February 2011 Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
February 1, 2011 – Volume 26, Number 9

This issue was originally printed on white paper.

Table of Contents

  1. BALLOT ACCESS REFORM BILLS INTRODUCED IN 14 STATES
  2. 2010 “OTHER” VOTE WAS HISTORIC
  3. SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR GEORGIA CASE
  4. U.S. DISTRICT COURT SAYS “TOP-TWO” DOESN’T VIOLATE ASSOCIATION RIGHTS
  5. BOOK REVIEW: PUERTO RICO ELECTION STATISTICS, 1899-2008
  6. U.S. HOUSE PASSES BILL TO END PRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FUNDING
  7. CANDIDATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BILLS
  8. LAWSUIT NEWS
  9. AMERICANS ELECT PARTY BEGINS PETITIONING IN MORE STATES FOR 2012
  10. ELITE GROUP SPONSORS DEBATE ON TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
  11. PARTIES FINISH MARYLAND PETITION
  12. GALLUP POLL SHOWS 38% IDENTIFY AS INDEPENDENT VOTERS
  13. TEA PARTY LISTED CANDIDATES DID NOT “SPOIL” ANY RACES
  14. ERRATA
  15. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

BALLOT ACCESS REFORM BILLS INTRODUCED IN 14 STATES

Ballot access improvement bills have been introduced, or soon will be introduced, in at least fourteen states:

Alabama: Senator Cam Ward will introduce a bill to cut the number of signatures for independent and minor party candidates from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. The legislature doesn’t convene until March 1.

Alaska: Representative Max Gruenberg has introduced HB 96, to cut the number of registered voters for a group to qualify as a party from 3% of the last vote cast, to exactly 2,500 registered members. The existing requirement is 7,406 members.

Idaho: according to the Secretary of State’s office, a bill will be introduced in early February that cuts the number of signatures for an independent presidential candidate from 1% of the last presidential vote (about 6,000 signatures) to exactly 1,000 signatures. This bill will have other election law changes, and will be backed by the Secretary of State.

Illinois: Senator Jim Watson has already submitted a proposed bill to the legislative counsel, which will establish a filing fee alternative to all candidate ballot access petitions. The fee will be 1% of the annual salary of the office, and any candidate, seeking a place in either the November ballot, or in a primary, will have the choice of paying the fee or completing the petition. This bill only exists because of the work done by Free & Equal, an advocacy group for ballot access reform.

Maine: Representative Ben Chipman has introduced LD 142, which repeals the requirement that a party must hold a caucus in at least one town in each county, in the spring of election years. There are other severe requirements for a party to get on the ballot, and stay on the ballot, so there seems to be no state interest in the caucus requirement.

New Hampshire: Representative Timothy Comerford is the lead sponsor for two bills. HB 152 lowers the vote test for a group to be a party from 4%, to 2%. Parties that polled at least 2% for Governor or U.S. Senator, but under 4%, would be ballot-qualified but would nominate by convention. If the bill passed, the Libertarian Party would be back on the ballot, because it got over 2% for Governor last year.

HB 153 lowers the number of signatures needed to get on the general election ballot by one-third. For example, the statewide independent petition requirement would drop from 3,000 to 2,000. HB 153 also lets voters register as members of an unqualified party, and requires elections officials to keep a record. A group that had at least 3,000 registered members would be a qualified party.

New Mexico: elections officials have written a proposed bill, which will be introduced in early February. It includes many election law changes, including some improvements for ballot access. It will ease the petition deadline for independent candidates from early June to late June. It will delete one of the requirements for a party to remain ballot-qualified, that it poll one-half of 1% for President or Governor. The other requirements for a party to retain qualified status, that it poll at least 5% of the statewide vote for one of its candidates, and that it hold registration of one-third of 1%, would continue to be in the law. However, the bill provides that the 5% vote test would only need to be met at either of the last two elections.

North Carolina: on Febuary 1, Representative Stephen LaRoque will introduce a bill to lower the number of signatures for a new party to exactly 10,000 signatures. Current law requires 2% of the
last gubernatorial vote, which is now 85,379 signatures.

New York: Assemblymember Barbara Clark has introduced two bills to cut the number of signatures for candidates to get on ballots. A2939 would cut all candidate petitions in half (whether for primary ballot access, or general election ballot access). A3664 would only decrease the number of signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House.

Oklahoma: Representative Charles Key has introduced HB 1058, to lower the number of signatures for a new party to exactly 5,000 signatures. Current law requires 5% of the last vote cast, which was 73,134 signatures last year, and which is 51,379 for 2012.

Pennsylvania: Senator Mike Folmer has introduced SB 21, which cuts the number of signatures for independent candidates down from 2% of the winner’s vote (which can range from 20,000 signatures to 67,000) to the same number of signatures needed for candidates who want to get on a primary ballot. That number is 2,000 for a statewide office. The bill also puts minor parties on the ballot automatically if they have approximately 3,000 registered members.

South Carolina: S282 would change the size of ballot access petition sheets from paper that is fourteen inches long, to eleven inches long. That would make it easier for petition blanks to be printed on home computers.

Tennessee: State Senator Stacey Campfield has introduced SB 129, which lowers the number of signatures for a new party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1%.

Virginia: HB 1667 would reduce the number of signatures for presidential primary candidates from 10,000 to 5,000. Virginia is the only state that requires all candidates running in presidential primaries to obtain more than 5,000 signatures.


2010 "OTHER" VOTE WAS HISTORIC

The December 1, 2010 B.A.N. already reported that the "other" share of the vote for the top office, 5.3%, was higher in 2010 than at any previous midterm year since 1934, except for a tie with 2002. But that statistic, alone, doesn’t cover the full story of voter support in 2010 for candidates who were not Democratic or Republican nominees. "Office at the top of the ballot" is defined to be Governor. U.S. Senate races aren’t included, except in states that didn’t have a gubernatorial election. So, the data about "top of the ticket" offices misses data about other races, including most Senate races. The paragraphs below feature some interesting data on offices that weren’t part of the "top of the ticket" calculation:

Statewide Offices That Aren’t Top of Ticket Offices:

Alaska: Lisa Murkowski, write-in candidate for Senate, won her race with 39.51%. This is the highest percentage anyone who was not a major party nominee had received in an Alaska statewide race since 1912, when the Progressive Party nominee for Delegate to Congress won with 40.57%. Walter Hickel in 1990 had polled lower, with 38.95%.

Arkansas: the Green Party nominee for Treasurer, Bobby Tullis, received 32.46% in a race against a Democrat. This is the highest share of the vote for an "other" candidate for statewide office since 1968, when George Wallace carried the state on the American Party line with 38.65%.

California: the Libertarian for Lieutenant Governor, Pamela Brown, received 5.86%, the highest percent an "other" candidate for that office has received since 1922. That 2010 race also included the nominees of both major parties and three other minor parties.

Delaware: the Independent Party nominee for Attorney General, Doug Campbell, polled 21.09% in a two-party race. This is the highest share of the vote for any statewide "other" candidate, including presidential candidates, since 1886.

District of Columbia: the Mayor’s race in Washington is a partisan election. The 2010 write-in vote for Mayor was 22.41% of the total vote cast. The overwhelming share of the write-in vote was surely cast for Adrian Fenty, the incumbent, who had lost the Democratic primary. This is the highest share of the vote for a Mayoral candidate who wasn’t a major party nominee since elections for local office began in 1974. The D.C. Board of Elections won’t release a tally of exactly how many write-in votes Fenty received.

Florida: Charlie Crist, independent candidate for U.S. Senate, received 29.71% of the vote, the highest share of the vote for an "other" candidate for statewide office since 1916.

Indiana: the Libertarian for Secretary of State, Mike Wherry, received 5.90%, the highest share of the vote that any "other" candidate for this office has received since 1914.

Rhode Island: the Cool Moose Party nominee for Lieutenant Governor, Robert J. Healey, Jr., received 39.15% of the vote. This was the highest share of the vote for an "other" candidate for statewide office in this state since 1875.

South Carolina: the Green for U.S. Senate, Tom Clements, polled 9.21% of the vote. This is the best showing for an "other" candidate for U.S. Senate in this state since the start of popular elections for U.S. Senate in 1914, except that in 1954, Strom Thurmond had polled 63.1% of the vote as a write-in candidate.

South Dakota: the Constitution Party nominee for Secretary of State, Lori Stacey, polled 6.60% against two major party opponents. This was the best "other" showing for this office since 1926.

Legislative Races, Lower House

The number of votes in 2010 for minor party and independent candidates for the lower house of state legislatures was 2,088,621. By contrast, when the same seats were up in 2006, the total was 1,509,058. In multi-winner districts, only the top vote-getter was included in these totals.

Top Offices Compared to Past

The share for the top offices in mid-term years in the past has been:

Year

% for "Others"

2010

5.3%     

2006

5.0%     

2002

5.3%     

1998

4.9%     

1994

4.5%     

1990

4.6%     

1986

3.6%     

1982

1.8%     

1978

2.4%     

1974

2.4%     

1970

3.4%     

1966

3.2%     

1962

1.1%     

1958

.9%     

1954

.6%     

1950

1.1%     

1946

1.4%     

1942

4.8%     

1938

3.8%     

1934

5.6%     

1930

6.1%     

2010 Vote for Office at Top of Ballot

~

Dem.

Repub.

Libt.

Consti.

Green

Ind Pty

oth(1)

oth(2)

indp. cand.

Alab.

625,710

860,472

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Alas.

96,519

151,318

2,682

~

~

~

4,775

~

~

Ariz.

733,935

938,934

38,722

~

16,128

~

~

~

~

Ark.

503,336

262,784

~

~

14,513

~

~

~

~

Cal.

5,428,149

4,127,391

150,895

166,312

129,224

~

92,851

43

~

Colo.

912,005

199,034

13,314

651,232

8,705

~

~

~

12,509

Conn.

540,970

560,874

~

~

5,560

17,629

26,308

~

~

Del

174,012

123,053

2,101

~

~

8,201

~

~

~

Fla.

2,557,785

2,619,335

~

~

~

123,831

~

~

58,663

Ga.

1,107,011

1,365,832

103,194

~

~

~

~

~

~

Hi.

222,724

157,311

~

~

~

~

1,265

~

1,263

Ida.

148,680

267,483

5,867

~

~

~

~

~

30,505

Ill.

1,745,219

1,713,385

34,681

~

100,756

~

~

~

135,705

Ind.

697,775

952,116

94,330

~

~

~

~

~

~

Iowa

484,798

592,079

14,398

~

~

~

21,275

2,757

3,884

Kan.

270,166

530,760

22,460

~

~

~

15,397

~

~

Ky.

599,843

755,411

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

La.

476,572

715,415

13,957

~

~

~

~

~

~

Me.

109,387

218,065

~

~

~

~

~

~

242,690

Md.

1,044,961

776,319

14,137

8,612

11,825

~

~

~

~

Mass.

1,112,283

964,866

~

~

32,895

~

~

~

184,395

Mich.

1,287,320

1,874,834

22,390

20,818

20,699

~

~

~

~

Minn.

919,232

910,462

~

~

6,188

251,487

7,516

10,272

~

Miss.

350,695

423,579

2,188

1,235

~

~

4,292

~

6,560

Mo.

789,736

1,054,160

58,663

41,309

~

~

~

~

~

Mont.

121,954

217,696

20,691

~

~

~

~

~

~

Nebr.

127,343

360,645

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Nev.

298,171

382,350

4,672

5,049

4,437

~

~

~

9,619

N.H

240,346

205,616

10,089

~

~

~

~

~

~

N.J.

1,024,730

1,055,299

8,536

4,120

7,494

~

3,284

~

18,121

N.M.

279,888

320,871

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

N.Y.

2,610,123

1,290,017

48,386

~

59,928

146,646

232,264

266,799

~

No.C.

1,145,074

1,458,046

55,687

~

~

~

~

~

~

No.D.

52,955

181,689

3,890

~

~

~

~

~

~

Ohio

1,812,047

1,889,180

92,116

~

58,475

~

~

~

~

Okla.

409,261

625,506

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Ore.

716,525

694,287

19,048

20,475

~

~

~

~

~

Pa.

1,814,788

2,172,763

?

?

?

~

~

~

~

R.I.

78,896

114,911

~

~

~

~

22,146

~

126,337

So.C.

630,534

690,525

~

~

12,483

~

7,631

~

~

So.D.

122,037

195,046

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Tenn.

529,983

1,041,576

~

~

1,886

~

2,584

~

25,631

Tex.

2,106,395

2,737,481

109,211

~

19,516

~

~

~

~

Utah

205,246

412,151

12,871

~

~

~

~

~

~

Vt.

119,543

115,212

~

~

~

~

1,819

429

3,942

Va.

911,116

1,186,098

23,681

~

~

~

21,374

21,649

20,353

Wa.

1,314,930

1,196,164

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

W.V.

283,358

230,013

~

6,425

10,152

~

~

~

~

Wis.

1,004,303

1,128,941

6,790

~

~

~

~

~

18,881

Wyo.

43,240

123,780

5,362

~

~

~

~

~

13,796

TOT.

40,941,609

43,141,135

1015,009

925,587

520,864

547,794

464,781

301,949

912,854

Write-in votes aren’t included above, unless a write-in candidate was the nominee of a party, or unless a write-in candidate polled more votes than a candidate who was on the ballot, as in Wyoming.

2010 Vote for State House

~

Libertaran

Green

Wk Fam

Consti.

Reform

Ind Pty

oth(1)

oth(2)

independent

Alab.

~

~

~

1,694

~

~

~

~

12,134

Alas.

1,268

~

~

~

~

~

1,334

~

1,696

Ariz.

14,680

40,261

0

Ark.

~

3,170

~

~

~

~

~

~

14,170

Cal.

115,714

46,599

~

4,269

~

~

26,806

~

0

Colo.

7,242

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

8,889

Conn.

700

1,678

14,418

~

~

1,666

1,765

387

4,953

Del

1,165

~

773

~

~

553

440

~

463

Fla.

2,036

~

~

~

~

~

38,357

~

143,451

Ga.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

6,486

Hi.

1,699

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

0

Ida.

4,830

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

448

Ill.

126

31,974

~

~

~

~

~

~

3,332

Ind.

49,426

214

~

~

~

~

~

~

2,052

Iowa

2,910

305

~

~

~

~

~

~

5,504

Kan.

5,663

~

~

~

176

~

~

~

2,591

Ky.

2,359

~

~

2,737

~

~

~

~

8,752

Me.

~

6,203

~

~

~

~

~

~

7,440

Md.

11,063

~

~

2,433

~

~

~

~

0

Mass.

6,583

6,943

~

~

~

~

~

~

71,733

Mich.

28,716

1,072

~

6,014

~

~

138

~

16,529

Minn.

~

1,035

~

1,525

~

11,536

~

~

3,416

Mo.

10,483

~

~

12,414

~

~

~

~

8,165

Mont.

1,987

1,052

~

1,400

~

~

~

~

580

Nev.

3,738

~

~

22,748

~

~

~

~

0

N.H

2,320

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1,386

N.M.

523

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

0

N.Y.

3,226

1,559

141,666

~

~

161,009

256,628

197

8,196

No.C.

8,545

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

11,418

No.D.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

3,101

Ohio

43,570

2,257

~

6,306

~

~

~

~

45,370

Okla.

~

1,346

~

~

~

~

~

~

6,278

Ore.

965

2,154

~

4,345

~

8,324

~

~

2,074

Pa.

12,263

9,095

~

392

3,653

~

~

~

16,595

R.I.

~

619

~

~

~

~

5,044

~

19,805

So.C.

11,393

2,065

3,393

4,213

~

~

442

~

3,350

So.D.

~

~

~

571

~

~

~

~

15,876

Tenn.

2,876

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

19,784

Tex.

156,825

1,848

~

~

~

~

~

~

9,473

Utah

3,343

~

~

11,769

~

~

~

~

2,725

Vt.

254

~

~

~

~

~

7,563

~

11,201

Wa.

~

~

~

9,736

~

~

~~

~

58,691

W.V.

~

2,791

~

~

~

~

~

~

8,251

Wis.

10,444

7,762

~

4,782

623

~

~

~

33,153

Wyo.

1,714

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

2,221

TOT.

530,648

172,002

160,250

97,348

4,452

183,088

338,517

584

601,732

Parties in the "Oth(1)" column are: Alaskan Independence (Ak.), Peace & Freedom (Ca.), Ct. for Lieberman (Ct.), Blue Enigma (Del.), Tea (Fl.), Socialist Equality (Mi.), Conservative (N.Y.), Moderate (R.I.), Labor (S.C.), Progressive (Vt.).

Parties in the "Oth(2)" column are: Christian Center (Ct.), Right to Life (N.Y.).

In 2006, the State House totals were: Libertarian 496,965; Working Families 144,020; Green 103,126; Constitution 75,653; Reform 5,437; Independence 148,709; other parties 352,525; independent candidates 182,623.

In the charts above, "Ind Party" means parti
es named either Independence or Independent. "Wk Fam" = Working Families. "Consti" = Constitution. For continuity, the American Independent Party is considered to be the California state unit of the Constitution Party, something that has been disputed in court since 2008. States not named had no partisan state house elections this year.


SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR GEORGIA CASE

On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Coffield v Kemp, concerning ballot access requirements for U.S. House in Georgia for independent and minor party candidates. The restrictions are so tough, they have not been used since 1964. They require a petition signed by 5% of the registered voters, which is almost 20,000 signatures.

In 1990, the United States signed an addendum to the Helsinki Accords, promising to respect the right of citizens to run for office "without discrimination." An observer for the group that monitors compliance, Law Professor Jurij Toplak of Slovenia, says he will bring this up in 2012, when OSCE observers will again visit the U.S.


U.S. DISTRICT COURT SAYS "TOP-TWO" DOESN’T VIOLATE ASSOCIATION RIGHTS

On January 11, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, ruled that Washington state’s top-two system does not violate the associational rights of political parties. Washington State Republican Party v Grange, 2:05-cv-927.

This is the case that has already been to the U.S. Supreme Court and back down. In March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court said Washington‘s top-two system (which puts all candidates on a single primary ballot, and lets any candidate say he or she prefers any party) may or may not violate the right of parties not to be associated with candidates that they disapprove of. The Supreme Court said the system hadn’t been tried yet, and the ballot hadn’t been designed. Therefore, the Court sent it back to the lower courts for more evidence.

Each side then presented evidence on whether the ballot causes voters to believe that if a candidate appears on the ballot with the label "I prefer (that party)", that means that the party approves of the candidate. The parties presented evidence from social science experiments, showing that half of the voters, even after seeing the ballot, believe that when a candidate appears on the ballot with the party label, that party approves of that candidate, or at least that the candidate is a member of that party.

The state did not present contradictory evidence. Nevertheless, Judge Coughenour ruled in favor of the state, saying what matters is that "reasonable, well-informed" voters understand that the label does not imply any connection between the party and the candidate.

Now that issue, along with the ballot access and trademark issues, will go in front of the 9th circuit. Judge Coughenour had ruled against the ballot access and trademark issues on August 20, 2010. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided the ballot access or trademark issues.


BOOK REVIEW: PUERTO RICO ELECTION STATISTICS, 1899-2008

Puerto Rico Election Statistics, 1899-2008, by Juan Jose Nolla-Acosta. 407 pages, published 2011 by Lulu.

Reference books that give past election returns for the United States invariably omit the U.S. overseas possessions. Now, this book fills the gap for Puerto Rico. It contains election returns for all elections of any importance back to the beginning of Puerto Rico’s association with the United States, including ballot measures. All the returns are broken down by Municipality.

One surprise in the book is that in 1917, Puerto Rico passed a measure banning alcoholic beverages.

If there is any place under the U.S. flag that has long had a multi-party system, it is Puerto Rico. The book has pictures of the ballot logos of 50 parties that appeared in the past on Puerto Rico ballots, although many of these parties were actually continuous organizations that changed their name, or mergers of political parties. The book illustrates the logo of 23 local parties as well. And, the book even includes the logo of parties that attempted to get on the ballot, but failed.


U.S. HOUSE PASSES BILL TO END PRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FUNDING

On January 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 359, to end public funding for presidential candidates. The public funding has been in place since 1976. It provides for nondiscriminatory funding for all presidential candidates (whatever their party) in the primary season. But for the general election season, funds are available only to parties or independent candidates who had polled 5% of the vote in the previous election. Most observers don’t expect the Senate to pass this bill.


CANDIDATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BILLS

Bills have been introduced in at least ten states to specify that if elections officials don’t receive a copy of a presidential candidate’s birth certificate, that candidate may not be placed on the ballot. These bills vary widely. Sometimes they require a national party committee, or the officials of a national party convention, to file the birth certificate. Sometimes they require the state party officers to file it. In a few cases, mostly relating to presidential primary ballot access, they require the candidate to furnish it.

The states are Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. The oddest bill is the Maine bill, because the only presidential candidates it covers are independent presidential candidates. The Maine bill says it applies to all candidates wh
o file a declaration of candidacy, but there is no presidential primary in Maine, and in the general election, presidential nominees of qualified political parties don’t file a declaration of candidacy.


LAWSUIT NEWS

California: Michael Chamness is on the ballot in a special legislative election. He is a registered member of the Coffee Party. California’s new top-two law says that party members can only put their party preference on the ballot if they prefer a qualified party. The Coffee Party isn’t qualified, so the Secretary of State says Chamness will be on the ballot as "No party preference." Chamness has asked to intervene in the lawsuit that challenges this discriminatory policy. The State Court of Appeals will soon decide whether to allow him into the case.

District of Columbia: the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit to force the Board of Elections to count write-in votes for its presidential nominee in 2008, Bob Barr, has been transferred to a brand-new U.S. District Court Judge. The case is almost two years old and has never had a ruling.


AMERICANS ELECT PARTY BEGINS PETITIONING IN MORE STATES FOR 2012

Americans Elect is a new party that desires to run a presidential nominee in 2012, but not run for any other office. The group is somewhat similar to Unity08, which wanted to do the same thing in 2008, but did not do so. The founders are wealthy and they believe the country needs a centrist presidential candidate. They propose to choose the presidential nominee with an on-line convention, at which any U.S. adult citizen could vote. In the meantime, they are attempting to qualify the party for the ballot in advance.

The party’s petition in Nevada has already been verified, and the party is ballot-qualified in that state for 2012. The party has also finished petitioning in Alaska and Arizona, although it hasn’t submitted its petitions. It is working in Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri, and will start soon in Alabama and Georgia.


ELITE GROUP SPONSORS DEBATE ON TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

Intelligence Squared is a forum that gathers together experts to debate public policy, once per month. The debate set for February 15 is "The Two-Party System is Making American Ungovernable." The "yes" side will be represented by David Brooks of the New York Times, and Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post. The "no" side will feature author Zev Chafets and satirist P. J. O’Rourke. The debate is broadcast on National Public Radio, Bloomberg TV, and on the internet via the site http://www.iq2oz.com.


PARTIES FINISH MARYLAND PETITION

The Maryland Green Party, and the Maryland Libertarian Party, have both submitted petitions to be on the 2012 ballot. Normally they would not have rushed to get the job done so soon. But Maryland State Elections Board said if the petitions weren’t submitted in the first three months of this year, the voters who are registered in those parties would be automatically converted to independent voters.


GALLUP POLL SHOWS 38% IDENTIFY AS INDEPENDENT VOTERS

For 23 years, Gallup Polls has been asking Americans how they identify politically. On January 5, Gallup released the results for this question. It shows 38% describe themselves as independents, 31% as Democrats, and 29% as Republicans. This high showing for independents is not quite a record high, but is close. Eleven percent say not only that they are independent, but that they do not lean either to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.


TEA PARTY LISTED CANDIDATES DID NOT "SPOIL" ANY RACES

Generally, when the news media talk about the Tea Party, they mean the pressure group that mostly supports Republican Party candidates. However, there were 17 Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot with the party label "Tea Party", in Florida, Nevada, and New Jersey.

None of these candidates injured their Republican opponents. In 16 of the races, the winner won with a clear majority of the total vote. In the 17th race, the Republican won with a plurality.

The Christian Science Monitor had run a story about these Tea Party candidates, in its October 18, 2010 issue. The title was "Third-Party Spoilers Step Up." But the Monitor has not informed its readers that no such "spoiling" actually occurred.


ERRATA

The January 1 B.A.N. listed all the independent and minor party candidates who had been elected on November 2, 2010, but accidentally omitted independent Maine State Senator Richard Woodbury, elected in the 11th district.

Also the chart for U.S. House vote had several errors. It understated the Libertarian total for Missouri by 46,817 votes, and overstated the Democratic total for Missouri by the same amount. This also affected the national totals.


SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com. If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.

Ballot Access News. is published by and copyright by Richard Winger. Note: subscriptions are available!


Go back to the index.


Copyright © 2011 Ballot Access News

var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : “http://www.”); document.write(unescape(“%3Cscript src='” + gaJsHost + “google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script
%3E”));

Leave a comment

  1. Minor correction: the Green Party did not have a candidate for top office (Governor) in Connecticut.

  2. […] February 1 Ballot Access News issued this report on the 501c4 corporation with designs on electing its own presidential ticket in 2012, Americans […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: