A bill to improve Oklahoma ballot access is on the House calendar for April 25. It eases the definition of “political party.” Current law requires a party to poll 2.5% of the vote for the office at the top of the ballot every two years (President, Governor). SB 350 changes that to 2.5% for any statewide race at either of the last two elections. Last year it passed the State Senate, and the House committees. Oklahoma has two-year legislative sessions. UPDATE: this post has been re-written; the original post said SB 350 was not likely to pass, but that was inaccurate.
Another bill, SB 1038, is not likely to pass. It would have eased the filing fee for candidates whose income places them below the poverty level. It would also have eased the petition in lieu of filing fee for such candidates. It had passed the Senate but is not likely to be brought up for a vote in the House.
The Libertarian Party is now on the ballot, but it won’t remain on the ballot after November 2018 unless it polls at least 2.5% for Governor, or unless the bill is signed into law. The last time a third party was on the ballot in an Oklahoma midterm year was 1998, when the Reform Party was on. The Reform Party gubernatorial nominee only polled 1.21%.
PR (legis) and nonpartisan AppV (exec/judic)
OK SB1038 would have further classified candidates with disqualifications for office not within constitutional bounds. The state ballot monopoly as created factors to disqualify candidates which are not in the Federal and State constitutions. Then, when challenged, it creates further discriminatory classifications as exceptions which are also constitutionally dubious such as offering arbitrarily defined indigent candidates a “discount” off the filing fees or a reduced obstacle on the number of petition signatures demanded to become an “officially licensed to appear on the ballot” candidate.
Many of these legislative improvisations arise because Oklahoma refuses to allow an open write-in ballot in the general election. Ballot censorship is a nasty convoluted effort to evade constitutional assurances of fair and free elections.
ANY discount criminal punishment for treason, murder, armed robbery, etc. ???
Where in the U S Constitution is there a qualification that a candidate’s political affiliation requires that some other candidate meet a quota of votes in some past election for that candidate to receive votes in the next election?
You won’t find any. The duopoly controlling Congress encourages state duopoly legislators to concoct new qualifications not specified in the Constitution to entrench themselves in office.
All these pseudo-qualifications are unconstitutional and the courts are conspicuously complicit in sustaining such laws as a compelling interest in states (duopoly parties) censoring candidates because they might threaten “political stability”, i.e., duopoly entrenchment. Its a circle of deceit to hamstring voters.