Ballot Access

Libertarian Party of Georgia Loses Ballot Access Lawsuit

Having to collect as many as 20,000 signatures for a House race was not considered a "severe" burden by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

|

It's perfectly constitutional for the state of Georgia to treat non-major party candidates far more harshly than Democrats or Republicans when it comes to ballot access, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this week in the defeat of a First and 14th Amendment challenge from the Georgia Libertarian Party (L.P.).

In the case of Cowen v. Raffensperger, the Georgia L.P. was challenging a requirement that 5 percent of registered voters within a district had to sign a petition to get U.S. House candidates on the ballot if their party had not gotten 20 percent of the vote for governor or president in the last election. While that number of signatures will vary based on district, the Georgia L.P. and other ballot access watchers find it tends to float around 20,000-25,000 signatures.

Getting presidential, Senate, and other statewide candidates on the ballot in Georgia is easier. The Georgia L.P. met those criteria by winning the votes of just 1 percent of eligible registered voters in a previous statewide race. The party suit challenged the distinction between its own candidates for statewide vs. non-statewide office on equal protection grounds as well, which the 11th Circuit also found unconvincing since it already decided the distinction—the signature collection—was not a severe burden.

The case had been at the 11th Circuit before, earlier in 2021, and a panel then sent it back to a U.S. District Court which, on that reconsideration, "permanently enjoined the Secretary from enforcing the 5% signature requirement that applied to third-party and independent candidates for non-statewide office. In its place, the district court imposed a 1% requirement as an interim measure, which would persist until the state legislature enacted a permanent replacement."

A 1971 Supreme Court decision, Jenness v. Fortson, had, however, upheld Georgia's ballot access laws, but some newer ballot access jurisprudence and facts had arisen since then that might have mandated a different conclusion. As the 11th Circuit decision this week wrote, "some changes to Georgia's ballot-access laws have occurred in the 50 years since Jenness. And the evidentiary record detailing the practical difficulties of gathering petition signatures may be more robust here than it was in that case. But to satisfactorily distinguish the claims, not just any difference from Jenness will do—the difference must be material enough to transform Georgia's ballot-access system from one that 'in no way freezes the status quo' to one that does…..The Libertarian Party has not identified such a difference."

Thus, the panel this week, in a decision written by Judge Britt Grant, reversed the District Court's overturning of the 5 percent requirement and upheld the ballot access law. Though the Court admits the L.P. "offers evidence to show that collecting petition signatures is costly and difficult….the Libertarian Party has not shown that the endeavor is significantly more challenging than it was 50 years ago." It argues that the petition requirement is important to the state's interest in avoiding "confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process."

Richard Winger, America's leading expert in ballot access laws and editor of Ballot Access News, says the "frustration" aspect arose from a Supreme Court justice in an earlier ballot access case who considered the very prevention of a major party candidate from winning to constitute the sort of "frustration" restrictive ballot access laws are meant to prevent.

Does the 5 percent requirement truly not "freeze…a status quo?" It has existed since 1943 and no party has ever met it in Georgia, although at least 20 attempts have been made; an independent candidate did once in 1964 at a time when, according to Winger, "the signatures weren't checked."

Ballot access is a continual problem for the Libertarian Party and other third party and independent candidates. Making any sweeping statement about the requirements for access is impossible given the dizzying array of state requirements for various offices, and that's part of the point and part of the problem: even understanding, much less complying with and successfully meeting, ballot access demands is a more than full-time job.

Tyler Harris, executive director of the national L.P, says in a phone interview that over $200,000 this year is likely to have to be expended by the national party alone toward ballot access efforts of various sorts, and in terms of morale and stress as well as cash, it's a "significant strain."

As Ryan Graham, chair of the Georgia L.P., says in a phone interview, it makes it especially hard to find competent, engaged candidates to even consider running for House when they know they face a petition requirement that has almost always proven impossible to meet.

The L.P. has three strategies to overcome these policies, as both Harris and Graham explained: one is just digging down and trying to meet them—gathering the signatures, making sure the right name from the right district goes on the right sheet, knocking on doors, lurking outside the Kroger's, or, in some cases the statutorily required 100 feet or so from actual polling places, to find voters or citizens who meet the various requirements to sign on the dotted line.

You also must make sure they get their addresses and districts right and that they are on record on the voter rolls with the same information they gave the petitioner. It's tricky stuff, costly in terms of money for pros and morale-drag on volunteers, and can often result in one signature being tossed for various bureaucratic errors for every one that counts.

A second approach is trying to get the laws changed via the legislature. While in Georgia in the past they've gotten bipartisan gangs of legislators to propose legislation loosening the requirements, such bills never get out of committee and according to Graham, they've been told via back channel it's unlikely they ever will.

The third option is the one they pursued in Georgia, and have so far failed at: suing. (Such suits don't always fail, and various ballot access restrictions in Maine were indeed successfully overturned earlier this year via an L.P. lawsuit in Baines v. Bellows.)

As Winger summed up his problems with the Georgia decision this week at Ballot Access News, "If Georgia's law is constitutional, then a similar law in all states would be constitutional. And if every state had a law like Georgia's, there would have been an absolute monopoly of Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot for U.S. House in the entire nation for almost 60 years."

Winger notes one of the judges on the three-judge panel, William Pryor, has considered many ballot access cases and never voted to strike down any ballot access law. Winger similarly notes that while the Supreme Court will on occasion take on a ballot access case when it's a state appealing a loss, it has shown no interest in recent decades in hearing a case where someone harmed by ballot access laws is trying to overturn them.

That said, in Anderson v. Celebrezze, from 1983, an earlier Supreme Court cohort overturned an early filing requirement for a presidential candidate in Ohio, declaring that "the primary values protected by the First Amendment are served when election campaigns are not monopolized by the existing political parties," an attitude the Court ought to rediscover.

Graham, the Georgia L.P.'s chair, says in an email today that while no specific decision about a next step has been authoritatively pinned down between the party and its legal team, "there are multiple options on the table" and "the plan is to keep fighting with this case."

NEXT: The Supreme Court Seems Inclined To Block OSHA's Vaccine Mandate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Man. Sucks when you aren't the green party and politics are used to remove you from the ballot huh?

      1. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ time... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,.......... Visit Here

        1. Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12020 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,..........

          Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

      2. "There was a great deal of pressure applied to [petition signers] to get them to withdraw their signatures. Multiple phone calls with strong language, and repeated letters,"

        This is legal when your party writes the law.

        1. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ HAc ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ time... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,.........Visit Here

    1. I guess they’re saying libertarians have to build their own country.

      1. Just their own election system.

        1. That should be easy.

          1. It requires operatives working in the postal service.

            1. Solid snake?

              1. Start working at home with G00gle! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.

                I work thr0ugh this link, G0 to tech tab for work detail.………__>>> CLICK HERE

    2. This exactly. The dnc sued to kick the green part off of all the swing states. "when they came for me there was Noone left tk fight"

      1. Reason has confirmed kicking third parties off other just leads to clean elections.

    3. Green Party was not on the ballot for similar reason in 2020 general elections in most swing states. Democrats made sure that voters are denied voting for Green Party. Would have made a difference in election outcome if GP was on the ballot in states where the outcome was very close.

      1. The Green Party is largely CPUSA personnel transferred to the task of disrupting America's energy conversion and return to a chattel slave society. If in the process Second Amendment rights to use high-energy weapons to neutralize incoming attacks were to again be neutralized, that is ice on the watermelon. There's hardly anything left of America's communist party, just as the Prohibition party has also become a vote-alienating display of superstitious fanaticism. No big loss.

  2. From time to time, I wonder how many signatures the republicans or democrats could gather.

    1. Dems would just pair it w union cards.

    2. There are about 30 million "Jon doe" registered as democrats for this precise reason

  3. The best option is to infiltrate the Republican party and work from within. There is a sizeable demand for libertarian policies within the Republican base, even if Republicans are not receptive of every single item on the checklist. Libertarians should be transforming the Republican party into the Libertarian party incrementally. But that means compromising in the short term.

    Anything else is futile recipe for failure. Don't believe me? Look at what the socialists have done to the Democrat party. The future of the Democrat party is socialism/communism. If Libertarians actually tried, they could be the future of the Republican party.

    1. Libertarians _have_ tried. Remember Ron Paul?

      1. Keep trying.

        The point is not to have an independent party, but to have libertarian policies.

        If the socialists managed to turn the Democrats into socialists, then libertarians can turn Republicans into libertarians.

        1. I thought that was going to happen (turn toward libertarian policies) when the TEA Party was absorbed into Team R. It never really happened. How do you explain that?

          I agree that incremental change from within is the way to go, but I am hard-pressed to find a successful example.

          1. Because you gave up after like 2 years?

            1. Exactly.
              The 'progressives' have been infiltrating the democrats since the early sixties.

          2. The T-otalitarian Party is the Reconstruction-era Prohibition party wearing imitation-fiscal-conservative lipstick and hiding its burning crosses. A few tools threw away votes trying to prop it up. But bigoted bullies running a planned economy to ban production and trade of useful commodities by force of arms is NOT convincingly laissez-faire.

      2. Also, does anyone remember L-ROC?

    2. They already had a candidate try to reduce regulations and get tax cuts passed. But as some of the leftists here will tell you, that's not libertarian because of reasons.

      1. Because of tweets, mostly. Trump was not perfect but he craved attention, and still does. The Republican base (not the party) is more libertarian now than I have ever seen them in my lifetime -- and that is primarily because the base has a gotten a taste of what it means to be kicked around by government. Trump is a populist, so he will follow the base.

        Libertarians need to be directing their skills of persuasion at Republicans and I believe they can succeed with a little bit of effort under the Republican banner, even if it means compromising in the short term.

        1. 'Because of tweets, mostly....'
          This regardless of claims from the assholic Brandyshit, sarc (those Reason writers) and others to claim 'purity'.
          We had a very good chance and those assholes gave us what they deserved
          This was nothing other than Dickie claiming "Mom loved you more".
          Assholes need to have this jammed up their asses with rusty garden tools every day, painfully and possibly fatally; seems the world (or at least the US) would be better off.
          So far it seems none of them have. For shame, TDS-addled assholes, regardless of your lame attempt to justify your idiocy.

    3. Horseshit. That Britt Grant judge is a typical R. If there is no possibility of viably exiting from the R's when you fail to 'reform' them, then the R's know that any L's who go that route are stuck - so the R's won't reform. Which is precisely why the R's never actually DO anything libertarian. All they do is talk shit - and force R's who say they are 'libertarian-leaning' to instead argue that socon and foreign hawk stuff is 'libertarian'.

      The solution is for Libertarians to stop dicking around with the crappy ballot access states. It's a perpetual waste of money that could be better used getting some actual libertarian governing experience (and strategically influencing the R's and D's) in states (plural - not just Free State Project) with better ballot access. And leave the shitty ballot access states to their inbred DeRp pols/judges.

      1. Oh. Tax cuts didn't happen. Prison reform didn't happen. Thanks for the update.

        1. DeVos? Cut in regulations? Kavanuagh? Unemployment at 3%? More than 16,000 federal jobs cut?
          Fucking assholish pieces of shit like JFree pretend none of that happened and hope others are stupid enough to buy those lies.
          JFree, stuff your bullshit up your ass along with the PANIC flag which would have made anyone with a room-temp IQ embarrassed.
          Stick first and sit on it.

      2. "...And leave the shitty ballot access states to their inbred DeRp pols/judges."

        We could also leave shitty comments to shitty commenters like you.

      3. So a Republican sockpuppet suggests libertarians would be better off capitulating, and walk away from the tens of millions of spoiler votes. Those LP spoiler votes forced the fascists to shelve conscription, stopped Nixon-Wallace supporters from bullying pregnant women, changed the federal payroll from growing to shrinking and--since the Bush asset-forfeiture Crash--caused a third of the states to stop their cops from robbing and shooting hippies and brown people.

        1. So an ignorant purist claims it would be better to avoid any real progress, while adding bullshit claims.
          Take your meds and fuck off, Hnak.

  4. That ain’t a peach.

  5. How hard can it be to collect 25,000 voter signatures? The Democrats can do that with three cemeteries, two old folks homes and the collected works of Charles Dickens.

    1. And a spacious car trunk.

  6. Fourth option: Get a "Black Lives Matter Party" to file the suit and see how fast the judges cave in.

    1. It would be an interesting test. But I suspect that most Democratic judges would rationalize keeping them off the ballot by saying that a BLM Party could help Republicans, which in turn would hurt the interests of BLM. Therefore, the BLM Party must be kept off for its own good.

      You might think Republicans would make the opposite calculation and support BLM ballot access to divide the Democratic vote. But the evidence says no. For example, in Texas the Republicans voted in prohibitive filing fees to the state to even have your name mentioned for nomination at a Green or Libertarian party convention. They were willing to hurt the Greens in order to hurt the Libertarians. (For Republicans and Democrats only, the fees are returned to the party.)

      You sometimes see Republicans help Greens specifically with petition drives. But you don't see them making petition drives easier for all parties, because their fear of R->L defections outweighs their hope for D->G defections.

  7. Ballot access is rigged. GOP in Arizona has been trying for years to get the LP off the ballot. I believe we had one district where the signature math made it impossible to get access.

    1. The rigging is enforced via "Nixon's anti-libertarian law". Look it up. This vote-rigging act of fraud was enacted in the same 24 hours in which the Libertarian Party became a reality. All that expense and effort is strangled by cynical looters and their parasite bureaucracy. Yet the Solomon Asch experiment proved that LP spoiler votes suffice to overcome the legal outcome of bought bullying via social pressure. The real dishonest act is handing those brutes a vote with which to further entrench their violations of rights.

  8. OMG..call Nick Sarwark. Call the national LP..call the "Hench"..clutch your pearls LB National Committee. Call William Weld...ha ha ha

    We might actually see an LP that has some you know what once the Von Mises Caucus takes over. Today you have the wimp brigade in charge...politics is a full contact sport

    1. What is the Von Mises Caucus doing about ballot access restriction?

      1. The Mises Caucus is busily infiltrating the LP with cross-dressing communist anarchists and mystical girl bulliers, as always. Why do you ask?

        1. Hank often forgets his meds, or even where they are. Why do you ask?

  9. Yes, this is unfair to those who harbor some fantasy that the LP could ever elect a Libertarian candidate to other than a town dog catcher; the LP rathole got the last of my money probably 20 years ago.
    We have the assholish pieces of shit here, hoping to signal they prefer libertarian policies, while avoiding voting for any candidate who might implement them and actively campaigning against them, since they weren't daddy-figures.; fucking assholes. Yes, Brandy shit, sarc, many of the TDS-addled Reason assholes and the rest of you piles of shit; we got what you deserved.
    We have this choice and this alone: We can support those who seem to offer L-policies, regardless of party affiliation, or act like those adolescent piles of shit like Brandyshit.
    Up yours asshole.

    1. Agree completely = We have this choice and this alone: We can support those who seem to offer L-policies, regardless of party affiliation

      Sadly, here in the People's Republic of NJ, we don't have very many libertarian types even running for office. One guy, Michael Doherty, is pretty libertarian in outlook...but he is just one guy, and doesn't represent my district. Team D has a hurtlock on the People's Republic, but I will say the last election was a wakeup call.

      1. Hey, as a resident of the PRCa, I still vote L, but only since the ballot's in front of me anyway.
        I admit to voting for one R candidate for SF mayor years back; he was and is a respected small business owner.

      2. There was a disturbing trend of TDS in Reason writers and editors in the last election. They were actively campaigning for Joe Biden by joining in the demonizing of Donald Trump.
        Either what idiots they are/were, or their pining for legitimacy recognition from the political establishment, in both cases still idiots.
        For Reason magazine to have trashed Trump in favor of Biden shows how ideologically deluded they are.
        Although Trump is by no means a libertarian, the majority of his policies and political instincts align with libertarian fundamentals, and by any measure much closer to them than Biden.
        Why Reason took to getting Biden elected over Trump is a sick mystery that lowered my respect for Reason magazine et al immensely.

  10. I’ve had complete belief in the integrity of Georgia election processes for over a year now, so I’d be a pretty fucking pathetic hypocrite if I questioned it now.

    Hey, did you hear about how 1% of the population just got screwed by these super honest people?!

  11. the "frustration" aspect arose from a Supreme Court justice in an earlier ballot access case who considered the very prevention of a major party candidate from winning to constitute the sort of "frustration" restrictive ballot access laws are meant to prevent.

    Which Justice, which case?

    This seemed interesting esp considering the three later paras discussing SCOTUS amd what cases they take.

  12. This only demonstrates the truth of everything the Dem and GOP halves of The Kleptocracy say about each other's election fraud. Ever since the LP plank became Roe v Wade, anti-Beatles Bonfire Brigades have had it in for us. Today's Dems prefer Catholic Action prohibitionism, complete with Biden's Drug Czar. The LP in 2016 got more votes than the populations of 27 countries combined. Nixon-law subsidized parties and the looter media they spent the pelf on want that IRS thumb on the scales of the butchers of Democracy. Oh... they also expect to collect your vote.

    1. Hank, stuff your bullshit up your ass, and fuck off. Why do you think anyone would plow through your idiocy on the off-chance of finding something other than nonsense?
      You've just joined that other rambling, incoherent piece of shit squirly *bing*

      1. You just insulted the LP's next Presidential candidate.

  13. First this is wrong. I don't think we can let everyone who want ballot access to have it but the number of signatures should also be reasonable.

    I also wonder if we should eliminate the old gather signatures and go electronic. This would be easier than walking papers around. It also has the advantage of being able to immediately check for duplicate and invalid signatures.

    1. NYS allows voter registration solely by online application, yet demands in person ballot signature collections with a witness.
      So they make it easy for someone, sight unseen, to gain a voting status, but demands high verification thresholds just to have an existing voter support a third-party candidate's presence on the ballot for public's voting option.

  14. Same old BS. It's no surprise that people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are doing so well in a nation where an increasing number of people are disenfranchised.

  15. There was a disturbing trend of TDS in Reason writers and editors in the last election. They were actively campaigning for Joe Biden by joining in the demonizing of Donald Trump.
    Either what idiots they are/were, or their pining for legitimacy recognition from the political establishment, in both cases still idiots.
    For Reason magazine to have trashed Trump in favor of Biden shows how ideologically deluded they are.
    Although Trump is by no means a libertarian, the majority of his policies and political instincts align with libertarian fundamentals, and by any measure much closer to them than Biden.
    Why Reason took to getting Biden elected over Trump is a sick mystery that lowered my respect for Reason magazine et al immensely.

  16. Funny how a libertarian site censors posts.

  17. " Tyler Harris, executive director of the national L.P, says in a phone interview that over $200,000 this year is likely to have to be expended by the national party alone toward ballot access efforts of various sorts, and in terms of morale and stress as well as cash, it's a "significant strain." "

    If $200,000 is a substantial strain at the national level, you are not a national party and you are not ready for the big leagues.

    The Libertarian Party's principal problems are self-inflicted.

  18. Start working at home with G00gle! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.

    I work thr0ugh this link, G0 to tech tab for work detail.………_>>>>> Click Here<b

  19. People are simple and they want a simple solution to their problems and it doesn't get any simpler than this.............www.now37.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.