New Jersey only requires 800 signatures for a minor party or independent presidential candidate to get on the November ballot. It has long been considered one of the nation’s easiest states for presidential ballot access.
However, there is a hidden barrier. The New Jersey elections webpage says, “Each of the 14 candidates for the office of Elector for President and Vice President must meet the following qualifications: (1) shall have attained the age of 25 years by the date of the swearing into office; (2) a United States citizen for seven years by the day of the swearing into office; (3) a resident of New Jersey by the day of the election. Those requirements are not hidden and are not restrictive.
When the Prohibition Party turned in its petition and its slate of electors on December 21, it was told that the state must have proof that each elector meets the state’s requirements. Elector candidates need not be registered voters, they merely must be eligible to register. However, if a candidate for presidential elector isn’t in the state’s list of registered voters, the department wants proof that each elector is at least 25, has been a citizen for seven years, and is not in prison or on parole for a felony. Because most of the electors weren’t in the state voter database, the state asked to see a copy of each elector’s drivers license. The individual turning in the petitions and the list of electors did not realize the state would require such documents, so the filing is in abeyance while these documents are gathered together.
I thought age restrictions for office above 18 (/the age of majority) were equal protection violations. They exist for Pres, Sen., and House by explicit constitutional mandate, but for all other offices does it not become a 14th Amendment issue? Kind of like how if any state tried to mimic the structure of the U.S. Senate, a la Reynolds v. Sims. When I saw that all state offices in WI the age limit is 18 (by virtue of the only qualification simply being eligible to vote), and I assumed that was why.
I doubt anybody will bother to challenge that part of it, but I don’t like the age restriction, even if it’s not a constitutional violation.
Article II of the US Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”. So generally states can set their own rules for who can qualify as a candidate for presidential elector. In the early 1970’s, after the 26th amendment was passed, many age limits for public office were challenged, but those lawsuits all lost. I guess a state could argue that being a presidential elector requires a high degree of maturity so only people 25 and above should be allowed to hold that office. But it does seem a denial of equal protection.
Our field workers are all professionals, and I’m confident that they followed the published regulations. The State’s not publishing all of its rules, though, is “disingenuous” (a polite word for “sneaky”). And what if an elector has chosen not to have a drivers’ license, because of using public transportation, having a physical handicap, or some other lawful alternative?
We need to go back to putting the names of the presidential electors on the ballot (with district election of presidents to prevent crowded ballots, of course), and ELIMINATE the names of the party nominees. Then have the presidential electors each out campaigning for office since they are who we elect anyway. Also allow independents to petition for ballot access as presidential electors without party affiliation. All politics is Local!