Constitution Party on Hawaii Ballot

Ballot Access Reports:

On March 31, Hawaii Elections officials ruled that the Constitution Party petition for party status has enough valid signatures, so the party is on the ballot. The party is now on for president in 18 states. The Constitution Party had failed to get on the Hawaii ballot in 2004, although it was on in 1996 and 2000.

h/t to Richard Winger

45 Responses to “Constitution Party on Hawaii Ballot”

  1. SovereignMN Says:

    Hot Dog! That’s good news.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    It is indeed. Peroutka failed to get on the ballot in 2004,and we’re already on the ballot now,without a candidate. A sign of good things to come I think.

  3. SovereignMN Says:

    I would think the States Rights plank of the CP would appeal to some of the native Hawaiins. It does for the Alaskans.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    I wouldnt count on it. Hawaii is overwhelmingly liberal and overwhelmingly anti-business (probably because of the business moguls who took over their nation).

  5. will Says:

    is the constitution party an explicitly christian political party?

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    Depends on who you ask.

  7. frank Says:

    it amazes me that so little attention is being paid to ballot access by the candidates. Possibly because liniting access limits voter choices. has a ballot access video that is not only very good but very important to all third party candidates. check it out

  8. Jonathan Cymberknopf Says:

    The more Candidates the better ! My wish is that at the end of the day there is a significant amount of votes cast when you combine all Third Party Presidential candidates to show Americans are getting fed up with the two Party system. On a side note please donate at

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    Of course,this isnt a massive coup—Hawaii only supplied 350 or so votes in 1996 and 300 in 2000.

  10. Sivarticus Says:

    Nice to know. Here’s to hoping the CP doesn’t throw all their hard work away this year by going with Alan Keyes.

  11. Mike Gillis Says:

    Is the war and foreign policy the only real difference between the CP and Alan Keyes’ platform, or are there others?

  12. Gary Odom Says:

    will Says:

    March 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
    is the constitution party an explicitly christian political party?

    Why don’t you ask Mark Seidenberg, our Jewish State Vice-Chairman in California, or Larry Beliz, our Jewish national committeeman from California. Alan Fenster, a founding member and activist for the New York State Constitution Party from Queens is an Orthodox Jew and Michael Bobrow, of Manhattan, a Jewish member also very active in the NYSCP.
    These are a few non-Christians who come quickly to mind.

    Don Rosenberg, the state contact for New York and founder of the NYSCP, is of Jewish heritage although he is a Christian by faith which is also the case with CP founder Howard Phillips.

    The answer to your question is “no.” While the membership of the Constitution Party is probably overwhelmingly Christian, it is absolutely not exclusively so.

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    Dont forget Randall T. Hayes—who is a Deist. He’s from here in LA.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    “Is the war and foreign policy the only real difference between the CP and Alan Keyes’ platform, or are there others?”

    Pretty much.

  15. Dave Williams Says:

    Jesse Ventura to be on Larry King live Tuesday.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Please dont announce for President, Ventura.

  17. Fred C. Says:

    Jesse Ventura will attract an assload more media attention than any other indy/3P candidate. He can use that to promote the plight of all third parties and independents. And, he can probably get the needed poll numbers to get in the debates - and maybe leverage to get other third parties on stage as well.

  18. Dave Williams Says:

    Jesse would be a better fit to the CP than say…hahaha…Alan Keyes.

  19. Dave Williams Says:

    ‘assload’, I concur.

  20. Dave Williams Says:

    VENTURA ‘08 “I ain’t got time to bleed.”

  21. Dave Williams Says:

    “Vote for Ventura, he’s dug in like an Alabama tick”

  22. Hugh Jass Says:

    I hope that Ventura only runs if Barr doesn’t, or vice-versa. It wouldn’t be good to have two notable libertarians on the ballot.

  23. Dave Williams Says:

    Already printing up yard signs… VENTURA/ROOT ‘08

  24. Dave Williams Says:

    Ventura’s gubernatorial and military background coupled with Root’s economic background would be an awesome ticket.

  25. Mike Gillis Says:

    “Jesse Ventura to be on Larry King live Tuesday.”

    April 1st? Hmmm…

  26. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, as much as you want to pave over the differences there is more wrong with Keyes than foreign policy. Is Keyes a Constitutionalist, meaning he (eventually) wants to abolish all programs not specifically authorized by the Constitution? And the Strauss/Declarationist/Lincoln stuff matters to the thoughtful, philosophical types.

    Gary, the party should welcome all people, but it should be consciously attempting to defend and conserve the particular Christian character of this country. In fact, a conservative party can not really be a conservative party unless it is trying to conserve that particular Christian character.

    Are you embarrassed by the fact that the CP platform preamble mentions Jesus specifically? Do you want to change that part of the platform?

  27. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Don’t forget how important it is for the Constitution Party to have ballot access in as many states as possible. If we want to attract a nominee with name recognition through out our country, we will have to be on a lot more state ballots then 18. But that is a good start.

  28. TexasConservative Says:

    Awesome… the CP and Keyes teaming up! HEY—yeah I agree that the Lincoln/Straussian/Declarationist stuff does matter to philisophical types—it also matters to free slaves, the unborn who might have an argument for their posterirty, and the idea of the noble lie in terms of raising children taught by way of piety. STILL, we as conservatives must unite, and fight the globalists, the socialists, and those want to weaken the USA.

  29. will Says:

    yeah i guess all i want is to do is weaken the usa.

  30. will Says:

    ha wow sorry for the type o’s

  31. Red Phillips Says:

    it also matters to … the unborn who might have an argument for their posterity, and the idea of the noble lie in terms of raising children taught by way of piety.


  32. SovereignMN Says:

    “it also matters to free slaves”

    Classic deflection. Being anti-Lincoln = pro-slavery? Nice try.

  33. Trent Hill Says:


    Im not sure that was his point. I believe he was pointing to “all men were created equal” as a plus of Declarationism.

  34. Travis Maddox Says:

    This is great news. I’m getting very excited. This is going to be a great year. I know that here in Missouri we have a great slate of candidates that are going to run. A few have a real chance of wininng. I talk to people almost everyday about whats going on in politics and now more than ever are regular people ready for great third party candidates.

  35. Trent Hill Says:


    We’re collecting money right now to air radio-advertisements and place ads in the local newspapers. All of this is going to be done to increase the turnout for our candidates and hopefully gain more members. Here in LA, iv made a personal goal of AT LEAST doubling the presidential vote total from 2004. If we get someone with a big name, i’ll shoot for 10x the vote-total.

  36. Michael Says:

    Ventura gave a newspaper interview where it sounded like he might be more interested in running for senator from Minnesota (Coleman vs Franken) than for president.

  37. Trent Hill Says:


    That is my impression also. I think he’ll run for Senator before President.

  38. TexasConservative Says:

    Using the term “classic deflection” is a classic deflection itself. Yeah my point is, how else do you argue for the end of slavery—State’s rights said it was ok for slavery to exist in some states while not in others, so how do we reach a consensus if some say, some say no. Federal action taken? What about desegragation? States’ rights also were violated. BUT—sometimes things have to to change to stick to the moral framework that brought about the constitution. YEAH and for the posterity deal, taht is referring to the slaughtered unborn. You tell me how else can you can you overturn Roe vs Wade—States’ Rights again? But what if 50% of all states says “ABORTION is cool”, thenwhat? Yeah, then you need a federal mandate, and of course there is gay marriage… and I never said being anti-Lincoln is pro-slavery—stop being so defensive. I think being too much for States rights in order to end any moral collapse can also be dangerous. OK!

  39. SovereignMN Says:

    It’s real simple. I believe that abortion should be outlawed. I believe that slavery should be repealed. I believe that government should be completely race-neutral (thus no segregation).

    However; I also can read and realize that the Constitution is silent on these matters. It specifically states that any authority not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the States or people. Therefore the federal government has no AUTHORITY to tell Alabama how to deal with segregation just like it has no AUTHORITY to tell Iraq that is needs democracy.

    “BUT—sometimes things have to to change to stick to the moral framework that brought about the constitution”

    Don’t forget that the moral framework that brought about the constutiton thought slavery was perfectly legitimate. At some point in time all orginal 13 colonies permitted slaves. By the late 1700’s the northern colonies had outlawed slavery because since they were not agricultural colonies (like the south), the only slave labor was in physical labor like construction and the whites did not want to compete with the free black labor. So it wasn’t some moral superiority that caused the northern colonies to outlaw slavery, it was dollars and cents.

    I agree that sometimes change is necessary. However change can be brought out in better ways than Lincoln’s method of invading a country. You can bring about change by passing a constitutional amendment. You can bring about change by allowing the free market to work naturally.

  40. hugh Says:

    Who would be so silly as to want Alan Keyes in the CP? Keyes running on any 3rd party is a sure way to reduce the credibility of that party. His base support has crashed down to about 15 diehard fanatics on his site. One of his claims to fame is his refusal to compromise his principles. YET, that is EXACTLY what he has done to join the CP. Shall the CP be led by a HYPOCRITE? His views are very different than the CP in foreign affairs. Keyes used to get a few million votes, now after failing in every election he gets less then 0.1%. He has fail written all over him.

  41. TexasConservative Says:

    There you go, how do you stop slavery if it is legitimate? YOU just do! How do you stop abortion even if it legitimate, or gay marriage, or gay bashing or whatever else act we view as immoral but maybe legal if it follows the law of the lands set by tradition or consensus? IT takes action at some level, even personal, sometimes the federal govt—COME ON think for yourselves!

  42. Cody Quirk Says:

    is the constitution party an explicitly christian political party?

    = NO!

  43. hugh Says:

    TC, start making sense. YOU cannot define what is moral for OTHERS. You may WANT to inflict your individual (or your religion’s) version of morality on others, but that is what government is for. Governments decide and enforce the laws. YOU decide what is moral for YOU. You are always free to exercise more restraint than what the government allows, not less.
    Society changes - and our constitution was designed to change with it and control the new issues that arise out of those changes. Your individual interpretation of what is moral is meaningless to others.

  44. TexasConservative Says:

    LOL—I knew it your just a secularist who hides behind the CONSTITUTIONAL planks in order to take out natural law advocates. YOUR the dumbest guy ever, the GOVERNMENT is us idiot! We are the government, we impose laws as long as they respect certain minority rights. YOU saying my MORAL interpreation is individual is your individual interpertation so shut the hell up, next time 20 million illegals cross the border, lets see what logical and amoral argument you will use when money is being made in the trillions. THEN your so called government morality will fail you as it has over and over. YOUR just a secularist being revealed, you suck—I feel like IM talking to a computer

  45. hugh Says:

    I match my strength against your routine losses. Kind of tells you something, huh?
    Where did you learn to spell? I know plenty of people who just moved here that command the English language will less errors then you. Perhaps you need to be re-qualified to vote to double check your citizenship. dumbassTexan

Leave a Reply