Maine Representative Beth Turner (R-Burlington) has introduced LD 568, which eliminates the ability of an independent candidate to use the label “independent” on the ballot. It also eliminates the ability of an unqualified party to place nominees on the ballot with that party’s label.
A somewhat similar law was struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1981. The State Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and said “independent” is too important a label to be banned. The Massachusetts law that was struck down forced all independents to be on the ballot as “unenrolled.” The decision is Bachrach v Secretary of the Commonwealth, 415 NE 2d 832.
Also, in 1986, a Maine state trial court struck down the old Maine law on labels for petitioning candidates. The old pre-1986 law said they could have no label whatsoever, but in Huber v Quinn, that policy was struck down. Ever since the 1986 Maine decision, petitioning candidates in Maine have been free to choose any partisan label as long as it is no longer than three words and does not mimic the name of a qualified party. Thanks to John Branson for news about LD 568.
“Unenrolled” makes it sound like they aren’t even registered to vote
I guess that is better than “unqualified”
Looking at the bipartisan list of cosponsors, it’s clear that both parties want to diminish the freedom of alternative candidates. Hopefully the established case law will be enough to convince them to avoid a losing court battle next year when someone wants to assert their right to run for office with their own label.
With a little imagination, such candidates could create alternative expressive labels, such: “Unpurchased” “Untrammeled” or “Sovereign.”