|This issue was originally printed on white paper.|
On April 19, U.S. District Court Judge Franklin Van Antwerpen, a Reagan appointee, struck down part of section 2911(d) of the Pennsylvania election code. He ruled that petition circulators may live anywhere in Pennsylvania. Morrill v Weaver, 02-cv-1497, e.d. The law that was struck down makes it illegal for anyone to circulate a petition for an office, if the circulator doesn't live in the territory that elects that office.
The case had been brought by the Brennan Center for Justice, on behalf of several Green Party nominees in this year's election.
Pennsylvania is one of only eleven states in which there is no procedure to qualify a party per se. Instead, it only has procedures to qualify the nominees of new or minor parties. All petitions must list the party's nominees. And, until now, if the petition listed candidates for district or county office, no one could circulate such petitions unless he or she lived in the district for which that candidate was running.
Although Pennsylvania permits petitions that list multiple candidates, including a mix of statewide and district candidates, the circulator residence restriction has always inhibited the circulation of such petitions.
Judge Van Antwerpen also ruled that circulators need not be registered voters. Pennsylvania law on this point is ambiguous, but the judge construed the law not to require registration. The judge specifically declined to rule on whether out-of-state residents may circulate petitions.
California, Michigan, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia are the only jurisdictions that still require petition circulators (for candidates) to be registered voters. Many other states require circulators to be residents.
Pennsylvania now has five ballot access laws that have been struck down, but which have not yet been amended out of the election code:
(1) the petition deadline; (2) the number of signatures needed for statewide office in odd year elections; (3) the mandatory filing fee; (4) the duration of party membership, for the nominee of an unqualified party; (5) the residence of circulators.
On April 11, the U.S. Senate passed S.565, the Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act of 2002. Here are some of its provisions:
1. Authorizes $3.5 billion for new voting equipment and to help make polling places more accessible.
2. Creates the Election Administration Commission (EAC) to oversee the grants and to issue standards for voting equipment.
3. Mandates provisional voting in federal elections. This means that if it is unclear at the polls whether a voter is eligible to vote, the voter is issued a provisional ballot. The ballot is set aside until elections officials later determine whether the voter is eligible. If so, the ballot is then counted.
4. Requires states to set up a computerized statewide voter registration list.
5. Prevents states from invalidating absentee ballots solely on the grounds that they lacked a notarized witness signature, an address, a postmark, or signature comparison.
6. Requires states to publicly post sample ballots at the polls.
7. Most alarmingly, lets states use Social Security numbers in election administration. This would let states require S.S. numbers on voter registration forms, and would let states require them on petitions.
A conference committee will soon be chosen in each House of Congress, to work out a compromise between S.565 and HR 3295, which has already passed the House. HR 3295 does not let states use Social Security numbers in election administration.
Ralph Nader and the Ohio Green Party plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Nader v Blackwell, the case over whether candidates who qualify for the Ohio ballot by petition are entitled to a partisan label on the November ballot.
Nader won this case in U.S. District Court on October 13, 2000, but the 6th circuit reversed it early this year, without even holding a hearing. A rehearing request was denied on March 28. The 6th circuit said the case didn't deserve a hearing, since the Libertarian Party had lost a similar case last year.
The only independent or minor party presidential candidates who have ever won a ballot access case in the U.S. Supreme Court have been "big names": George Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, and John B. Anderson. The Court hasn't taken a ballot access case filed by an independent or minor party candidate for president in twenty years (when it accepted Anderson's appeal late in 1982).
Ohio law says if a candidate gets on the November ballot by petition, no label should be printed on the ballot next to that candidate's name. Nominees of qualified political parties, of course, have their party label printed on the ballot. In 1992 the 6th circuit struck down the Ohio law and ruled that the state must print "independent" next to the names of those petition candidates who desire this label. Ohio has never changed its law to comply with this ruling. The current case concerns labels other than the word "independent", such as "Green".
Ohio law before 1947 permitted all petitioning candidates to choose any short label that didn't mimic the name of a qualified party. That 1947 change was part of a package of hostile election law changes made that year. All the other 1947 changes were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, but the label restriction still survives.
On March 28, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down a law that made it illegal for the District of Columbia to release blank initiative petition forms to any group that wanted to do an initiative on reducing penalties for marijuana. Marijuana Policy Project v DC.Bd. of Elections, civ 01-2595. Judge Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, said the law, the Barr Amendment of 2001, is viewpoint-discriminatory.
There are laws in certain states, saying that initiatives may not be used to pass laws on a certain subject. These laws have been upheld.
The difference between those laws, and the Barr Amendment, is that under the Barr Amendment no one may begin to petition for an "out-of-bounds" initiative. By contrast, under the laws of a few states, anyone is free to petition; it's just that the completed petition wouldn't have the effect of forcing the state to print that proposed initiative on the ballot.
On April 15, Janet Brown, Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, sent the following letter to Ralph Nader:
"In October 2000, you filed a lawsuit against the Commission, in which you asserted claims concerning your ticketed right to enter an auxiliary viewing auditorium on the U. Mass. campus on October 3, 2000, the night of the presidential debate.
"The Commission and its co-chairs did not know about your interest in attending the auxiliary viewing auditorium. If we had had a clear understanding of your intentions, every effort would have been made to protect your right to attend that event. We apologize for the misunderstanding of our security consultant that resulted in your being required to leave the campus so that you could not attend the auxiliary viewing event and for any inconvenience to you."
The Commission also paid $25,000 in attorneys' fees to Nader's lawyer, and the security consultant paid another $26,250. As a result, Nader dropped his lawsuit.
On April 25, the Ohio Libertarian Party lost its lawsuit in state appeals court, over whether or not it is a qualified party. Zweber v Montgomery Co. Bd. of Elections. The party had turned in a petition to be a party in late 1999, and was recognized as a party for the 2000 election. That petition had been submitted less than a year prior to the November 2000 election. At that election, the party did not poll as much as 5%.
Ohio law says, "3501.01. 'Minor political party' means any party whose candidate for governor or president received less than 10% but more than 5% or which has filed a petition signed by qualified electors equal to at least 1% of the last vote cast, except that a newly formed political party shall be known as a minor political party until the time of the first election for governor or president which occurs not less than twelve months subsequent to the formation of such party, after which election the status of such party shall be determined by the vote for governor or president."
The party argued that the clause beginning with "except that a newly formed political party..." means that a minor party retains its status, beyond its first election, if it submitted its petition less than a year before the election.
But the court ruled that it means something entirely different: that a newly-qualified party which polled 20% or more, in its first year on the ballot, should still be treated as though it had only polled 5% of the vote. Ohio law provides that a party which polled 5% is a "minor party"; a party that polled 10% is an "intermediate party"; and a party that polled 20% is a "major party". The court felt that the intent of the law was that if a brand-new party polled enough votes to meet the definition of "major party" or "intermediate party", it should still be treated as a "minor party" during its second year of life.
The party had argued that a law should always be construed so as to be constitutional. Ohio has annual public financing for 20% parties, but no other parties.
Given the court's interpretation, old parties which poll 20% are entitled to public funding, whereas new parties which poll 20% are not entitled to public funding, until they have been on the ballot more than two years. The obviously violates Equal Protection.
On March 27, U.S. District Court Judge Franklin D. Burgess, a Clinton appointee, upheld the Washington state blanket primary, in a challenge brought by the state's three qualified parties, Democratic, Republican and Libertarian.
Those parties are required to nominate their candidates in primaries at which voters are free to vote for members of different parties. The parties want their nominees chosen by voters who make some minimal commitment to one particular party (even if the commitment is only that the voter chooses that party's primary ballot, to the exclusion of the primary ballot of other parties). Democratic Party of Washington v Reed, 00-5419.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a California case in 2000 that political parties cannot be forced to use this type of primary. Judge Burgess said that decision doesn't apply to Washington state. The difference is that in California, voters register into particular parties (or as independents). In Washington, the registration form doesn't ask for the voter's partisan affiliation.
The three parties are appealing. They will probably argue on appeal that Washington's lack of partisan registration is not a meaningful factor. It is obvious to everyone that there are strong partisans of various political parties in Washington. Some voters have a state of mind which is very loyal to the Republican Party; some voters are very loyal to the Democratic Party; some voters are very loyal to other parties; and some voters consider themselves independents. This state of mind exists in reality, regardless of the state's lack of a formal list of party members.
Washington is the only state that still requires a blanket primary. Louisiana has a non-partisan primary.
At least five lawsuits challenging the new federal campaign finance law have been filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. They have been assigned to a three-judge court consisting of Judges Karen Henderson (Bush, Sr., appointee), Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton) and Richard Leon (Bush, Jr.).
The only case that includes any political party plaintiffs is McConnell v FEC, 02-582. They are: the Alabama Republican Party; the Republican Party of Jefferson County, Alabama; the national committee of the Libertarian Party; the Illinois Libertarian Party; and the DuPage County, Illinois Libertarian Party. The ACLU is also a co-plaintiff.
The Libertarian Party complains about the fact that the new law forbids members under age 18 to pay dues, or to register for attendance at national party conventions. Also, the party complains that its normal practice of sharing dues with its state party affiliates is now illegal. Also, it is now illegal for the party to sell advertising space to corporations in its monthly newsletter, the Libertarian Party News.
To see the briefs, go to: www.law.stanford.edu/library/campaignfinance
The other four lawsuits were filed by the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association, Congressman Ron Paul, and the American Center for Law and Justice. Oral argument is December 4.
On April 19, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the District of Columbia government may spend $600,000 for 100 sculptures of donkeys and 100 sculptures of elephants. The sculptures are outdoor public art, and will be on display for this spring and summer. D.C. Statehood Green Party v District of Columbia.
The judge hasn't put his ruling in writing yet. From the bench, he said that the D.C. government isn't endorsing either the Democratic or Republican Parties, by sponsoring their symbols as works of art. The written opinion will be interesting to read.
1. Alaska: on April 4, the 9th circuit heard arguments in Jacobus v State of Alaska, 01-35666. The issue is the state's ban on large contributions to political parties. The panel consisted of Harlington Wood (a Ford appointee), Dorothy Nelson (Carter) and Richard Paez (Clinton). The judges were cryptic. This case has great importance, given the new federal campaign law and its similar limits.
2. California: on April 17, the State Supreme Court said it will not hear Young v Raley's, S98428, even though that Court had said last year that it would hear it. The issue is whether large stores must permit petitioning in their parking lots, if that store is not part of a shopping mall. The lower court had ruled against the circulators.
California (2): on April 19, a state Court of Appeals ruled that a long-ignored section of the state Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution. The state Constitution prohibits members of the Communist Party from running for office. Jesson v Davis, G30498, 4th district.
3. Georgia: on April 5, a federal court approved the state's new congressional district boundaries. The petitioning period for district office starts February 6 and ends August 5. But since the boundaries weren't known, petitioners lost 32% of the available time. The Libertarian Party, which has one petitioning candidate for U.S. House, plans to ask the state for either a 32% reduction in the number of signatures, or an additional 58 days beyond the deadline.
4. Iowa: on April 3, the State Supreme Court ruled that shopping malls need not permit petitioning on their parking lots. City of West Des Moines v Engler, 00-147.
5. Oklahoma: the State Supreme Court still hasn't said whether it will rehear In re Initiative Petition No. 365. The original decision from that court, from November 13, 2001, said that signatures on initiative petitions can't be invalidated, just because the names can't be found on the state's computerized list of registered voters.
6. Oregon: on April 15, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Decker v Bradbury, 01-732. The issue was whether federal law, which says that congressional elections shall be on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, is violated by letting voters vote at any time during the preceding 3 weeks. The lower court had upheld Oregon's three-week voting period.
Oregon (2): on April 11, the State Supreme Court invalidated an initiative which, ironically, made it more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot. The initiative would have required circulators to be Oregon residents, and would also have given the legislature authority to outlaw paying petitioners per signature. Also it would have provided for disclosure of contributions toward the group promoting an initiative. The basis for the decision was that these three provisions do not constitute a "single subject". Swett v Bradbury, S48116.
1. Alabama: the legislature has adjourned. Bills to improve ballot access, and to restore voting for ex-felons, failed to pass.
2. Maryland: SB 184, which lets ex-felons who have committed two felonies register, passed the legislature on April 4 (ex-felons who had committed a single felony already had the right to register).
Instant-Runoff Voting continues to gain adherents. It will be used at the Utah Republican state convention on May 11 to nominate candidates (in Utah, party conventions choose candidates; primaries are only for races in which two candidates enjoyed substantial support at the convention). Also, Time Magazine featured IRV on page 21 of its April 8-12 issue.
These are both from the April BAN:
(1) The website that has the text of Driving Mr. Nader is http://www.drivingmrnader.org
(2) The Maine Clean Elections Act was in effect for state legislature races starting in 2000.
In the past (mostly in 1993), B.A.N. has carried articles about the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international agreement that the United States signed in 1990. The Copenhagen Meeting Document is part of the Helsinki Accords. Nations which sign the Document pledge to hold free elections. The provisions are very specific, and it is clear that U.S. laws, and the laws of many states, violate the Copenhagen Document.
Jerry Collette of North Carolina points out that many U.S. laws also violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. signed in 1992. The ICCPR has a Preamble and 53 articles.
Article 25 says, "Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country."
When the U.S. signed the Covenant, it said, "The United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing." This means that, without enabling legislation, groups have no right to sue over violations of the Covenant. The U.S. State Department says there is no need for enabling legislation, since the U.S. Constitution protects the same rights that are mentioned in the Covenant.
However, U.S. courts have upheld election laws which discriminate in favor of the two largest parties, and against all others. See page six of the January 12, 1997 B.A.N. for examples (www.ballot-access.org). For more information on the Covenant, see http://mdcnc.org, the web page of the Movement for Democratic Change in North Carolina.
Long Beach, California has mayoral term limits. The Mayor, Beverly O'Neill, wanted to run for re-election on March 5, 2002, but the term limits law said she couldn't have her name on the ballot. But, the law lets term-limited officials run as write-in candidates. So, she ran as a write-in, and placed first, but did not receive 50% of the total vote cast.
The city charter says that when no one gets 50%, a run-off shall be held. Mayor O'Neill argues that her name should be printed on the run-off ballot, along with the name of the second-place finisher, Dan Baker. The city argues that the run-off ballot should carry only the name of Baker, with a write-in space. And the candidate who placed third, Norman Ryan, argues that the run-off ballot should carry two names, those of Baker and Ryan. A lawsuit to settle this was decided on April 25. The ballot will list only Baker on the run-off ballot. Ryan v Powell, BC 272211.
At the California primary on March 5, Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald Kline appeared on the ballot as a candidate for re-election. No opponents were listed. However, Judge Kline was charged with child molestation after the filing deadline closed. Kline received 125,000 votes, but various declared write-in candidates received 259,000 write-ins.
Just prior to the election, a Superior Court ordered elections officials to post a sign in all polling places, telling voters that they could ask to see a list of the declared write-in candidates. Buchanan v Orange Co. Registrar of Voters, 02-cc-3626.
A scholarly analysis of internet voting is available free from the PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, 1616 N. Fort Myer Dr., Arlington Va 22209-3195. (703)-741-1077. The study was based on the 2000 Arizona Democratic presidential primary, which permitted internet voting.
France voted for president on April 21. The unofficial results:
|Rally for the Republic||19.88%|
|Union of French Democracy||6.84%|
|Comm. Revolutionary Lg.||4.25%|
|Hunt, Fish, Nature & Trad.||4.23%|
|Nat. Republican Movement||2.34%|
|Forum Social Republicans||1.19%|
Presidential candidates in France get on the first ballot by submitting 500 signatures of Mayors.
B.A.N. publishes the number of registered voters in each party, for each state that asks voters about party affiliation on the voter registration form. However, B.A.N. has never published any such data for Utah. Party registration in Utah is new.
The reason so few voters are registered in any party, is that most voters last registered on an old form (old forms didn't ask for party membership). Starting this year, the Republican Party won't permit members of other parties to vote in the Republican primary. Independents may vote in the Republican primary in 2002, but not in the future. The other parties all permit any voter to vote in their primaries.
State officials do not tally registration by party. The figures above were obtained by contact with each county.
|FULL PARTY||CAND.||LIB'T||GREEN||CONSTIT'N||REFORM||NAT LAW|
|Alabama||39,536||39,536||already on||0||0||0||0||July 1|
|Alaska||(reg) 6,606||#2,879||already on||already on||5||58||7||June 1|
|Arizona||20,427||est. #9,800||already on||2,500||0||*450||0||May 18|
|California||(reg) 86,212||157,073||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Aug 9|
|Colorado||(reg) 1,000||#1,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||May 1|
|Connecticut||no procedure||#7,500||already on||0||already on||0||0||Aug 7|
|Delaware||(reg) *257||*5,138||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Aug 17|
|D.C.||no procedure||est. #3,500||can't start||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||Aug 28|
|Florida||be organized||pay fee||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||Sep 1|
|Georgia||38,600||#38,600||already on||*10,000||0||0||0||Aug 5|
|Hawaii||638||25||*already on||already on||0||0||already on||*July 23|
|Idaho||10,033||5,017||already on||0||already on||already on||already on||Aug 31|
|Illinois||no procedure||#25,000||*14,000||*2,000||*0||*0||*0||Jun 24|
|Indiana||no procedure||#30,717||already on||0||0||0||0||Jul 15|
|Iowa||no procedure||#1,500||*600||already on||0||0||0||Aug 16|
|Kansas||14,854||5,000||already on||0||already on||already on||0||June 1|
|Kentucky||no procedure||#5,000||0||0||0||0||0||Aug 6|
|Louisiana||est. (reg) 140,000||pay fee||1,016||393||17||2,408||23||July 1|
|Maine||21,051||#4,000||0||already on||0||0||0||May 25|
|Massachusetts||est. (reg) 37,500||#10,000||already on||already on||17||2,594||73||July 30|
|Michigan||30,272||30,272||already on||already on||0||already on||0||July 18|
|Minnesota||104,550||#2,000||0||already on||0||0||0||June 1|
|Mississippi||be organized||#1,000||already on||too late||already on||*disputed||already on||March 1|
|Missouri||10,000||10,000||already on||*3,600||0||0||0||July 29|
|Montana||5,000||#5,000||already on||already on||already on||already on||already on||*May 27|
|Nebraska||5,453||2,500||already on||0||0||0||0||Aug 1|
|Nevada||5,867||5,867||*finished||already on||already on||already on||already on||July 7|
|New Hampshire||16,931||#3,000||*2,300||0||0||0||0||Aug 6|
|New Jersey||no procedure||#800||*400||*500||0||0||0||July 31|
|New Mexico||2,994||17,958||*already on||already on||*already on||0||*already on||*July 9|
|New York||no procedure||#15,000||can't start||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||Aug 20|
|North Carolina||58,842||*99,347||already on||0||0||0||0||May 17|
|North Dakota||7,000||4,000||0||0||0||0||0||*Sep 6|
|Oklahoma||61,712||pay fee||0||0||0||0||0||May 31|
|Oregon||16,663||15,306||already on||already on||already on||0||already on||Aug 27|
|Pennsylvania||no procedure||21,028||*200||*2,500||*50||0||0||Aug 1|
|Rhode Island||15,323||#1,000||0||already on||0||0||0||Jul 18|
|South Carolina||10,000||10,000||already on||0||already on||already on||already on||July 17|
|South Dakota||6,505||#2,602||already on||0||0||already on||0||*June 18|
|Tennessee||24,406||25||*already on||*too late||*too late||*too late||*too late||April 4|
|Texas||37,381||37,381||already on||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||May 28|
|Utah||2,000||#1,000||already on||already on||*too late||*too late||already on||Mar 15|
|Vermont||be organized||#1,000||already on||0||already on||0||0||Sep 19|
|Virginia||no procedure||#10,000||*finished||0||0||0||0||Jun 11|
|Washington||no procedure||#200||already on||can't start||can't start||can't start||can't start||Jul 6|
|West Virginia||no procedure||#11,864||0||0||0||0||0||May 13|
|Wisconsin||10,000||#2,000||already on||already on||already on||can't start||can't start||Jun 1|
|Wyoming||4,247||4,247||already on||0||0||0||0||Jun 1|
|TOTAL STATES ON||*31||21||*15||*11||*13|
"Deadline" is procedure with earliest petition deadline, except where the earliest deadline has already passed. #Candidate procedure allows partisan label. Other nationally-organized parties on statewide are Socialist, Socialist Workers, Southern, & Workers World, in Florida. Socialist has 500 in New Jersey. * -- means a change, compared to April. Greens are on in Mississippi, but not in time for 2002.
Constitution Party: On April 2, three party members won non-partisan elections in Wisconsin: John DuPont to the Waukesha city council; Paul Trelo to the Appleton city council; and Mark Gabriel to the Calumet County Board.
Green Party: on April 2, eleven party members were elected to non-partisan office in Wisconsin: Barron Co. Bd., John Hardin; Dane Co. Bd., 4 winners, John Hendrick, Kyle Richmond, Echnaton Vedder, Al Matano; Douglas Co. Bd., 3 winners, Robert Browne, David Conley, Katherine McKenzie; Portage Co. Bd., Kevin Ruehl; Madison city council, Tom Powell; Sommers town council, Larry Harding.
Libertarian Party: on April 2, two party members won non-partisan elections in Wisconsin: Kevin Scheunemann to the Kewaskum village board; and Gene Cisewski to the Iron County Board. On April 1, a party member, David Eisenbacher, was elected to the Troy, Michigan, city council.
1. Hawaii: the Free Energy Party was formed to publicize ideas about energy that were first propounded by Nicola Tesla. For more information, contact Dan Cunningham, 2127A Kealoha Pl., Honolulu 96819, (808)-841-1681.
2. New Mexico: the Independent Coalition will run Russell Means for Governor. The party was founded by Mike Castro, a former state chair of the Green Party. It also includes former Reform and Natural Law Party activists.
Massachusetts held a special election for State House, 1st Hampshire district, on April 9. The results: Kocot, Democrat, 62.4%; Aleo, Green, 37.6%. This was the highest percentage for a minor party candidate for the Massachusetts legislature since before World War II, and possibly since the 1910's decade.
In the same district in November 2000, there had been only one candidate on the ballot, a Democrat.
1. Florida: this state's Independence Party, which has not previously run candidates, will run a candidate for Governor. If no other minor party runs a gubernatorial candidate this year, the Independence Party candidate will be the first minor party gubernatorial candidate on the Florida ballot since 1920. Jack Gargan, former chair of the Reform Party, recently joined the Independence Party, and he may run for the U.S. House. In 1998 he polled 33.7% in a two-way race for that office, and the district's new boundaries are more favorable to him than they were in 1998.
2. New York: on April 23, Governor George Pataki said he will seek the gubernatorial nomination of the Independence Party. Pataki is virtually certain to also be the Republican nominee. Most Independence Party leaders support him because he favors a statewide initiative process.
Thomas Golisano, a billionaire who was the party's gubernatorial candidate in 1998 and 1994, may also seek the party's nomination. He is also interested in seeking the Green Party nomination.
On April 15, six members of the Reform Party Executive Committee resigned from the party. Also, 21 additional members of the national committee resigned (that committee has 3 members from each state, plus ex-officio members). The officers who left the party were part of the faction who strongly support Pat Buchanan.
Those who left say that a new party, the America First Party, will be created. The only ballot-qualified state Reform Party controlled by this group is Mississippi.
Ezola Foster, the state-recognized chair of the California Reform Party, did not leave the party. However, on April 7, she endorsed five statewide candidates of the American Independent Party.
The Reform Party is ballot-qualified in South Dakota, but no candidates entered its primary this year, so it will lose its status there after the November 2002 election.