Harry Kresky: A Cautionary Tale For Electoral Reformists

The Hankster reprints here in full NYC attorney Harry Kresky's brief article concerning Richard Winger's $243,279.50 attorney fees for anti-"Top Two" lawsuit.

Harry Kresky is councel to IndependentVoting.org and Chair of Election Law Committee of New York County Lawyers Association. He blogs at Legal Briefs and publishes regularly on Huffington Post.

A CAUTIONARY TALE

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and a longtime advocate for the rights of minor parties, has, along with several others, been held liable to pay $243,279.50 in attorney’s fees after losing a lawsuit brought to invalidate California’s new “top-two” primary system, adopted in a June, 2010 referendum.  I understand that a motion for reconsideration has been filed, and I am hopeful that this penalty will be vacated so that Richard’s important work in the area of electoral reform will not be crippled.

This unfortunate situation is a cautionary tale for those of us who seek to advance the cause of electoral reform through the courts.  

Richard and I have worked together for many years in various efforts to open up the electoral process and level the playing field for independent voters and minor parties. We differ strongly on the issue of top-two.  In Richard’s view, top-two hurts minor parties by limiting the candidates on the general election ballot to the two highest vote getters in a non-partisan primary election in which all candidates and all voters, regardless of party affiliation, participate on an equal footing.  Candidates are permitted to list a party preference.  Under the traditional system of party primaries, still operative in most states, each qualified party, major or minor, is assured that its candidate will appear on the general election ballot under the party’s name. 

For independents like me, top-two is a positive reform because it allows independent voters (who are more often than not barred from party primaries) to fully participate in the electoral process, and it breaks the hold of the parties on the candidate selection process. 

In their efforts to defeat this reform, through the courts and otherwise, Richard and other minor party activists have, in my opinion, allowed themselves to be used by the major parties. The parties, major and minor, have opposed the top-two system.  In California, the Democrats and Republicans decided it was best to allow the minor parties to play the more active role both in the media and in the courts.  And since the adoption of top-two by a substantial majority (53.8 to 46.2 percent) of the voters, the major parties have worked to discover how to use the new system to their advantage, while Richard and the minor parties in California have continued to litigate against it. 

In continuing down this road, they ignored warning signals that they would not only reach a legal dead end, but that there might be adverse financial consequences for lawyer and client alike.  The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld top-two as constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a further challenge after the Supreme Court ruled.  The efforts of Richard and his attorney to enjoin the implementation of top-two also failed.  

The lawsuit in question tried to parlay two minor issues, neither of which had legal merit, into a wholesale attack on the top-two system.  The issues were whether a candidate could list as a party preference only the name of a qualified party, and whether top-two made write-in votes impossible.  By lack of merit, I mean that the Courts had already ruled that neither of these was a constitutional right that state legislation had to respect.  They are questions of public policy, with arguments on both sides.  Furthermore, these alleged defects in top-two can be easily remedied by the legislature. 

Despite all of this, Richard and his lawyer went ahead in their effort to overturn an important pro-democracy reform that the voters of California had supported.  There are lessons here.  They have to do with what you can and can’t accomplish through the courts, and what warning signals you must heed, as an attorney or a litigant, in the electoral arena. 

Perhaps most important, particularly for independents, we must not allow ourselves to be used by the major parties to prop up a partisan political arrangement from which more and more Americans are disaffected.  Did Richard believe his alliance with the major parties would provide legal and financial cover, despite the weakness of his case?  We all have something to learn from these unfortunate events.

Hankster News of the Day for Independents - July 10

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Gallop Poll- 50% Of US Hispanics Identify as Independent Voters (Hispanically Speaking News) Sixty percent of Hispanic immigrants identify as political independents, compared with 44% of first-generation Hispanic Americans and 43% of second-generation or higher Hispanics.
• Poll: Most Hispanics Independent Voters (WIBW) Both candidates have released television spots in Spanish, and both spoke in June at a major conference of Latino elected officials in Orlando. The dueling speeches came one week after Obama revealed a new immigration directive that would allow some illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents to avoid deportation.
• Century Village, long a Democratic stronghold, is changing (By Ana Veciana-Suarez, Miami Herald) Century Village — the largest condo development in Broward County — is now 60 percent Democratic, down from 77 percent in 2002. Meanwhile, registered Republicans have jumped from about 18 percent to 23.6 percent. But it’s the independent and no-party-affiliation voters who can claim the prize: They grew from 5 percent in 2002 to a hefty 16.3 percent today, according to voter registration records from the county’s Supervisor of Elections. Put another way, that’s a 17 percent shift away from the Democrats.
• Independents: Do they still believe in Obama's change? (By Matt Towery, Florida Times Union - Jacksonville) But of independent voters, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, only 38 percent have a favorable view of President Barack Obama's economic plans.
• Anna in the Swing States: Colorado's Swinging Suburbs and Untapped Latino Voters (By Anna Sale, WNYC/It's a Free Country) The Colorado electorate is largely broken up in thirds among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Since 2008, the ranks of the unaffiliated, independent voters have grown in Colorado, and Democrats and Republicans now make up a slightly smaller percentage of registered voters in Colorado than they did four years ago. Much of the registration gains for Democrats and independents has happened in congressional districts with urban areas, contributing to the Democrats' recent success there… Further north along the Wyoming border, the suburban voters in Larimer County backed Obama in 2008 but narrowly split in the 2010 midterms… Independent, unaffiliated voters have the registration edge over both Republicans and Democrats here.

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES

• Playing field uneven for third-party hopefuls (by Paul Singer, Source: USA TODAY in Tucson Citizen) According to Richard Winger— editor of Ballot Access News and an expert in the field — there are probably fewer than a half-dozen minor parties that will qualify for the presidential ballot in more than five states: “It will be Democrats; Republicans; Libertarian; Green; Constitution; Party for Socialism and Liberation; Justice; and Socialist Workers Party and no others, probably,” he said in an e-mail. “The Socialist Party has a remote chance.”
• Goode’s third-party run: Bad news for Romney in Virginia? Ex-lawmaker: I’ll take votes from both (By David Sherfinski, The Washington Times) The latest Real Clear Politics average of polls has Mr. Obama with a two-point lead in the state over Mr. Romney — 47 percent to 45 percent. But figures released in May by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling raised the eyebrows of many poll-watchers and pundits. Mr. Obama topped Mr. Romney by eight points in Virginia, 51 percent to 43 percent, in the PPP poll. If Mr. Goode was on the ballot, however, Mr. Obama’s lead over Mr. Romney increased to 12 points, at 50 percent to 38 percent, with Mr. Goode taking 5 percent of the vote.

Americans Elect Shuns Third Party Label

AMERICANS ELECT
St. Louisan part of effort seeking new way of nominating president (BY BILL LAMBRECHT, St. Louis Today) Americans Elect shuns the label of third party, describing itself as architects of a second way of nominating a presidential candidate, a method that avoids the time-honored system of primaries and party caucuses that the group says excludes many voters from meaningful participation.... Richard Winger, a Californian who writes an authoritative ballot access newsletter, likened the effort to the beginning of the Reform Party, founded by Ross Perot in 1995. Perot ended up the nominee in 1996, followed by Republican defector Pat Buchanan in 2000. The party grew increasingly irrelevant.

California Court Upholds Labels for Ballot Status Parties in Top Two Elections; Arizona Independents Want Fair Access to Primaries

This ruling upholds a distinction between ballot status parties and other parties or candidates in how candidates are listed on the new Top Two election ballots in California. This distinction is a dubious one for third party advocates like Richard Winger, the country's leading ballot access expert. At a time when parties are losing favor among the electorate, at least part of the controversy over California's new open primary system seems to rest on the listing of party labels.

Where do you line up on my little survey?

A. Listing a party is important because it indicates the ideological position on a left-right political spectrum.
B. I don't like parties, I vote for the candidate.
C. What's ballot status and who benefits from that?
D. Other ________ (Tell me what you *really* think!)

Let me know what you think!

PROP 14
U.S. District Judge Upholds California’s Discriminatory Ballot Label Law (Ballot Access News) The opinion says that California has an interest in maintaining the distinction between qualified parties and unqualified parties, and cites various opinions from systems in which parties nominate candidates.

And meanwhile.....
OPEN PRIMARIES 
Tucson Independent voters in danger of being left out of Primary (Fox 11 AZ) It wasn't clear that the Independent voters needed to request a ballot.  So, yes we did make a mistake in that," said city spokesman Michael Graham. That mistake has since been corrected. The city says it mailed Independent voters a postcard on May 16 warning them they'd have to pick a party to vote in the primary.

California Top Two Open Primary: Now You're in a New World!

California's first top two open primary results (and lest we forget, the activity and the hard-fought grassroots movement that spoke to our national increasingly independent political dismay over the past 15 years, the people who gathered thousands upon thousands of signatures to get on the ballot and engineered a win by referendum (California Proposition 14) in a partisan primary in the state of California, to allow independents to vote in primaries -- INDEED, let's try to be straight here -- to include all voters and attempt to do away with partisan primaries and party privilege altogether, AND which WON at the ballot box in June 2010, has now seen its first practical results last week.

And not surprisingly, made some select headlines this week, notably: "Now you're in a new world..." and "leading the people in the purple T-shirts to push the Republican Party to the middle..." Note to Dan Morain and Ben Tulchin -- good luck gaming Top Two for Dems, Repubs and ideologues (aka "moderates"...)

Word to the wise:  Talk with some independents who are building the real on-the-ground movement of serious political independents who don't so much cotton to "moving" any political party anywhere. That's a partisan fantasy. We're looking to take over the political means of production. We're talking to each other and making plans. We're grassroots and gathering numbers, strategy, strength and, frankly, a national moral high ground. Pay attention! Look!


CALIFORNIA TOP TWO OPEN PRIMARY

• Analysis: Brown returns to inside game of wooing Republicans (By Steven Harmon, Contra Costa Times) "There might be some protection money to protect a moderate vote," said Ben Tulchin, a Democratic pollster. "Before, with a closed primary in a conservative district, you couldn't do anything to dislodge them. But you're in a new world now. We'll have new districts and with open primaries, the threat from the right is smaller ---- you won't get taken out in a primary. If you're a moderate, you'll have a better chance of winning."
• Dan Morain: SEIU leader wants to prod GOP to the center (By Dan Morain, Sac Bee) Although the 2012 primary is a year away, Kieffer is focusing on new open primary rules, understanding that the system can be gamed in ways that could force conservatives into losing fights with moderates... For 20 years, the SEIU has played almost exclusively in Democratic politics. More than any other interest group, the union drove the party hard to the left. Now Kieffer is leading the people in the purple T-shirts to push the Republican Party to the middle, understanding, as he does, purple is a combination of red and blue, the colors of the two parties.

And in the meantime, below is the usual negative commentary from Richard Winger's anti-Top Two campaign which he promotes on his otherwise excellent round-up of practical, legislative and media sources that might fuel a movement to turn the country around and open up the political system... Too bad...

• Commentary on California’s Experience with “Top-Two” in Recent Congressional Election (Ballot Access News) SEE following 3 articles linked to BAN
• California’s Open Primary: An Open Can of Worms? (BILL WHALEN, Advancing a Free Society, Hoover Institution/Stanford University) Judging by the results, Californians might want to take a mulligan on last year’s Prop 14 vote. In a district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 18%, the surprise outcome was a July runoff between . . . a Democrat and a Republican. Not a principled Democrat who ran on health care or foreign policy, mind you, but one whose strategy was to purposely dilute the progressive vote. As for the Republican, he’s a little-known advertising exec whose stem-the-tidal-wave-of-red-ink ad was music to the Tea Partiers’ ears: two kids at a lemonade stand, getting socked by a $427,000 tax bill (each kid’s share of the $14 trillion national debt). In other words, a runoff between two pols not to be mistaken for a couple of holier-than-thou moderates.
• Open primary in CA: adios, democracy (T.A. Barnhart, Blue Oregon) I have been unstinting in my criticism of “open primaries”. I voted against a Portland School District candidate because he had been endorsed by Phil Kiesling, who keeps trying to flog this anti-democratic idea in Portland. I have argued against “open primaries” (which can take various forms but all have the same outcomes) for two reasons: political parties should be free to select their nominees for public office without intrusion from non-members, and small “third” parties will be obliterated./
• Legal case against Top Two Primaries, Proposition 14 and SB 6 - Richard Winger and Gautam Dutta (Green Party of California co-spokesperson Michael Feinstein YouTube Channel)

UTAH OPEN PRIMARY VS. CAUCUS
OUR VIEW: Voters should choose candidates (By Standard-Examiner Editorial Board) Utah's political parties should move to a primary system to select candidates for office. A state convention that allows a tiny percentage of party members to select candidates is exclusionary. An open primary winner would better represent the values and beliefs of the voters he represents.

ARIZONA OPEN PRIMARY
Arizona's political center yet to find a voice (DAILY SUN EDITORIAL BOARD) In other words, at least two-thirds of the lawmakers in the next session are likely to come from districts where the outcome is not only decided in the primary but decided in favor of a party ideologue -- moderate candidates just can't seem to turn out enough supporters in August to finish any better than second. That's why we continue to push for an open primary for all parties, with the top two finishers going on to the general election in November. That way, the second-place finisher in a primary in a lopsided district -- the norm in Arizona -- at least gets a chance to appeal to a broader electorate not once but twice -- in the primary and the general election.

NEW YORK

• NY-26: At T - 3 Days, Poll Says Hochul Leads (BY CELESTE KATZ, Daily News/Daily Politics) Siena: "Viewed more favorably than Corwin or independent Jack Davis, Hochul has moved  from trailing Corwin by five points, 36 to 31% in Siena’s April 29 poll to having a lead three days  before the election. Davis has dropped as the choice of likely voters from 23 to only 12%." Green Party candidate Ian Murphy registers 1% support, with 7% of respondents undecided.
• Analysis: Gay marriage in NY hits stumbling blocks (by Michael Gormley, AP, Seattle Post Intelligencer) Frank MacKay, the influential chairman of the state Independence Party, told The Associated Press last week that he personally supports gay marriage. He noted the state's third largest party opposes "discrimination and prejudice in all its myriad forms." That could counter pressure from state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long, who said lawmakers voting for gay marriage won't carry his line.

Partisans Don't Like Open Primaries - Independents Do

Voters are begging for a revival of the open primary system in Alaska. (And -- strangely -- Ballot Access News's Rich Winger parses the impact of this on candidates. Maybe Winger thinks voters don't exist?) Open primaries are important for independent voters across the ideological spectrum, and particularly to the progressive wing of the independent movement. As Jackie Sailt pointed out on Friday night in Harlem at Lenora Fulani's "Interview With a Black Independent", so-called Tea Party candidates won in closed-primary states.

Hankster readers might be interested in this language from the decision of U.S. District Judge  John C. Coughenour who recently upheld Top Two against a further challenge by Washington’s political parties.
h/t to Harry Kresky:

“The political parties also argue that I-872 [the Top Two initiative] has harmed them because some of their official nominees have not advanced past the primary election to the general election. (Dkt No. 257 at 11–14.) The Democratic Party complains, for example, that in one particular race its official nominee lost the primary election because “the Democratic Party was forced by the State’s implementation of the Top Two [system] to have three other ‘Democratic candidates’ on the [primary] ballot” alongside the Democratic Party’s chosen nominee. (Dkt. No. 257 at 13.) The argument misses the point: “Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant. In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because I-872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations.” Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 453. The primary ballot did not include “three other Democratic candidates.” It included four candidates who stated a preference for the Democratic Party, one of whom the Democratic Party officially endorsed. “The First Amendment does not give political parties a right to have their nominees designated as such on the ballot,” id. at 453 n.7, and the political parties are not entitled as a matter of law to have their nominated candidates appear on the general-election ballot. I-872 did not prevent the Democratic Party’s nominee from advancing to the general election; the voters did. The political parties may not admire Washington’s new election system in which their designated candidates do not always advance to the general election, but that disappointment does not raise constitutional concerns.”

And now for more news headlines:

OPEN PRIMARIES

• Closed party primary would end under Gruenberg bill - OPEN SYSTEM: Top 2 vote getters would move on to general election. (By BECKY BOHRER, The Associated Press, Anchorage Daily News) Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, said that for years he has had people stop and "beg" him to revive an open-primary system, in which voters can choose any candidate for legislative or executive branch offices regardless of party affiliation.
• Alaska Bill for a Top-Two Primary (Ballot Access News) [For Winger, it's all about the candidates -ed.]
• State Senate elections may be settled in first round of balloting (By Jean Merl, Los Angeles Times) Charness said he is affiliated with the "coffee party," a group formed to counter the conservative "tea party" organizations. The group is not recognized by the state, so he was stuck with the no-party label. Peace and Freedom party members Jan B. Tucker of Torrance and Carl Iannalfo of Littlerock, in the Antelope Valley, contend that the "chaos" caused by the new system prevented them from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballots in their respective districts.
  Bill would do away with closed party primary (By Becky Bohrer, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Juneau Empire) Gruenberg said the existing system has “put the nominating process for Republicans in the hands of a small group” and led to the nomination of less centrist, more conservative candidates. He cites as a glaring example of this the selection of Joe Miller as the GOP nominee over incumbent U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who then mounted an outsider write-in bid to win back her job.
• What We Learned: Top 10 Political Lessons for 2011 (By Solomon Kleinsmith, WNYC/It's a Free Blog) IndependendentVoting.org does some great work in other areas, but their hypocrisy on this issue has been disturbing to many of us who watch developments in election law across the country. They should pull the wool from their eyes and see how much truely open primaries have helped their close ally (who they literally share an office with), the Independence Party of New York. If they do not, they will be seen as just another partisan group that will use their power to game the system to their advantage, rather than work to make it more open.
   

REDISTRICTING

• Panelist drops out of Calif. redistricting board (San Francisco Chronicle) Under the law voters approved in 2008, the commission must consist of five Democrats, five Republicans and four independent or minor-party voters.

OBAMA

• Marist poll: Most voters say Obama will improve performance (Poughkeepsie Journal) "I think he's doing the best he can." A majority of independent voters — 55 percent — and even a plurality of Republican voters — 41 percent — think the president will make greater strides in his performance during the next two years than he has in the past two.
• Obama improves standing vs '12 rivals (By: CNN Political Coverage Manager Steve Brusk, CNN Political Ticker) The poll indicates Obama leads the potential GOP challengers among independent voters, by 10 points over Romney, 5 over Huckabee, and 28 over Palin.

REPUBLICANS

• Michael Steele out as Republican Party picks a new leader. Reince Priebus, the Wisconsin Republican chairman, will take over the helm of the national committee. (By Paul West, Washington Bureau, LA Times) Some saw his election as a signal that Republicans wanted to change their image and broaden the party's appeal to independent voters.
• Gov. Barbour: No Decision on Presidential Run Until Spring (By Naftali Bendavid, Wall Street Journal/Washington Wire) Many Republicans are looking for someone who can appeal both to tea party activists and independent voters, and some believe Mr. Barbour fits the bill.
• California GOP's immigration problem (By MARTIN WISCKOL, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER) Ramirez says the new open primary should help GOP candidates who are more sympathetic to Latinos. The new system will allow voters to cross party lines in primary voting, and advances the top-two vote getters regardless of party affiliation. “The open primary certainly allows for less conservative, more moderate candidates,” Ramirez said. “It will mitigate, to some extent, the need to appeal to anti-immigration voters.”

NEW YORK

• ‘the demons inside our our party’ (By Azi Paybarah, WNCY/The Empire) State Senator Diane Savino’s comments about defecting from the Democratic Caucus are worth checking out. "We’re never going to regain the trust of the voters unless we confront the demons inside our party,”
• Weathering The Storm: After three months of hard knocks, Bloomberg plots his comeback (By Edward-Isaac Dovere, City Hall)

EDUCATION REFORM

• How oversight can help us get the most out of school reform (Kwame R. Brown Washington, Washington Post)

Understanding Prop 14: It's Not About Ballot Access

By Harry Kresky

In a December 30, 2010 post on his Ballot Access News, Libertarian Richard Winger attacks “leaders of the former New Alliance Party,” for abandoning their commitment to ballot access reform . The “former leaders” are Jacqueline Salit, Lenora Fulani, Cathy Stewart and I, who have been in the forefront of the effort to bring nonpartisan elections, commonly called “Top Two,” to states and municipalities around the country.

Top Two eliminates party primaries in favor of a system where there is a first round of voting in which all candidates appear on one ballot and all voters participate on an equal footing, with the top two vote getters going on to the general election.  This past June California voters adopted a Top Two system by referendum over the vehement opposition of the major and minor parties. Mr. Winger played a leading role in the opposition.

Prop 14 Victory Coalition

While we disagree with Richard, and still do, on the merits of Top Two, throughout the process we have been and remain willing to work with him on insuring that ballot access and ballot status rules under Top Two were friendly to minor parties.   In a December 21, 2010 article on Huffington Post, I wrote:

With the litigation winding down, and special elections run under top two just around the corner, it is time for the minor parties to reconsider their relationship to this important reform. The new electoral terrain opening up in our country's most populous state creates possibilities for independents and minor party members to work together to achieve a fairer and more inclusive electoral process.

*        *       *

In this moment of possibility, it is important to remember what independents and minor party members have in common: a recognition that the major parties have too long placed partisan interests over the national interest; a belief that the existing two party arrangement keeps the policy dialogue within too narrow a framework; and a commitment to leveling the electoral playing field.

    The simple fact is this. Top Two is not a ballot access issue. Ballot access is about the opportunity to participate as a candidate in the nominating process. We have and continue to work for ballot access reform, Richard knows this. In fact, in the August 3, 2010 online edition of Ballot Access News he wrote favorably about a reform proposal that I authored being adopted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in support of a filing fee alternative to New York’s onerous ballot access laws.

    A Top Two system can have lenient ballot access requirements –making it easer for candidates to participate – or stringent ones. However, the general election run off in which the top two primary vote getters compete to determine who is elected to public office, means that the parties lose the right to be sure that their candidates are on the ballot in the second round of voting. This goes to the structure of our electoral process, not the rules for ballot access. It is an issue of how our elections are conducted. We favor easy access to the ballot in round one. We do not, however, favor giving special rights to political parties so that their candidates make it to round two no matter the level of support they have from voters.

    The December 30 post provoked a lively dialogue. There are 68 comments so far, more than the usual 0 to 5. Among those is this thoughtful statement by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.:

“Out of respect for your knowledge, I won’t dispute what you say about the experiences in other states, such as LA and WA. But I will say this: the only thing that can prevent CA activists from realizing the possibilities given them by Prop 14 is their own concepts and attitudes. If all the activists read this blog and say “Oh shit! Look what we have lost. Nothing can be done,” then guess what? Nothing will be done.

“In your third paragraph you seem to set up this argument: because 3d party candidates now have to pay a [nominal ($950)] filing fee, participation in elections is “far more difficult;” indeed, primaries for them have been “shut down.”

“My message to activists is very different from yours. In my view, Prop 14 has delivered us to Libertarian Heaven.

“From my POV, understanding the gift of Prop 14 requires a re-conceptualization of the old idea of “party.” Putting presidential elections and state wide elections aside, most CA elections are for state Senate and Assembly. Therefore, for these elections, the idea of “party” should be the party-in-the-district (P/D), and not the party-in-the-state (P/S). Every P/D can have its own candidate, because ballot access is open to all. Activists in each district can evaluate what is possible for them. They can do the traditional political activities of organizing and selecting their candidate in their district. There are many tactical possibilities for combining forces and beating major party candidates. The competition is open to all. These activities can be free of control by the central P/S organization; but that does not make the activities “whimsical.”

“The party-in-the-state can still exist for such things as fundraising and defining their ideal agenda. The P/S can allocate resources and volunteers to districts with winning potential. They can abandon districts with little or no potential.”

Harry Kresky is Counsel to IndependentVoting.org

An Independent Independence Day Fourth of July Celebration!

Have a great independents day wherever you are!

And when you get a chance, check out these very independent blogs:
The Moderate Voice
Mirror On America
Poli-Tea
the Field Negro
Free Citizen
THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST (Jack Jodell)
Donklephant
yellowarmadellos
Legal Briefs

And one last thing:
Congrats to Richard Winger for publishing an online version of the print version of Ballot Access News!

Something that caught my eye:

HB 1271 only passed because of two courageous Colorado politicians. One is Joelle Riddle, an incumbent member of the La Plata County Commission, who switched her registration from "Democrat" to "independent" on August 21, 2009. That made her ineligible to run for re-election in 2010, because the law required her to switch by June 2009.

The other is state legislator Kathleen Curry, who switched her registration from "Democrat" to "independent" on December 28, 2009. Curry had been the Speaker Pro Tem, the second highest position in the House. Also she had been chair of the Agriculture Committee. She was forced to give up both positions because of her party switch. She authored HB 1271. Both Riddle and Curry live in the underpopulated part of Colorado that is west of the continental divide.

GO COLORADO INDEPENDENTS!!!

-NH

The Baneful Effects of Party and California Proposition 14

I recently received a note in the mail from Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and the nation's premier third party ballot access expert, asking if I advocate making all elections non-partisan. Richard is a long-standing member of the Libertarian Party, and someone I consider a friend and colleague. We have been in the trenches together for many years combating unfair and undemocratic ballot access laws for independent and third party candidates around the country.

Richard said in his note that my blog (The Hankster)'s imprimatur quote from George Washington's farewell address, warning against the “baneful effects of party,” makes it seem that I think all elections should be nonpartisan.  He included an excerpt from Nancy L. Rosenblum's On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship with an underlined passage:

“Party turned out to be significant: Lincoln's leadership was enhanced by political partisanship, and the Republican Party gave the North advantages in waging war....”

I'm guessing that Richard thinks the issue of how to view parties an abstract one, something that resides in his world of absolutes.

Some context is in order here, in 2010, some 150 years after the civil war. The fact is that Richard and I are on opposite sides of the California open primary ballot initiative Proposition 14. Prop 14, a popular referendum that will be on the ballot in Tuesday's June 8 primary, would create a top-two open primary for statewide elections. I'm in favor of Prop 14 because it would give voting rights (i.e. full citizenship) to California's 3.5 million registered independents, who are currently excluded from the first round of voting unless the parties invite them to participate. For me, the issue is historical and tactical. The disenfranchisement of independent voters is a civil rights issue and one that must be addressed here and now as the damage the parties and partisanship are causing to our government and to our country is alarming.

Richard does not support Prop 14 because he puts party ahead of voters’ rights. And I think there is a relationship between this and his “absolutist” view on the “party” question. After all, each party, and in particular the smaller, more ideologically cohesive minor parties, is convinced that its world view, its stand on the issues is the correct one.

The Geo. Washington quote has become quite popular these days because there is a growing anti-party movement in America that is independent not only of the two major parties, but independent of partisan politics and structures altogether.  Our founding fathers -- rich, white and slave-owning as some of them were --  conceptualized a unique form of modern democracy. And perhaps even more importantly, they lead the people -- rich and poor, men and women, frontiersmen and townsmen, farmers and merchants, to make a revolution.  My positions stem from my activity and are closer to both of these traditional American values. Expansion of democracy and revolution.

Was the Republican Party an obstacle to the expansion of democracy in the 1850s? No, it was a new party that rose quickly to national visibility because of the historic political crisis centering around the issue of slavery. I believe what we are witnessing today in the independent anti-party movement might well be nothing less than a second American revolution, one that is being organized from the bottom up and one that is inclusionary of everyone. History (not the parties!) will tell.

-NH

Why Independents Support Open Primaries

by Harry Kresky

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Richard Winger’s statement, “Why Independents are Better Off With More than Two Choices on the November Ballot.”

Most of us share Richard’s desire for a politics in which new ideas take priority over political careers. The issue is how to achieve this. He thinks the answer is to protect the status of minor parties on the grounds that they drive new ideas and social change into the mainstream. But the role of third parties as incubators of political change is limited. History demonstrates that social movements which impact the major parties are more effective in producing sweeping change than third parties. One recent example is the civil rights gains of the sixties which came about through a mass movement that forced the major parties to take long overdue measures to redress employment and other forms of discrimination. It also forced Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act which provided an effective remedy against persistent efforts to deny African-Americans in the South full access to the ballot. Third parties played little if any role in these accomplishments.

Americans don’t look to the third parties as instruments for reform, in no small part because they don’t like parties, major or minor. And they don’t like partisanship. Some minor parties without the pressures of “big tent” coalitions, have become even more calcified and rigidly ideological than the major parties. And while minor parties’ share of the electorate is shrinking, that of independents is growing. In California, the percent of the electorate enrolled in minor parties fell from 5.2 percent in 2001 to 4.4 percent in 2009. The percent registered independent grew from 14.4 percent to 20 percent.

“Top-two” is an important step towards non-partisan governance. It does away with party primaries altogether.  If the Proposition 14 initiative passes, all voters vote in a first round in which all candidates are listed on the ballot with their party preference next to their name, and the top two go on to the general election which is also open to all voters. Voters will be voting for candidates, not parties, and there is a real opportunity for building coalitions of independents and party members in support of reform-oriented candidates who place the interests of their state and country before that of any party. For those concerned with party building – major or minor – having effective spokespersons in the first round will help parties enlarge their base.

A key issue for independents is full participation in every phase of the electoral process. Top-two is a way to achieve that. Under the current system in California, each party holds its own primary election, and only members of that party have a right to participate. That means that 3,466,855 registered voters in California are not guaranteed the right to participate because they have elected not to register into a political party. They can only vote when a party allows them in its primary. They are not guaranteed a say in who appears on the general election ballot. Passage of Proposition 14 will give all voters the right to participate in every phase of the electoral process.

In 1996 the State of California had adopted by referendum an open primary system in which each party, major and minor, had its candidate on the general election ballot. However, the minor parties joined with the Democrats and Republicans in a lawsuit, Democratic Party, et al. v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), which invalidated that system on the claim by the parties that it permitted people who were not members of a party to vote in its primary. Passage of Proposition 14 will achieve full participation by the means that are legally available. The State of Washington’s top-two system, on which Proposition 14 is modeled, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 128 S.Ct. 1184 (2008).

Third parties do, of course, provide voters with more choice. Proposition 14 will not deny them that. Candidates of all parties will be on the ballot in round one. American voters, pragmatists that they are, are more likely to express support for a third party candidate in the first round, where the outcome does not send the winner to Washington or Sacramento. As things stand now, while the minor parties are assured a place on the ballot in the general election, they remain largely marginalized by the small percentage of the vote they receive.

As Richard notes, third parties have been unable to gain access to the presidential debates or obtain significant coverage for their candidates. This is so despite their having a place on the general election ballot in California and most states. Improvements in this regard will surely not come from maintaining the status quo. Top-two shakes up the existing partisan arrangements. It is a system under which voters focus more on candidates than parties. And it will bring with it new arguments for media coverage and debate inclusion, just as it will bring new opportunities for voter- driven electoral coalitions that can impact on the political mainstream.

Harry Kresky
website: harrykreskylaw.com


Harry Kresky is counsel to IndependentVoting.org, and the City organizations of the New York Independence Party. In 2002 he was appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to serve on New York City's Charter Revision Commission and is representing independent voters in a precedent-setting case defending open primaries in Idaho. 

Want to Fix Broken Government? Independents Say Structural Political Reform

Everyone wants to know what independents want. The short answer is structural political reform. Some of this weeks top stories below:

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• CNN's Don Lemon with Independents Omar Ali, Joe Gandelman and Nicole Kurokawa on Broken Government VIDEO on The Hankster and The Moderate Voice and link on Independent Political Report
• Bennet waits on reform stance - The Colorado senator wants to see how today's summit goes. (By PETER ROPER, THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN) LIVE-STREAM FROM HEALTH CARE SUMMIT ON CNN HERE
• Outsider Image So Hot Even Ex-Insiders Want It (By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, NY Times)
• Rossi paying attention to short-attention-span voters (By Joni Balter, Seattle Times) Watch this movement twist and turn. When an Asotin County Tea Party-ite called for Murray to be hung, that shameful outburst had potential to be transformative. Independent voters do not want to be pals with anyone who talks like that!

CALIFORNIA PROP 14 "TOP TWO" OPEN PRIMARY

• MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS FEEL OPEN PRIMARY IS AN IMPORTANT REFORM OPTION (by Ryan Jaroncyk, CAIVN)
• OPEN PRIMARY INITIATIVE (CAIVN)
• Why Independents are Better Off With More Than Two Choices on the November Ballot (By Richard Winger, The Hankster) NOTE: This oped is a result of conversations between The Hankster and the noted ballot access expert Richard Winger. The Hankster SUPPORTS open primaries and Prop 14, but has decided to provide a forum for other opinions by independents and minor party spokespeople on this important California referendum.
• Will Prop. 14 kill third parties? (By JOHN SEILER, Cal Watchdog)
• Voters Undecided On Solutions To California’s Economic Problems (By Raul Furlong, Fox and Hounds Daily)
• California Ballot Pamphlet Arguments on Propositions Now On-Line (Ballot Access News)

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT

• Paul Silver (Austin Centrist) recommends that independents get behind the "bipartisan" Fair Elections Now bill. The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and in the House of Representatives by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.). The bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from the constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want. SEE ALSO: Last week's cover story for The Nation by Change Congress's Lawrence Lessig "How to Get Our Democracy Back"...

REDISTRICTING

• Do Gerrymanders Come in Shades of Red and Blue? (By: Emily Badger, Miller-McCune)

COLORADO

• Panel OKs unaffiliated candidate bill (by Joe Hanel, Durango Herald Denver Bureau)
• Unaffiliated lawmaker wants to change Colo. ballot rules - Rep. Kathleen Curry, a rancher from Gunnison, wants to make it easier for other independent candidates to get on the ballot (COLLEEN SLEVIN, Vail Daily)
• Curry teams with Riddle in lawsuit-Neither unaffiliate can get on ballot (by Joe Hanel, Durango Herald Denver Bureau)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Term limits a start to reforming county government (PAUL GOLIAS, Citizens Voice Wilkes Barre PA)

RHODE ISLAND

• Brown poll: Chafee easily wins governor’s race (By JIM TARICANI, Channel 10 Providence)

Independent Voters: Yes, Government is Broken. Now What?

Independents have had a busy week! CNN appears to be developing an independent track with the Don Lemon independent panel of Dr. Omar Ali, Joe Gandelman and Nicole Kurokawa --- looking forward to tonight's broadcast Sunday (6:20-6:40), February 21st, to discuss "Broken Government" from an independents' perspective ... Wish I could easily find a link but you might have to Go Fish....


And then there's the OpEds by Jackie Salit, a leading independent activist-analyst in the Christian Science Monitor "Tea Party Activists: Don't Confuse Them With Independents" and Huffington Post "Independents See Through Washington's Magic Show" about the independent movement relative to both Barack Obama's base of support and Tea Party Republicans...


A critical issue for independents this year is: Will we or won't we be invited to the party? (HINT: Don't hold your breath! Most independents don't like parties, partisanship and the rules that come with them.) Open primaries is on the political reform agenda in no less than 8 states, with nonpartisan independent activists on the ground challenging and chipping away at discriminatory legislation and party rules that prevent independent voters from participating, AND not an insignificant point, prevent innovation in our dysfunctional democracy. 

• Be sure to read up on the fight in California over Prop 14, the so-called "Top Two" Primary referendum. The fight boils down to whether the parties or the people have the legal right to determine our voting process. Unfortunately, IMnsHO (In My not so Humble Opinion) Richard Winger, the country's premier ballot access expert, opposes open primaries because minor parties (he speaks for the Libertarian Party) would have to run against the 'big guys' in the first round of voting. Richard is not alone -- Bob Cuddy writes (presumably) from a Libertarian Party perspective, and Michael Rosen, attorney in Carmel Valley and the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. 

And finally, is the Tea Party independent? Well, no. But they might well pull the Repubs more to the right...


INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Independents See Through Washington's Magic Show (Jackie Salit, Huffington Post)
• Iowa's independent voters turning away from Obama (THOMAS BEAUMONT, Des Moines Register)

OPEN PRIMARIES

• California Bill to Let Precinct Officials Tell Independent Voters They May Vote in Partisan Primaries is Still Active (Ballot Access News)
• Christina Tobin to Formally Announce Candidacy for California Secretary of State (Independent Political Report) She's against open primaries  NOTE: Richard Winger is her campaign manager
• Former Democratic and Republican Governors Demand that Independents Join the Democratic or Republican Parties (Independent Political Report)
• FORMER GOVERNOR: CHOOSE A POLITICAL PARTY OR LEAVE THE COUNTRY (by Chad Peace, CAIVN)
• ‘Open’ plan closes out third parties (By Bob Cuddy, San Luis Obispo Tribune) 
• “Open Primary” measure is anything but (BY MICHAEL M. ROSEN, San Diego News Room)

TEA PARTY/CBS News/New York Times Poll

• Time Garbles Poll Numbers to Puff Tea Party Popularity (Peter Hart, FAIR blog)

Open Primaries, Independent Parties, and the Authorities

Must read on Redding News Review -- Lenora Fulani explains why she did not support Bill Thompson in November's mayoral race in NYC.... *******   With more than 40% of the country being independent, opening up the primaries is an important democratic (small "d") electoral reform that would promote non-partisanship and allow independent voters access to the first round of voting. Californians will vote in June 2010 on a "Top Two" version of open primaries, and while this concept is very popular at the grassroots, the loudest opposition is coming from minor party spokespeople like Rich Winger of Ballot Access News. However, Jon Fleichman at Fox & Hounds Daily (a news site dedicated to the principle that "an economically healthy California is a boon for all citizens") unintentionally makes the best argument in support of open primaries.   *****   And speaking of third party voices, I was glad to see that the Independent Political Report picked up The Hankster's coverage of the attacks on the Working Families Party--maybe one day IPR will recognize the NYC IP as well....   ******* Mike Bloomberg apparently has something else in common with Fred Newman (in addition to their both being independents): neither of them gives grades!  *******  NY Post's Frederic U. Dicker has really lost it -- he seems to be living in a place where up is down....  *******   And finally, lots of interesting analysis of health care, Obama, independents, and the current nature of our political culture.  ******  Oh, and one more thing! Technorati's got itself a brand new bag. See why I care at The End.

MUST READ

• The Independence Party and the Black community: A power partnership (By Lenora Fulani, Redding News Review)

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• Applicants to California Redistricting Commission Broken Down by Political Party Membership (Ballot Access News)
• Voter angst: Nation might see third party rising (Chris Austin, Knoxville News Sentinel)

OPEN PRIMARIES/ POLITICAL REFORM

• Effort launched to end marginalization of independent voters (By MARTIN WISCKOL, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER)
• The Dark Side of the California Open Primary Proposal (By Richard Winger, California Progress Report)
• Open primary won't open Legislature (Richard Winger, San Bernardino Sun)
• Colorado Legislator Will Introduce Bill to Ease Independent Candidate Prior Registration Hurdle (Ballot Access News)
• Maybe it's time to drop political labels (By Mizell Stewart III, Evansville Courier Press - IL)
• Nestande wants change in the capitol (The Desert Sun) Will you support the open primary initiative on the June ballot? Yes. I believe in the competitive market place of ideas. I am confident that the principle of local control of government vs. a model of command and control from Sacramento and Washington, D.C., will prevail regardless of party affiliation.
• Random Thoughts on the Political Scene (By Jon Fleischman, Fox & Hounds) The so-called “open primary” is supposed to reduce the role of special interests in the legislature, right? Yet the measure, if passed, would make it vastly more expensive for anyone to get elected to the legislature (successful candidates will have had to campaign to every voter in their district, twice). Hmmm.

GOVERNORS RACES

• Independent candidate to join Senate debates (By DAN RING, Mass Live/The Republican) Brown, Coakley and Kennedy will face off in the first televised debate on Tuesday. The debate will be taped, and it is scheduled to be aired on WBZ-TV Channel 4 in Boston from 8 to 9 a.m. on Dec. 27 and on WSBK-TV Channel 38 in Boston from 7 to 8 p.m. on Dec. 28.
• Decision-making publicity suits Goodman just fine (By Michael Mishak, Las Vegas Sun) Goodman was changing his party affiliation from Democrat to nonpartisan, a necessary step if he decides to run as an independent candidate for governor next year — something he’s been hinting at for months.

REFORM PARTY

• Reform Party Calls Teleconference National Committee Meeting (Ballot Access News)

WORKING FAMILIES PARTY

• What Is Bill Thompson Doing With His Email List? Organizing 2.0 and This Next Generation of Web Apps (Chrissie Brodigan, Huffington Post)
• Working Familes Party “Taking Heat” (Independent Political Report)
• Target Practice (BY ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Daily News/Daily Politics)
• Source: More WFP Subpoenas (By Azi Paybarah, NY Observer)
• Councilman-elect Dromm Subpoenaed (By Azi Paybarah, NY Observer)

BLOOMBERG

• Obama gets an 'A' for effort from Schwarzenegger (From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart, Political Ticker)
• Losers abound in NY politics this year (Fredric U. Dicker, NY Post) Among the losers: * Bloomberg, whose surprisingly narrow election victory weakened him even further. and "the leftist Working Families Party"

BLOGS: RECOMMENDED READING

• Dean's Blind Spot (Ronald Brownstein, the Alantic)
• GROWING CLOUT OF INDEPENDENTS IS A GOP NIGHTMARE (American Opinion, by Jackie Salit)
• The Flawed Logic of William Kristol (By: SJGulitti, FireDogLake/The Seminal) To date, had independents firmly embraced the principles of the conservative movement generally or the G.O.P. in particular, the percentage of voters identifying as Republicans would show a marked increase and so far that is not the case. I would argue that the shift to the right among independent voters is far from solid and is conditional, being subject to a set of factors that will likely change by the time of the 2012 election.
• Why Obama Is Failing (By Robert Parry, Consortium News) By failing to do the hard work of building institutions, the progressive community has largely sidelined itself, sitting in the stands and booing the players on the field.

THE END

On the 3rd anniversary of The Hankster, I complained in a post that I was losing authorities on Technorati. Well, I'm not sayin' somebody was listenin', but... Technorati has changed! They changed the way they  calculate authorities and guess what -- we're doin' swell! Watch out, HuffPo, The Hankster's gaining on you! And here's the reason: independents are the fastest growing political constituency in the country. Keep up the great work, indies! And keep challenging those authorities, wherever you run into them!!

Speaking of Open Primaries

If you haven't read them already -- or even if you have, you might want to re-read Jonathan Alter's article in last week's Newsweek "Poof Goes the Purple Dream", and this little item about the fight by independents in Idaho to keep the parties out of their voting system...

And as for the big hullabaloo in California over the primaries, I admit to the prize in the "imprecise language" category. The nation's premier ballot access expert Richard Winger sent the following email as a corrective to a post I made last week:

Your blog says "California had open primaries 50 years ago".  California had fusion 50 years ago.  Anyone could file in the primary of any party.  But, each qualified party had its own primary.  In California it was called cross-filing, but in the rest of the country it was and is called fusion.

The term "open primary" has been defined in US Supreme Court decisions and in political science books for over 100 years, to mean that on primary day, a voter is free to choose which party's primary to vote in.

The Maldonado/Schwarzenegger proposal is not an "open primary".  It is a "top-two" primary.

Washington state tried the "top-two" primary for the first time in 2008.  The results:  (1) lower voter turnout in the August 2008 primary than 4 years ago (4 years ago was a classic open primary), and that is according to the Washington Secretary of State's web page.  (2) for the first time since Washington became a state in 1889, there were no minor party or independent candidates on the November ballot for any congressional race or any statewide state race.  (3) Washington state in November 2008 had fewer legislative seats switching parties than the average state did that year, and no US House seats changed hands; and only one incumbent lost in the primary out of 123 state legislative races, and all US House incumbents were re-elected.  Top-two in practice turned out to be very good for incumbents and very bad for people who want to express themselves in November by voting for a minor party or independent candidate.

Thanks, Rich! 

Re: "Top-two in practice turned out to be very good for incumbents and very bad for people who want to express themselves in November by voting for a minor party or independent candidate." Just makes me wonder what the fuss is all about from the parties, then? It's independent VOTERS who are fighting for open primaries -- and "top two" voting systems. More than a third of voters are locked out of voting in the first round in 18 states. Not fair. Not democratic. I wish more minor parties or independent candidates would line up with independent voters on this issue. It would be good for the country. As it stands, seems that a party is a party is a party with self-protective reactions no matter what the size..... -NH

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

• * Colorado governor mum on Sen. Salazar replacement (By STEVEN K. PAULSON, AP) Ken Salazar's centrism and willingness to defy party leaders have helped him in a state where there are more registered independent voters than either Democrats or Republicans. Most states leave the choice of appointing U.S. senators to the governor.
  
• * Rasmussen: Americans Losing Confidence in Teachers Unions (By JAZZ SHAW, The Moderate Voice) While 78% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliated voters say teachers’ jobs are the chief focus of the unions, only 55% of Democrats agree.
  
• * Blago impact likely slight (By David Hill, The Hill) “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” ...Among independents, though, cynicism cuts deep. Forty percent of these swing voters in an increasingly competitive Texas say that neither party is ethical. Fully one-half, 50 percent, of all independent male voters hold to that jaundiced view of political misbehavior in the Lone Star State.
  
• * The Big Divisons on the Big Three (Washington Post) WaPo/ABC poll: Democrats, Midwesterners and Northeasterners are more likely to support a cash infusion for Detroit (though tepidly, at best), while residents of the South and West, Republicans and independents tilt against the proposed aid package.
  
• * Tragic Figures (Talk Talk) Newman: And obviously, they've found ways to get around the 17th Amendment. But you could make filling a vacancy a "mechanical" process – i.e. a special election – which is not a bad thing. You might even call it more representative, because you involve the people, the voters.

NEW YORK POLITICS/INDEPENDENCE PARTY

* Former Staten Islander feted at Anti-Corruption Awards ceremony (By KIAWANA RICH, STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE) If a young person like Tali Leger is any indication, the future of the New York City Independence Party is in good hands.... In addition, eight other individuals were honored, including Richard Winger of California, the nationally recognized ballot access expert and editor of Ballot Access News. About 200 individuals attended the event, which doubles as the party's biggest fundraiser, bringing in $45,000.

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS

In New Hampshire, independent voters turn to alternative media: NH-CIV speaks! (Christian Science Monitor) And speaking of alternative media, check out the video at the top of The Hankster to hear New Hampshire Committee for an Independent Voice's Betty Ward talk about what independents can do to build independent politics!

• California commentator Tom Elias reminds the parties: "During the four years since the last presidential primary voting, Democratic voter rolls in California have dropped 124,000, while Republicans lost 224,000. Both parties are down about one percentage point in their portion of the state's voters - roughly 43 percent for Democrats today and about 34 percent for Republicans. But decline-to-state voters are up by 496,000, now amounting to almost 20 percent of all California voters, compared with 16 percent four years ago... (Long Beach Press Telegram)
• Paul B. Hertneky compares the records of Clinton and Obama in "doing for others" (Union Leader)
• Ron Paul says he's not running as an independent but WaPo says he Won't Rule Out Run as Independent (Washington Post The Talk)
• 5th Circuit Expedites Mississippi Democratic Party Open Primary Case (Ballot Access News)
• University of Arkansas Law Review Publishes Election Law Issue (Ballot Access News)

Candidates Set for a Marathon -GOP Primary Is Seen as Lengthening (NY Sun): ...A delayed nomination fight on either side could also complicate the entry of a potential independent candidate like Mayor Bloomberg, who is likely waiting for the two major party choices to be determined before deciding on a White House race. Mr. Bloomberg would face state filing deadlines as early as May and June to qualify for the November ballot, and the still-unlikely possibility of an contested party convention could flummox his plans altogether.

Although fund-raising would not be an issue for the billionaire mayor, more than 100,000 signatures are needed to qualify for the ballot in states like Florida and California that would be key to Mr. Bloomberg's chances. In New York, 15,000 are required. Though petitioning has historically been both time- and ground-intensive, the hurdles are far from insurmountable. "It's not as hard as people think," the editor of the newsletter Ballot Access News, Richard Winger, said.
A candidate must petition for the ballot in Texas by May 8 — the earliest such date in the nation. But the vast majority of state deadlines are not until July, August, and September. And the potential to organize supporters on the Internet may make the process much easier. "The Internet has taken all bets off," the interim dean of Boston University's College of Communication, Tobe Berkovitz, said. 'You can build an almost instant cyber-community."...

• A Date To Watch Out For-March 5 key date for any would-be independent presidential candidate (Daily Politics)