Ohio state representative Jim Trakas has promised to introduce a bill in the next 10 days to let petitioning candidates choose a partisan label, to be placed on the November ballot next to the name of that candidate. A slight majority of other states already have such a law. These laws typically require that the label be no longer than 3 words, and not mimic the name of a fully-qualified party.

Since virtually all minor parties in Ohio place their nominees on the November ballot by petition, this bill, if passed, would make a huge improvement in Ohio ballot access laws for minor parties. Ohio law permitted such labels between 1891 and 1947. The label was repealed at the same time that the Ohio legislature made other hostile changes, such as eliminating write-ins, eliminating procedures for independent presidential candidates, and sharply increasing the number of signatures needed for independent candidates.

Representative Trakas is a Republican from Cuyahoga County.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks will hold a hearing at 9:30 am, Monday, June 26, in Austin, Texas, in Democratic Party of Texas v Benkiser. The issue is whether Tom DeLay is ineligible to run for re-election. DeLay won the March 2006 Republican primary for US House, 22nd district. After the primary, he sought to withdraw. If he withdraws, the Republican Party may choose a new nominee. However, Texas law does not permit anyone to withdraw unless there is a public record proving that the candidate is ineligible.

Texas election officials accepted DeLay’s withdrawal, because he said that he had moved out of Texas and become a resident of Virginia. However, the Democratic Party sued elections officials, saying that DeLay may not withdraw because there is no public record that he is ineligible. Article One of the U.S. Constitution says that members of Congress must be residents of the state they are representing “when elected” (which would be November 2006). Furthermore, the Constitution says that each house of Congress shall be the sole judge of who is validly elected to that house. Courts and state officials have no voice in the matter.

The Democratic lawsuit was originally filed in state court, but the Republican Party successfully intervened to get the case moved into federal court.

Ever since 2004, the Alaska Green Party has been in state court, arguing that the state’s definition of “party” is too stringent. As the case moves toward a trial, the state has asked the party to provide this information: (1) how many members of the Green Party are voter registrars; (2) what efforts the party has made to increase its registration; (3) how many people have attended its state conventions; (4) how many regional conventions it has held; (5) a list of all political activity the party has engaged in over the past 15 years; (6) how much money the party has raised in each year since 1996; (7) the physical address of the party’s office ever since 1990, and the phone numbers of such offices. There are other questions as well. The state also wants to see a copy of each mailing the party has made to its members over the last 10 years.

It is obvious that the state is attempting to show that the Alaska Green Party is not a “real” political party. Similar attempts were made in court in Florida in 2004 against the Reform Party, and in Arkansas in 1996 against the Reform Party. However, the Reform Party won both lawsuits.