1. Let’s keep paper ballots and abolish paper petitions.

   HB 1564, as it was introduced in February, would change the number of signatures required on a petition to support a candidate’s filing for office. The existing signature requirement of 4% of the registered voters eligible to vote for a candidate in the first election where the candidate’s name could appear on the ballot (Primary Election) would be changed to:

   1,500 registered voters for candidates for Governor;
   1,000 registered voters for candidates for U.S. Senator;
   750 registered voters for candidates for U.S. Congress;
   500 registered voters for candidates for Lieutenant Governor, Corporation Commission, Attorney General, State Auditor and Inspector, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner and Commissioner of Labor;
   200 registered voters for all other elected offices.

   It is possible the House and Senate will not be able to agree to any ballot access changes in this session leaving Oklahoma ballot access laws vulnerable to court challenge as unconstitutional.

   My view is that the Oklahoma Legislature could avoid these vulnerabilities by adopting a write in ballot form patterned on the Federal Absentee Write In Ballot. Voters could vote for any person they choose in a space provided. This would mean no candidate filing fees, no petitions and simplify the printing of ballots. The costs associated with administering fees, and petition verification would be eliminated.

   The Oklahoma Legislature is unlikely to accept this ballot reform and simplification and cost-savings. Instead, some compromise to maintain the authority to exclude persons from competing for office and channeling voters to traditional self-entrenched party candidates.

   Is there a tolerable compromise barrier to enlarge voter choice? So long as Oklahoma maintains voter registration rolls categorized by political party affiliation, access to the ballot by citizens could be based on online petitions conducted by the Oklahoma State Election Board. Voters would log on the website and electronically sign a petition for a candidate. The OSEB could programmatically validate such signatures almost instantly from the state voter database and publish the petitions and signatures online.

   How few e-petition signatures is tolerable for the various offices? What are your thoughts on my proposal? Would you sign an online petition to allow the votes cast for that person in General Elections to be counted?

   In effect, my proposal treats all potential candidates as “paupers” and eliminates that constitutional vulnerability re Lubin v Pannish (1974).

   Let’s keep paper ballots and abolish paper petitions.

2. While this is all very interesting what does it have to do with Montana?

3. All states have ways to keep candidates off the ballot. Using e-petitions could be enacted in all states and reduce the need for litigation that cost everyone. Montana a BIG state petitioning there is costly for candidates. If you don’t see the applicability, fine.

4. I hope everyone in that district writes Breck in (I don’t even care if it’d be officially counted). This is just absurd.

5. According this article from KPAX

   “But [Judge Brian] Morris ruled against that request, saying that Breck and Kelly did not show sufficient evidence that they could actually win.”

   Which sounds like a reason and a very unsound reason at that. There’s no legal litmus test to “evidence” one could “actually win” for ballot access.

   http://www.kpax.com/story/35161548/green-independent-party-candidates-wont-be-on-mt-special-election-ballots

6. Breck is free to file as a declared write-in, so that his write-ins will be counted.

7. Looks like any petitions from the Ninth Circuit would go to/through Justice Kennedy:

   https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx

   Any word as to whether a petition will be filed?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.