Who was the first African American to seek the presidency on a major party ticket quizlet?

Inhaltsverzeichnis Show Qualifications Party nomination processes Partisan candidate ballot access requirements Requirements for independents Independent candidate ballot access requirements, 2020 Signature requirements Requirements for write-in candidates Ballot access for minor parties Presidential ballot access, 2020 Presidential ballot access, 2016 Impact of third-party presidential candidates on party ballot status "Sore loser" laws Historical information Campaign finance requirements Notable independent and third-party candidacies Ross Perot, 1992 Speculation surrounding Donald Trump, 2015 Notable court cases Williams v. Rhodes Anderson v. Celebrezze Noteworthy events Recent news External links Who was the first African American to seek presidency on a major party ticket? Who was the first president elected on the Democratic Party ticket quizlet? Who was the first Mormon to secure the presidential nomination in a major party ticket? Which president ushered in the era of the modern presidency and is the only individual to have served more than two terms as president of the United States?
Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
Ballot access for presidential candidates
List of political parties in the United States
Methods for signing candidate nominating petitions
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker
Note: This article is not intended to serve as an exhaustive guide to running for public office. Individuals should contact their state election agencies for further information.

In order to get on the ballot, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

There are three basic methods by which an individual may become a candidate for president of the United States.

1. An individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Presidential nominees are selected by delegates at national nominating conventions. Individual states conduct caucuses or primary elections to determine which delegates will be sent to the national convention.[1]
2. An individual can run as an independent. Independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot.[1]
3. An individual can run as a write-in candidate.[1]

The information presented here applies only to presidential candidates. For additional information about ballot access requirements for state and congressional candidates, see this article.

Qualifications

Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution sets the following qualifications for the presidency:[2]

Party nomination processes

Hover over the terms below to display definitions.

Ballot access laws

Primary election

Caucus

Delegate

A political party formally nominates its presidential candidate at a national nominating convention. At this convention, state delegates select the party's nominee. Prior to the nominating convention, the states conduct presidential preference primaries or caucuses. Generally speaking, only state-recognized parties—such as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—conduct primaries and caucuses. These elections measure voter preference for the various candidates and help determine which delegates will be sent to the national nominating convention.[1][4][5]

The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, the governing bodies of the nation's two major parties, establish their own guidelines for the presidential nomination process. State-level affiliates of the parties also have some say in determining rules and provisions in their own states. Individuals interested in learning more about the nomination process should contact the political parties themselves for full details.

Partisan candidate ballot access requirements

In those states that conduct presidential preference primaries, there are generally some candidate filing requirements, but these vary from state to state. In most states that conduct primaries, a candidate may petition for placement on the primary ballot. In some states, elections officials or party leaders select candidates to appear on the ballot; candidates selected in this manner are not usually required to file additional paperwork. In other states, a candidate may have to pay a filing fee (to the state, to the party, or both) in order to have his or her name printed on the ballot.

2020

The table below summarizes general filing procedures for a candidate seeking the nomination of his or her party in 2020. Please note that this information is not necessarily exhaustive. Specific filing requirements can vary by party and by state. For more information, contact the appropriate state-level party. In the table below, blank cells indicate that we have not yet collected filing information for that state. We will update this information as soon as possible.

For filing information from previous years, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

2016

The table below summarizes general statutory filing procedures for a candidate seeking the nomination of his or her party in 2016. Please note that this information is not exhaustive. Specific filing requirements can vary by party and by state. For more information, contact the appropriate state-level party.

Requirements for independents

Generally speaking, an independent presidential candidate must petition for placement on the general election ballot in all 50 states as well as Washington, D.C. A handful of states may allow an independent candidate to pay a filing fee in lieu of submitting a petition. The methods for calculating how many signatures are required vary from state to state, as do the actual signature requirements. For instance, some states establish a flat signature requirement. Other states calculate signature requirements as percentages of voter registration or votes cast for a given office.

Independent candidate ballot access requirements, 2020

2020

The table below summarizes general filing procedures for independent presidential candidates in 2020.

For filing information from previous years, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

2016

In order to access the ballot nationwide, it was estimated that an independent presidential candidate in 2016 would need to collect more than 860,000 signatures. California was expected to require independent candidates to collect 178,039 signatures, more than any other state. Tennessee was expected to require 275 signatures, fewer than any other state.

The map below compares signature requirements by state in 2016. A lighter shade indicates a lower total signature requirement while a darker shade indicates a higher signature requirement. It should be noted that other variables factor into this process; for instance, some states require candidates to collect a certain number of signatures from each congressional district.

Signature requirements

The table below provides the formula used for determining the number of required signatures, the estimated number of signatures required, and the 2016 filing deadline. Official signature requirements are published by state elections administrators; the numbers presented here are estimates based on the most recent data available as of November 2015.

Requirements for write-in candidates

Although a write-in candidate is not entitled to ballot placement, he or she may still be required to file paperwork in order to have his or her votes tallied (or to be eligible to serve should the candidate be elected). A total of 33 states require a write-in presidential candidate to file some paperwork in advance of an election. In nine states, write-in voting for presidential candidates is not permitted. The remaining states do not require presidential write-in candidates to file special paperwork before the election.

Loading...

Ballot access for minor parties

Some states have special provisions permitting parties to place presidential candidates on the ballot without attaining full ballot status. Ballot access for the presidential candidates of select minor parties in previous election cycles is detailed below.

Presidential ballot access, 2020

There were 21 candidates on the ballot each in Vermont and Colorado, more than in any other state. Arkansas and Louisiana came in second, with 13 candidates each. Twelve states featured only three candidates on the ballot.

The following map shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in 2020 in each state.

For information from previously presidential election years, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Presidential ballot access, 2016

In 2016, the Democratic and Republican parties were fully ballot-qualified in all 50 states, granting them presidential ballot access by default. The following large minor parties achieved presidential ballot access as indicated:[7][8][9]

1. Libertarian Party: 50 states
2. Green Party: 44 states (write-in status in an additional three states)
3. Constitution Party: 24 states (write-in status in an additional 22 states)

The maps below provide further details for each of these parties. Hover over a state to see further details.

Impact of third-party presidential candidates on party ballot status

In some states, the performance of a third party's presidential candidate can directly help that party attain state ballot status. The table below identifies state-level affiliates of the Libertarian and Green parties that gained ballot status between 2016 and 2017.[10] The table also indicates whether the performance of a presidential candidate can figure directly in methods for attaining ballot status.

"Sore loser" laws

Some states bar candidates who sought and failed to secure the nomination of a political party from running as independents in the general election. Ballot access expert Richard Winger has noted that, generally speaking, "sore loser laws have been construed not to apply to presidential primaries." In August 2015, Winger compiled a list of precedents supporting this interpretation. According to Winger, 45 states have sore loser laws on the books, but in 43 of these states the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas. See this article for further details.[15][16][17]

Historical information

According to Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News, between 1892 and 2012 there were 401 instances in which a state required an independent or minor party candidate to collect more than 5,000 signatures in order to appear on the general election ballot. Winger said, "Every state has procedures for independent presidential candidates [as well] as procedures for newly-qualifying parties. ... Throughout U.S. history, the presidential nominees of unqualified parties have frequently used the independent candidate procedure instead of the new party procedure, if the independent procedure was easier. The reverse is also true." See this article for state-by-state details.[15]

Campaign finance requirements

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the only agency authorized to regulate the financing of presidential and other federal campaigns (i.e., campaigns for the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives). The states cannot impose additional requirements on federal candidates. Federal law requires all presidential candidates to file a statement of candidacy within 15 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that exceed $5,000. The statement of candidacy is the only federally mandated ballot access requirement for presidential candidates; all other ballot access procedures are mandated at the state level. The candidacy statement authorizes "a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds" on behalf of the candidate. Within 10 days of filing the candidacy statement, the committee must file a statement of organization with the FEC. In addition, federal law establishes contribution limits for presidential candidates. These limits are detailed in the table below. The uppermost row indicates the recipient type; the leftmost column indicates the donor type.[18][19]

Presidential candidate committees are required to file regular campaign finance reports disclosing "all of their receipts and disbursements" either quarterly or monthly. Committees may choose which filing schedule to follow, but they must notify the FEC in writing and "may change their filing frequency no more than once per calendar year."[20]

For contribution limits from previous years, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Notable independent and third-party candidacies

Ross Perot, 1992

On February 20, 1992, in a televised interview with Larry King, Texas businessman Ross Perot announced that he would seek the presidency as an independent candidate if his supporters took the initiative to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. According to MSNBC, "a national grassroots mobilization ensued and Perot moved up in the polls." An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in early June 1992 found Perot leading both incumbent George H.W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D).[21][22][23]

Perot's support waned over the course of the summer, however, and in July he announced his withdrawal from the race. In October 1992, Perot announced his re-entry into the presidential race. He participated in the presidential debates that fall and experienced a surge of support in the polls leading up to Election Day. Ultimately, Perot won 19.7 million votes, accounting for 19 percent of the nationwide popular vote. Perot won no electoral votes, however, and Clinton was elected president. Perot appeared on the ballot in all 50 states.[21][22][23]

Speculation surrounding Donald Trump, 2015

On August 6, 2015, the first Republican presidential primary debate of the 2016 election season took place in Cleveland, Ohio. At the beginning of the debate, moderator Bret Baier asked candidates to raise their hands if they were unwilling to pledge not to run as third-party candidates in the fall, should they fail to win the Republican nomination. Donald Trump, the frontrunner at the time of the debate, was the only candidate to raise his hand. Following the debate, Trump continued to refuse to rule out a third-party or independent run if he failed to secure the party's nomination. However, on September 3, 2015, Trump signed a party loyalty pledge affirming that he would endorse the ultimate Republican nominee and forgo an independent or third-party run. Describing his bid for the 2016 Republican nomination, Trump said, "We have our heart in it. We have our soul in it."[24][25]

According to The Wall Street Journal, "GOP analysts said they had never heard of such a pledge being used in modern elections, and questioned if it would be binding or survive a legal challenge." Republican Party operative Peter Wehner said, "If they [at the RNC] think it's honestly going to keep [Trump] from running for a third-party bid, they are delirious. Donald Trump does what is in the interest of Donald Trump. He has no loyalty to the Republican Party." The debate was rendered moot when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee in May 2016.[24][25]

Notable court cases

United States Supreme Court

Williams v. Rhodes

The American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Party sought ballot access in Ohio for the 1968 presidential election. At the time, Ohio state law required the candidate's political party to obtain voter signatures totaling 15 percent of the number of ballots cast in the preceding election for governor. The American Independent Party obtained the required number of signatures but did not file its petition prior to the stated deadline. The Socialist Labor Party did not collect the requisite signatures. Consequently, both parties were denied placement on the ballot. The two parties filed separate suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against a variety of state officials, including then-Governor James Rhodes.[26][27]

On October 15, 1968, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Williams v. Rhodes that the state laws in dispute were "invidiously discriminatory" and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they gave "the two old, established parties a decided advantage over new parties." The court also ruled that the challenged laws restricted the right of individuals "to associate for the advancement of political beliefs" and "to cast their votes effectively." The court further ruled that Ohio showed no "compelling interest" to justify these restrictive practices and ordered the state to place the American Independent Party's candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the ballot. The court did not require the state to place the Socialist Labor Party's candidates for the same offices on the ballot.[26][27]

Anderson v. Celebrezze

An Ohio statute required independent presidential candidates to file statements of candidacy and nominating petitions in March in order to qualify to appear on the general election ballot in November. Independent candidate John Anderson announced his candidacy for president in April 1980, and all requisite paperwork was submitted on May 16, 1980. The Ohio secretary of state, Anthony J. Celebrezze, refused to accept the documents.[28][29]

Anderson and his supporters filed an action challenging the constitutionality of the aforementioned statute on May 19, 1980, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court ruled in Anderson's favor and ordered Celebrezze to place Anderson's name on the ballot. Celebrezze appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals, which ultimately overturned the district court's ruling (the election took place while this appeal was pending).[28][29]

On April 19, 1983, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the appeals court's ruling, maintaining that Ohio's early filing deadline indeed violated the voting and associational rights of Anderson's supporters.[28][29]

Noteworthy events

2019

California enacts law requiring presidential, gubernatorial candidates to submit income tax returns

On July 30, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law SB 27, requiring presidential and gubernatorial candidates to file copies of their last five federal income tax returns with the California secretary of state in order to qualify for placement on the primary election ballot. The law was set to take immediate effect. In a statement, Newsom said, "The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest. The United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and California is well within its constitutional right to include this requirement."[30]

Several lawsuits were filed in response. On July 30, 2019, Republican presidential candidate Roque De La Fuente filed suit against Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) in federal district court, alleging that SB 27 violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Donald Trump (R), also suggested the possibility of further legal action, saying, "The State of California's attempt to circumvent the Constitution will be answered in court." On August 1, 2019, Judicial Watch, on behalf of four California voters, filed a separate federal suit challenging the law. On August 6, 2019, President Donald Trump (R) and his campaign committee filed another separate suit challenging the law, as did the Republican National Committee and the California Republican Party.[31][32][33][34]

Legal professionals differed in their initial assessment of the legality of SB 27. Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, "This new law raises some very interesting and novel constitutional issues. Because it is novel, it is hard to know how the courts would go, but there is plenty of reason to think courts will be hostile to California’s requirements." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said, "Although most cases dealing with ballot access have involved state and local elections, the constitutional principles are the same: State governments may set conditions for being listed on the ballot so long as they serve important interests and do not discriminate based on wealth or ideology." Gene Schaerr, a constitutional lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, said, "I see it as a serious problem on both constitutional grounds and especially on policy. You can imagine a host of other disclosures that states might want to adopt. If California could do this, some people would undoubtedly want to know whether candidates have ever been treated for a mental illness or denied insurance."[35][36]

On September 19, 2019, Judge Morrison England, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of SB 27. In his opinion, dated October 1, 2019, England wrote, "[The] Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their arguments that the Act 1) violates the Presidential Qualifications Clause contained in Article II of the United States Constitution; 2) deprives Plaintiffs of their rights to associate and/or to access the ballot, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution; 3) further violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause as set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment; and 5) is preempted by the provisions of [the Ethics in Government Act of 1978] in any event." On October 8, 2019, Padilla appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[37][38]

On October 14, 2019, the California Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral arguments in a separate challenge, on state constitutional grounds, to SB 27 no later than the week ending November 8, 2019.[39] On November 21, 2019, the state supreme court ruled unanimously that SB 27, as applied to presidential candidates, violated Article II, Section 5(c) of the state constitution, which provides that "the Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy." Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Associate Justices Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Carol Corrigan, Leondra Kruger, Ming Chin, and Joshua Groban, wrote the following in the court's opinion: "The Legislature may well be correct that a presidential candidate's income tax returns could provide California voters with important information. But article II, section 5(c) embeds in the state Constitution the principle that, ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a 'recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States' to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box."[40]

On November 21, in light of the state supreme court's ruling on the matter, Padilla announced he would abandon his appeal to the Ninth Circuit.[41]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms President ballot access. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

• Presidential election, 2020
• Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
• Other ballot access lawsuits:
  • Bullock v. Carter (1972)
  • Lubin v. Panish (1974)
  • Storer v. Brown (1974)
  • Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party (1979)
  • Norman v. Reed (1992)
  • U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

External links

• Federal Election Commission

Footnotes

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Vote Smart, "Government 101: United States Presidential Primary," accessed August 15, 2015
2. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 2, Section 1," accessed August 3, 2015
3. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
4. ↑ The Washington Post, "Everything you need to know about how the presidential primary works," May 12, 2015
5. ↑ FactCheck.org, "Caucus vs. Primary," April 8, 2008
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 More information about this state's filing processes will be added when it becomes available.
7. ↑ Libertarian Party, "2016 Presidential Ballot Access Map," accessed November 8, 2016
8. ↑ Green Party US, "Ballot Access," accessed November 8, 2016
9. ↑ Constitution Party, "Ballot Access," accessed November 8, 2016
10. ↑ Affiliates of the Constitution Party are not included because no state affiliates of the party attained new ballot status between 2016 and 2017.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Ballot Access News, "April 1, 2017 – Volume 32, Number 11," accessed July 28, 2017
12. ↑ Iowa Secretary of State, "2016 General Election Canvass Summary," accessed July 28, 2017
13. ↑ Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, "Election results," accessed July 28, 2017
14. ↑ New Hampshire Secretary of State, "Governor - 2016 General Election," accessed July 28, 2017
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 This information comes from research conducted by Richard Winger, publisher and editor of Ballot Access News.
16. ↑ The Georgetown Law Journal, "Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation," accessed August 13, 2015
17. ↑ CNN, "Trump 3rd party run would face 'sore loser' laws," August 13, 2015
18. ↑ Federal Election Commission, "The FEC and Federal Campaign Finance Law," updated January 2015
19. ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Quick Answers to Candidate Questions," accessed August 13, 2015
20. ↑ Federal Election Commission, "2016 Reporting Dates," accessed June 17, 2022
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 MSNBC, "Ross Perot myth reborn amid rumors of third-party Trump candidacy," July 24, 2015
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 PBS, "The Election of 1992," accessed June 17, 2022 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "perot2" defined multiple times with different content
23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Federal Election Commission, "Federal Elections 92," accessed November 6, 2015
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Swears Off Third-Party Run," September 3, 2015
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 The Guardian, "Donald Trump signs pledge not to run as independent," September 3, 2015
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Justia.com, "Williams v. Rhodes - 393 U.S. 23 (1968)," accessed December 26, 2013
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Oyez - U.S. Supreme Court Media - IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, "Williams v. Rhodes," accessed December 26, 2013
28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Justia.com, "Anderson v. Celebrezze - 460 U.S. 780 (1983)," accessed December 26, 2013
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Oyez Project - U.S. Supreme Court Media - IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, "Anderson v. Celebrezze," accessed December 26, 2013
30. ↑ Office of the California Governor, "Governor Gavin Newsom Signs SB 27: Tax Transparency Bill," July 30, 2019
31. ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of California, "De La Fuente v. Padilla: Civil Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief," July 30, 2019
32. ↑ CNN, "California governor signs bill requiring presidential candidates to submit tax returns," July 30, 2019
33. ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, "Griffin v. Padilla: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," August 1, 2019
34. ↑ Axios, "Trump, RNC sue California over election law to release tax returns," August 6, 2019
35. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Can a California law requiring Trump to disclose his tax returns survive legal challenges?" July 31, 2019
36. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Op-Ed: California’s new law requiring presidential candidates to disclose tax returns is constitutional," July 31, 2019
37. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Federal judge blocks California law to force disclosure of Trump's tax returns," September 19, 2019
38. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, "Griffin et al. v. Padilla: Order (2:19-cv-01501-MCE-DB)," October 1, 2019
39. ↑ Ballot Access News, "California Supreme Court Expected to Hear Tax Returns-Ballot Case in Early November 2019," October 14, 2019
40. ↑ California Supreme Court, "Patterson v. Padilla: Opinion of the Court," November 21, 2019
41. ↑ Ballot Access News, "California Secretary of State Will End Appeal in Ninth Circuit in Tax Returns-Ballot Lawsuit," November 22, 2019

v • e Election policy
Election legislation	Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker • Election legislation tracking: weekly digest • Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics
Election administration	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Voting policy	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Electoral systems policy	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Primary elections policy	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Redistricting policy	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Recount laws	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Ballot access for political candidates	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Ballot access for presidential candidates	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Ballot access for political parties	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Who was the first African American to seek presidency on a major party ticket?

Who was the first president elected on the Democratic Party ticket quizlet?

Who was the first Mormon to secure the presidential nomination in a major party ticket?

Which president ushered in the era of the modern presidency and is the only individual to have served more than two terms as president of the United States?