Earlier this year, the Texas legislature passed a law that candidates from parties that nominate by convention must pay a filing fee. However, the law did not say whether it was just the convention nominees who needed to pay the fee, or whether anyone seeking the nomination of a convention party must pay the fee.
On August 21, the Texas Secretary of State posted these instructions on his web page. It says anyone who seeks the nomination of a convention party must pay the fee when he or she files the notice of candidacy. The new instruction also says that the fees are due December 9, 2019. The instruction says that the candidates may circulate a petition in lieu of the filing fee, but that would also be due on December 9, 2019. As of August 20, the Secretary of State has not released the petition forms for that type of petition. Statewide candidates need 5,000 signatures and most district office candidates need 500 signatures.
The entire law that requires convention party nominees to pay filing fees is already being challenged in U.S. District Court in Austin, in Miller v Doe, w.d., 1:19cv-700. Thanks to Art DiBianca for the link.
All 50 State legislatures are ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander oligarchies
— now as EVIL VICIOUS as any from 6,000 plus years ago —
nonstop enacting laws of, by and for the OLIGARCHS.
UNEQUAL votes for gerrymander district winners.
UNEQUAL total votes in gerrymander districts.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Too many math MORONS to count- USA/State/Local —
super esp. the math MORON lawyers and judges in gerrymander cases
and the even more MATH STUPID RETARD MORONS in the media
— esp the talking heads [ ie party hacks] on TV news shows.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
TX Ballot access requirements for Donkey/Elephant hacks ???
The statute TEC 141.041 says “a candidate who is nominated by convention under Chaspter 181 or 182 must: [pay a filing fee or submit an in lieu of petition].
Further the section is titled “FILING FEE OR PETITION TO APPEAR ON BALLOT FOR GENERAL ELECTION FOR STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS.”
If the intent were to charge a filing fee for applicants for nomination, it would have been placed in Chapter 181 and 182.
It might be constitutional if the filing fee were payable to the party, and the party could set the fee (up to the maximum for a primary candidate).
The instructions posted on the web page are unclear as to whether the party chair accepts and reviews the petition or accepts the fee, and then transmits these to the SOS (or the county judge depending on the office), or whether a candidate is expected to send a check off independently.
Party nominees do not make an application to appear on the general election ballot, they are certified by the party officials after the nomination process is completed.
The court should just go ahead and enjoin 141.041.
I would presume that, since the SoS office is already a defendant, that plaintiffs, with this official statement, will now officially request an injunction, to riff on Jim Riley.
I think the 141.041 claim was an afterthought. Apparently, the lawsuit had been brewing for some time. Perhaps they thought the higher threshold would pass, which would strengthen an equal protection claim.
It was somewhat surprising that HB 2504 even made it onto the floor. That may be why nobody bothered to figure out how messed up it was. The GOP was upset that the Dems would not let a vote to confirm SOS Whitley occur, so they snuck the 2% New Green Deal into HB 2504 (it was just a handy vehicle). That Joe Moody was presiding while it happened was a nice touch. But then the GOP was intent on getting it through the Senate without change so there wouldn’t be a conference.
The reply brief by the SOS misstates 141.041, even though they attach the actual text. Perhaps that is the reason the new instructions showed up on the SOS web site. 141.041 gives the SOS authority to implement rules implementing the section, but I assume that means that they actually have to follow a public rule-making process.
But let’s pretend that the new rule was validly made and actually conformed to the statute, it violates equal protection.
Imagine you want to run for the legislature as a partisan nominee.
If you want to run as a Democrat, you file with either the state chair or the county chair, depending on whether your district is multi-county or within a single county. Your campaign writes a check to the TDP which deposits the money in a party account. The money is used to pay for the Democratic primary, and much of the money goes to Democrats. If you can help it, you are not going to hire a non-Democratic election judge or clerk. Many would probably work for free, and might turn around and write the party a check out of their election pay. County chairs can also be paid for administering the primary. And the primary is for the benefit of the party – it provides loads of publicity, and causes voters to identify with the party simply in order to vote.
Now let’s say you want to run for the legislature as a Constitution candidate. You track down the state chair, and file an application to be be nominated by convention. This is in December. And now you have to write a check to the State of Texas and send it to the SOS, who does not know that the Constitution Party will be nominating by convention, since that paperwork isn’t due until January. The state chair might not know whether the candidate sent the check to the SOS or that it cleared.
Now imagine that you are nominated by the Constitution Party. Will you appear on the general election ballot? Only if the party qualifies for the ballot. The filing fee might have helped fund the petition drive, but who knows what it was used for because it was sent to the state. What if the petition drive does not succeed? Does the candidate get a refund? Did the SOS establish an escrow fund, or did he follow the statute and deposit it in the general fund?
Now imagine that instead the candidate decides to file an in lieu of petition. He can circulate the petition now, even though the law is not yet in effect. He will have point to some ima ginary text and read it to the signer, and then swear that he did in fact read the imaginary text. The text is imaginary because the SOS has not said what it should be.
If signing a petition for a prospective Constitution candidate affiliates the signer with the Constitution Party, why does he have to sign another petition in the Spring?
What happens if filing is extended? A primary candidate filing can only be challenged before ballots are printed. But what about for a convention-nominated candidate?
What is the rationale for this fee? Eliminate convention crowding? Were there reports from fire marshalls about too many Libertarian candidates for governor.