On July 1, Louisiana Goveror Bobby Jindal vetoed HB 533, an omnibus election law bill, entirely because one small part of the bill lets independent candidates have “independent” as their ballot label. See this story, which contains the Governor’s veto letters (scroll down to find HB 533).
The veto message displays surprising ignorance. Governor Jindal says there is another already-existing section of the election law that bans any party from calling itself the Independent Party. This is true. However, the Governor doesn’t seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution requires all states to provide ballot access procedures for independent candidates, separately and distinct from members of political parties. See Storer v Brown, 415 US 724, at page 745-746. The Court said, “Must the independent candidate necessarily choose the political party route if he wants to appear on the ballot in the general election? We think not.” The fact that the state doesn’t want any political party to call itself “Independent Party” has nothing to do with ballot labels for independent candidates. Furthermore, the label “independent” is so generic and so essential that the State Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Minnesota have each ruled that the state may not ban that label for independent candidates.
Even more surprisingly, Louisiana has always permitted independent presidential candidate to use a ballot label of “independent.” For example, in November 2008, Ralph Nader appeared on the Louisiana ballot with the label “independent.” Governor Jindal obviously doesn’t know this.
It is unfortunate that the bill was vetoed, because the bill contains another common-sense reform. It provides that the names of presidential elector candidates should no longer be printed on the ballot. The Louisiana November 2008 ballot includes the names of 81 candidates for presidential elector. That occupied lots of space on the ballot and didn’t contribute much useful information. Thanks to Randall Hayes for the link.
How about ONE bill for each ONE section in each State election code — with tie-bars if needed ???
— i.e. perhaps a mere 1,000 plus election law bills each year in each State.
One major part of the EVIL insanity in the U.S.A. is the executive veto — due to the EVIL monarchist Hamilton in 1787.
De facto result — de facto powermad monarchs — Prezs, Guvs, Mayors, etc.
Abolish ALL vetoes.
P.R. and App.V.
Louisiana permits slates of presidential electors to specify an (up to) three-word political principle. All electors not affiliated with a recognized party could use the same. So in 2008, Nader’s use of “Independent” was not a status designation, but rather a statement of political principle. To have other candidates for other offices to use “Independent” to indicate non-affiliation could be confusing to voters. Maybe Governor Jindal was aware of this nuance.
BTW, Louisiana’s Certificate of Ascertainment does not include the name of the party or principle, nor the names of the putative presidential and vice-presidential candidates. How will Susan Mvymvy know who to count the votes for?
Who dreamed up the *Certificate of Ascertainment* phrase ??? — in the 1800s ???
Jim:
How would the use of “Independent” to indicate non-affiliation confuse voters? Since popular usage of that term in a political context means non-affiliation with a party, then this change would have likely reduced voter confusion. Louisiana currently gives non-affiliated candidates for local, state, and Congressional offices the ballot label “No Party.” However, I practically never hear Louisiana candidates and voters refer to those candidates as “no party” candidates. They are almost always referred to in normal conversation and in media reports as “independent” candidates.
Also, Jindal’s veto letter did not cite possible voter confusion. It claimed that the vetoed bill would conflict with the current law barring “the Independent Party” from gaining recognized status.
It seems much more likely that Jindal and some Republicans wanted to stop non-affiliated candidates from having a more attractive ballot label than they do now. Thus, Republicans will be more sure to continue to enjoy their status as the default alternative to the Democrats, who are declining quickly in the majority-white areas of Louisiana.
I attended the House Committee meeting at which this bill was discussed. The “Independent” ballot label provision was included by the bill’s authors after they consulted with the three non-affiliated members of the Louisiana Legislature (who, by the way, are listed on the Louisiana House website as “Independents.”)
Massive fail on Jindal’s part. Total ignorance of the law and what our founders wanted!
#5 Under current Louisiana law, presidential elector slates have used “Independent” to indicate their political philosophy. There are only two classes of presidential candidates – those associated with a recognized party, and those who who are not. Those who are not are permitted to choose a 3-word political principle.
Richard Winger said that Governor Jindal probably was not aware that Ralph Nader was an “independent candidate”. But Ralph Nader was not an independent candidate, but rather a candidate whose elector’s political principle was “Independent”. They were no different than the electors for Ron Paul.
But since Richard Winger was not aware of this nuance, it hardly matters whether or not Jindal was.
Maybe, Louisiana should let all candidates not affiliated with a recognized party choose a “political principle”. I’d think “Other” would be worse than “No Party”.
Jim:
I believe Richard’s point was that allowing unaffiliated local, state, and Congressional candidates to use the ballot label “Independent” would not conflict with the current law cited in Jindal’s veto letter anymore than allowing unaffiliated presidential candidates or their slates of elector candidates to use the ballot label “Independent” does.
Also, under Louisiana law any presidential candidate who is not the nominee of one of the state’s recognized parties can only be represented on the ballot by an “independent” slate of elector candidates:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81263
Therefore, it does seem accurate to say that Ralph Nader was an “independent” candidate in Louisiana in 2010.
Also, the Ron Paul slate in Louisiana was legally an “independent” slate, even though the slate’s statement of political principle was “Louisiana Taxpayers Party.” However, if that slate had gotten at least five percent of the votes cast in Louisiana, then the Louisiana Taxpayers Party would have become a recognized party, even though the “party” had no real existence. (I know about the nonexistence of that party because I was the one who suggested “Louisiana Taxpayers Party” as the slate’s political principle ballot label.)
That does raise an interesting question of whether such a slate is both independent and affiliated with a nonrecognized party. In some cases, that seems to be true. For example, the Constitution Party candidate was on the ballot using the same Louisiana law used to get Nader and Paul on the ballot.
I agree that Louisiana should let all candidates not affiliated with a recognized party to choose any ballot label they wish (with certain restrictions related to length, similarity to the names of other parties, etc.) In fact, I made that recommendation to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee when they were considering HB 533, but they didn’t seem to have any interest in how nonrecognized party candidates were treated. As I said above, I think the “Independent” amendment to the bill was made only in deference to the legislature’s three “independent” members, one of whom is on the committee that was hearing the bill.
Correction: I typed “2010” in my above comment, but meant “2008.”
#7, Ralph Nader filed for the Louisiana ballot in 2008 under section 1254, which is titled, “Slates of independent candidates; nominating petitions and qualifying by payment of filing fees.” It starts with this sentence, “A slate of independent candidates for presidential elector may be nominated…”
#10 What section did the electors supporting Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul. Gene Amondson, Gloria La Riva, and Gene Harris file under?
Jim:
Louisiana’s election law does not make a very clear distinction between presidential nominees of nonrecognized political parties and independent presidential candidates.
However, if it is possible for a presidential candidate to run in Louisiana as an independent, then surely Ralph Nader did so in 2008.
Nationally, Nader was generally considered an independent candidate. In Louisiana, his campaign did everything that they could to indicate that he was running as an independent. Indicating a statement of political principle (as required by Louisiana law) does not mean that he was not an independent candidate. If you argue that it does, then what must Nader have done to be considered an independent candidate in Louisiana in 2008?
#11, they all filed as independents. Louisiana, for president, lets independents choose a partisan label that is printed on the ballot. They can choose anything they want that is not too long and doesn’t mimic the name of a qualified party. Half the states have the same policy for independent candidates.
Pingback: Louisiana Governor Vetoes Bill to Let Independent Candidates Have Ballot Label “Independent” | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#13 Then it is not obvious that Governor Jindal did not know that Ralph Nader appeared on the ballot as “Independent”. He might have been quite aware that Nader’s electors said that his political principle is “Independent”, just as Chuck Baldwin’s electors said that his political principle was “Constitution Party” but that neither was the candidate of a party recognized by the State of Louisiana.
We don’t know that the candidates who are not registered with any party have a political principle of “Independent”. It might as easily be “Opportunist” or “Diffident” or “Not a Joiner”. “No Party” is factual.
And why should candidates not registered with any party have an advantage over those registered with a non-recognized party? This is where there could be voter confusion because voter think that the candidate is the Independent party candidate.
There are people in California that think “Independent” indicates affiliated with a “minor party”.
Personally, I would prefer that the process be more explicit, having people casting votes for independent electors, which would be more in line with what the founders had in mind, rather than seemingly directly for President.
There is too much of a “mob rule” circus atmosphere generated by a system where people vote directly for President, so I am not in favor of the efforts to decide the matter based on a nationwide popular vote.
Most disappointed in the governor’s veto, but not too surprised. The Republicans fear the label “Independent” or “Independent Party” on any partisan ballot. Either one stikes terror in their heart – especially if the candidate running under such label is adequately financed and popular.