On July 8, the Kansas Secretary of State listed the Reform Party candidates on his web page, including the party’s choice for president, Chuck Baldwin. The Kansas Reform Party had nominated Baldwin last month, but at first the Kansas Secretary of State had some hesitation about letting the Reform Party nominate a national ticket that had been nominated by another party (the Constitution Party). The web page listing seems to indicate that the Secretary of State now accepts the party’s choice of a presidential candidate.

The Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified in Kansas. The Kansas Reform nomination will save the Constitution Party the cost of doing an independent presidential petition in Kansas. In 2004, the Kansas Reform Party had nominated Ralph Nader for president.

The national Libertarian Party, some months ago, determined to do everything in its power to get its presidential nominee on the ballot in all states except West Virginia and Oklahoma. The latter two states were deemed too expensive. Oklahoma requires 43,913 for a presidential candidate of an unqualified party, and West Virginia requires 15,118.

The Bob Barr campaign has raised enough money to attempt the West Virginia petition. The drive starts on July 9. The deadline is August 1. Concerning Oklahoma, Barr expects to bring a lawsuit, which may include other presidential candidate-plaintiffs as well. Oklahoma lets any independent candidate on the November ballot with no petition whatsoever, unless the candidate is running for president. Yet Oklahoma requires 43,913 for an independent presidential candidate, or for the presidential nominee of an unqualified party. This policy contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, which says that states have less valid interest in keeping presidential candidates off the ballot, than they do in keeping candidates for other office off the ballot. The Court said this is because a presidential election is a national concern that transcends the concerns of any particular state.

As noted in a post of July 7, the Washington State Democratic Party had asked the state of Washington not to hold a “top-two” primary next month. The Washington Republican Party made a somewhat similar request, also on July 7. The Republican Party’s letter to the Attorney General says, “By now you have received and had an opportunity to review the 9th Circuit order from July 3, filed also with the District Court for the Western District of Washington. As we have previously advised you: This litigation is not over. No court has vacated the injunction entered by the district court in July, 2005. The injunction against implementing the Modified Blanket Primary is still in effect. Conducting a Modified Blanket Primary in August will be a willful violation of the injunction. In addition to violating the injunction, issuing certificates of nomination to candidates who receive the most votes will constitute an ‘error’ in the administration of the election because the Open Primary is still the law of Washington. Please confirm immediately that the State will adhere to the terms of the injunction, and conduct its August primary in accordance with the Open Primary law.”

This letter is very similar to the Democratic Party’s letter, except for terminology. The Democratic Party’s letter calls the primary the “Top-two primary” but the Republican Party’s letter refers to it as a “Modified Blanket Primary.”