Frank Moore is a write-in presidential candidate, who has been diligently attempting to file for declared write-in status in as many states as possible. He is likely to succeed in 25 states, which will probably be a record. However, on October 17, the Minnesota Elections Division rejected his write-in filing on 12th Amendment Grounds. The Minnesota Elections Division seems to not understand the 12th Amendment.

The letter says, “Dear Mr. Moore, thank you for submitting the document, Written Request by Write-in Candidates for Federal and State Office. Your document has been rejected because, for the Office of President and Vice President, the candidates must be residents of different states.”

This letter is mistaken for two completely separate reasons: (1) The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to reside in different states. The only restriction is that if a presidential and vice-presidential candidate do both live in the same state, they can’t both receive electoral votes from THAT state; (2) Even setting that point aside, the residence of the candidate for president and vice-president is only material in December of the election year, when the electors meet and vote. To illustrate, in 2000, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush both lived in Texas when they were nominated. After being nominated, Cheney changed his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming, so that both he and Bush would be able to receive the Texas electoral votes.

Ironically, in 2004 a Minnesota elector did vote for someone for president, and someone for vice-president, who lived in the same state, the state of North Carolina. One Democratic elector, for reasons unknown, voted for John Edwards for both president and for vice-president. Congress counted that electoral vote.

Another point is that Minnesota in the past has placed teams of presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the November ballot, even though both individuals lived in the same state. The Socialist Workers Party ticket consisted of a New Yorker for president, and a New Yorker for vice-president, in 1968, and that team appeared on the Minnesota ballot. In 1968, a New York challenge was filed against the SWP ticket on the grounds that both lived in that state, but the challenge was defeated. The case was Application of Horowitz, 294 NYS 2d 69, affirmed, 294 NYS 2d 988.

On October 21, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to re-open the question of whether the 2006 Green Party U.S. Senate candidate must pay approximately $80,000 in costs to the people who challenged the party’s statewide petition. The vote was 5-1, with one Justice not voting. Only Justice Saylor would have re-opened the matter. Therefore, the party’s candidate for U.S. Senate, along with his attorney, are still liable for the payment, even though it is uncontradicted that the challenge to the party’s statewide petition was a criminal enterprise. On November 5, two Pennsylvania state employees who worked on the challenge to the party’s 2006 petition are expected to plead guilty. Challenges in Pennsylvania to petitions are brought by private individuals, not by any arm of the government. Yet, in fact, the challenges were brought by people using state employees, state computers, and state payroll hours.

On the somewhat similar matter involving Ralph Nader’s 2004 petition, that matter had not been in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; it had been in the Commonwealth Court. It is still pending.

The Democratic, Republican, Green, Reform, and Socialist Parties have fewer state legislative nominees on the ballot this year than they did in 2006. However, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties have more legislative nominees on the ballot this year, compared to 2006. Also, the Socialist Workers Party has the same number (one) on the ballot for state legislature this year as in 2006.

If the Working Families Party is considered to be a nationally-organized party, then it also has more legislative nominees this year than it did in 2006. However, there really is no national structure for the Working Families Party; instead there are separate state WFP’s.

For purposes of this comparison, in fusion states, if a candidate has the nomination of more than one qualified party, that candidate is only credited to the party that the candidate belongs to. In the case of the Socialist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, when that party is not on the ballot in a particular state, but that party’s candidate wins the nomination of a party that is ballot-qualified, then the candidate is grouped with the party which actually put him on the ballot. For example, Matt Erard is a Green Party nominee on the Michigan ballot, so he is classed as a Green, even though he is also a member of the Socialist Party, which is not on the Michigan ballot. However, if he had qualified as an independent, he would have been classed as a Socialist Party nominee.

Some little-known parties that are only organized in a single state have legislative nominees. One is the Blue Enigma Party of Delaware, which has 3 legislative nominees. See this interesting article about that party. Another is the British Reformed Sectarian Party of Florida; see this article. Still another is the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, in Connecticut. The party has 5 legislative candidates. All of them consider themselves political opponents of U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman. They took over the “party” that Lieberman created when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2006.

A state-by-state breakdown for legislative candidates, and also U.S. House candidates, for each political party, will be in the November 1 paper edition of Ballot Access News. For a free sample of that issue, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to BAN, PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.