As previously reported, on September 20, a U.S. District Court in Tennessee declared that state’s ballot access laws for new and previously unqualified parties to be unconstitutional. The state has not filed a notice of appeal. It is to be expected that the 2011 session of the state legislature will pass a new, better law. The old law required a petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, due four or five months before the August primary. The law said the petition was to say that the signers are members of the party whose petition they are signing.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Congratulations to Tennessee!!!!
The South Super-state Parliament Circuit #6
Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee
http://www.usparliament.org/ss6.htm
Vanessa Morley [Defender of the Republic], CR Carter [Libertarian/Republican], Kirk Joseph [Independent], George Morrison [Freedom], Millich Person [Info. Not Avail.], William Lee Mayers [Pot], Thorn [Pot], Steven C. Dobbs [Pot], C.L.Gammon [Liberty First], Josh Sasser [Independent], Wendy [Unsure], Robert Davenport [Pot], Lucy Star [Pot]
My worst fear is this could intravertantly result in the current 25 signature petition law for independents for any office to be destroyed.
Now if someone in the Legislature would introduce a bill which required all 3rd parties to nominate via primary, and all candidates had to collect no more than 25 signatures to qualify in the 3rd party primary, this would be great. This could help prevent my worst fear from happening.
So Richard, or anyone with contacts in Tennessee, why not find a legislator who will design a bill in this format. I’ve found that when the concept of bill is pre-established, many legislators go along with it.
Tennessee 3rd partisans, act now or you may be disappointed later.
I do not agree with #3. I favor convention nominations for small qualified parties. The Tennessee election law problem cannot be cured by requiring primaries for all parties, just as it can’t be cured in Ohio. That policy requires a too-early deadline. How are we going to preserve the idea that voters should be free to form new parties in the middle of an election year, if we require mandatory primaries for all parties? Remember the Republican Party was formed on July 6, 1854 and went on to win more seats in the US House than any other.
P.R. and App.V. — NO caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed
EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
Nomination by Convention allows party bosses, special interest groups, and in the case of 3rd parties, narrow-based ideologues to dominate. This is one reason the Libertarian Party has not really grown is because they expect all nominees to cross their “t’s” and dot their “i’s” with the party doctrine rather than think for themselves.
California is a good – though not perfect – example of allowing primaries to nominate the candidates. The AIP has 3 times as many people registered as members (regardless of how you explain it away), and about 3 times as many members participate in their primary than does the Libertarian Party.
Go figure.
Response to Alabama Independent:
If requiring all parties to have primaries helps promote new or start-up parties in Alabama and Tennessee, then by all means back the idea. In Texas such a situation would be an onerous imposition and a nightmare. Think about it: 254 counties spread out over a land mass about four times the size of Alabama. No thanks. Mandating a primary here for all parties would take an already difficult situation for non-major parties and make it vitually impossible for them to get in position for viabity. The costs alone are unthinkable.
No. The convention model isn’t the problem. Having overbearing party bosses, rigid ideology and “fixed” outcomes sounds more like the Texas GOP, which is firmly wedded to its primary setup. Nominate-by-convention, mandated for the non-major parties under the Texas election code, is an antique, but it works just fine. The problem is that voters here have been conditioned over time to do absolutely nothing else but show up at the polls for primaries and then general elections. They generally don’t know or understand the system here, especially conventions and caucuses. Also, the Texas SOS isn’t going to ‘educate’ them out of their ignorance or motivate them in any way to participate in ANY party’s internal affairs, either; whether they have conventions, primaries or temper-fits. The problem is the petitioning nonsense and nothing else.
And.. By the way, any political nominations model can be loused up or gamed or unethically dominated if the more atavistic and sinister elements of a given party are allowed to control it. Period. Texas Republicans are experts at such manipulations.
Charles Foster: Your argument has some merit. But I would think with websites and email messages this “distance” and “separation” could be somewhat overcome by the candidates and the voters would know who they are voting for. Look at California. Not as big a state as Texas for sure, but still a large state. In this electronic age, we can’t use the excuses of distance as we once did in “horse and buggy” days.
You almost make my point when you write: “The problem is that voters here have been conditioned over time to do absolutely nothing else but show up at the polls for primaries and then general elections.” That’s what we want them to do. Get voters into the habit of showing up at the Primaries and then the General Election. That’s how you grow parties. Again, California AIP perfect example. In 1967, it was 1st recognized by registering some 80,000 voters – today they have almost 400,000 – most of whom are not of the original 80,000.
I know many like to argue most of these 400,000 are “independents” who think they are registering “independent.” Maybe they are. But so what if they are? This is why the AIP was organized for in the first place – to encourage “independents” and others to support the candidacy of George Wallace in 1968.
If 3rd party leaders think they are going to build parties and win without “independents” they are only kidding themselves.
#4 How many representatives were elected as Republicans in 1854-1855?