ballot is not yet final.

On January 13, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney issued a 22-page opinion in Perry v Judd, 3:11-cv-856. He refused to order the Virginia Board of Elections to place any more presidential candidates on the Republican presidential primary ballot, for the sole reason that they filed the lawsuit too late. However, he said the residency requirement for circulators “is highly unlikely to withstand the First Amendment challenge.” Also, “the court agrees with the rationale in Nader v Brewer (Nader v Brewer is a 9th circuit opinion in which the Arizona ban on out-of-state circulators was struck down).”

On page 17 of the order, the judge said “The Board contends that the residency requirement is necessary to protect the Commonwealth’s ability to subpoena petition circulators…The Board has done nothing to demonstrate how such a requirement would fail, beyond stating that ‘direct subpoena authority is more effective than an undertaking to be subject to out-of-state jurisdiction.’ Moreover, the Court is skeptical that subpoena power over out-of-state circulators is a compelling state interest — the critical signature on the petition is not that of the circulator, but that of the voter. For these reasons, the Court believes that the residency requirement for petition circulators will likely be declared unconstitutional, and that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail.”

The January 13 Birmingham News has this editorial, calling on the Alabama legislature to pass one or both of Senator Cam Ward’s ballot access reform bills. The major newspapers in Alabama have consistently been helpful on this issue. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.