On August 9, the Texas Secretary of State filed this brief in Miller v Doe, the Texas ballot access case that had been filed on July 11. The state’s brief makes much out of the paucity of independent candidate plaintiffs in the case. However, the Eighth and Ninth Circuits have ruled that voters have standing to challenge restrictive ballot access laws, and no circuit has said voters don’t have standing to challenge them.
Amended Complaint
https://www.texasvoterchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Amended-Complaint_Docketed.pdf
Likely TOO LATE to get to SCOTUS before Nov 2020 ballots are made ???
Paxton also gets previous and current state law wrong; the access threshold is 2 percent of any statewide race, not the gov’s race.
More seriously, I think the part of Texas law barring duopoly primary voters from signing other petitions is a First Amendment violation.
SOME [faction] or ALL NOMINATE ???
NOOO PRIMARIES = ALL NOMINATE — OR FILING FEES.
The brief has a number of errors.
Primary election candidates for all offices, not just statewide offices, must pay a filing fee. The fee is payable to the political party. While the fee offsets state payments for the primary, much of the expenses are paid to party official or party-affiliated poll workers. The filing fee is paid when the candidate files with the party official.
TEC 141.041 (effective September 1, 2019) does not require a candidate seeking nomination to pay a filing fee. It requires a candidate nominated by a convention to pay a state official. It is not stated when the payment or in lieu of petition is due. The presiding officer of a nominating convention is required to file with the SOS (statewide or district office) or county clerk* (county or precinct offices) the list of nominees. This is parallel to the procedure for primary-nominating parties. After the state chair or county chair has canvassed the results, they inform the SOS or the county clerk.
A convention-nominated candidate need do nothing more than file with the party chair. While a party might expect a candidate to appear at a convention, there is no legal requirement to do. Hopefully, the party chair would inform the nominee.
But TEC 141.041 would require the candidate to pay a filing fee by an unknown date, though presumably after
he had been nominated. The in lieu of petition would presumably occur after nomination, for an unknown period. Petitions in general require that the voter be informed that a voter can only sign the petition of one candidate per office. Petitions for independent candidates have additional language related to the primary screen-out. Will there be a primary screenout for convention-nominated candidates?
A voter is FREE to vote for the Democrat nominee in the general election even though he voted in the Republican primary. He could contribute to the Democratic nominees, and even stand outside the Democratic primary polling place after voting in the Republican party. Surely he is FREE to do the same for a Libertarian candidate. May a Republican voter contribute the funds for a Democratic filing fee? Absolutely. May a Republican voter contribute the funds for a Libertarian filing fee, after the nomination has occurred? Absdolutely. So why can’t he contribute a few chicken scratches?
Note during the Senate State Affairs committee hearing on HB 2504 Pat Dixon (or perhaps it was Art DiBianca) suggested that outside interests might pay filing fees for Green candidates, and the Green Party witness gave a fist pump as if to approve or endorse that happening.
If the convention-nominee is for a county or precinct office the filing fee is paid to the county judge not the county clerk.
So the process is
(a) Candice Cando the candidate files with Chuckie Parr the county party chair in December.
(b) Parr delivers the candidate list to the convention in March.
(c) Larry and Lisa and Sam and Travis and Mirabeau and Steve and the other Libertarian delegates nominate Cando.
(d) Priscilla Offut the presiding officer informs Clara Clark the county clerk of Cando’s nomination.
In the past, Clark would have placed Cando on the November ballot. But now
(e) Cando is expected to pay a fee to Judd Count, the County Judge or an in lieu of petition.
It is unknown how Count and Clark will coordinate their efforts.
If the SOS office is called for clarification they will be told that there is no SOS and no idea when an interim SOS will be appointed and no idea when regulations will be promulgated since HB 2504 doesn’t go into effect until September.
It is a equal protection and due process disaster.
@DR,
A court could order elections to be held as special elections. This was done in 1996 and 2006 for certain races.
@SG,
There is a quirk in the TEC. A party whose gubernatorial candidate received between 2% and 20% has the option to nominate by primary or convention. If you can nominate, you clearly have the right to have the nominees on the general election ballot, even if you failed the 5% threshold.
About 10 years ago there was a bill to charge a filing fee for convention-nominating parties. The Libertarian Party made note that if passed they would/could nominate by primary. The bill got a multmillion dollar fiscal note attached, and went no further.
@SG, the primary screenout is consistent with a system of segregated partisan nomination.
The plaintiffs should seek an immediate order requiring the SOS to promulgate regulations implementing HB 2504 filing fee provision. Filing is required in December and the type of candidzcy may depend on the final rules. Primary candidates can already be collecting signatures.
If the tegulations are not set by September 1, the state can either drop the filing fee or delay the primary.
Candidates should file with government officials rather than party officials. The current system is too complex for party officials, and is wasteful, sine it requires separate primaries, excludes masny voters and requires separate local elections.
The simplest way is to use the system used for special elections and non-partisan elections, everyone files, and there is a runoff if no candida te gets a majority.
This would also facilitate splitting off county and precinct elections and combining them with local elections.
JR –
Most of the machinations in the evil rotted past belong in the politics graveyard
— NOT to be zombie/Dracula revived in any form.
—
PR and Appv – pending Condorcet
@DR,
Please elaborate.
Machinations in the evil rotted past —
ALL single member districts [gerrymanders] and ALL at large elections in legis elections.
ALL partisan executive/judicial officers.
ALL primary stuff.
ALL special elections.
—
ALL violations of Separation of Powers.
—
LOTS of super-dangerous accumulated timebomb R-O-T.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP