On May 13, the Texas legislature passed SB 2093. It revises the 2019 law that says persons seeking the nomination of a party that uses conventions must pay a filing fee. The 2019 law was so badly worded, the Texas state courts did not allow it to be enforced in 2020. The 2021 bill thus re-imposes the 2019 policy, but in a manner that is clearer. Persons who want a convention nomination must have paid a fee before being considered by the convention. This is a unique law in the nation. Many other states in which primary candidates pay a fee do not impose fees on persons nominated in convention. And even in the states that do require fees for persons nominated in a convention, such as Georgia, only the convention nominees must pay the fee, not persons who are merely seeing a convention nomination. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
HB 2504 was clear.
TEC 141.041 provides for a filing fee to appear on the general election ballot a candidate who is nominated by convention. It is preposterous to assume that the legislature did not know what the general election ballot was or what “nominated” means.
The fee is enjoined because the SOS “regulations” ignored the statute and were ultra vires, outside the law.
David Whitley resign precipitously in May 2019 as the SOS was responsible for implementing new election laws. The SOS was left rudderless. Instead of going through the formal regulatory process, they just threw some carelessly drafted rules on the webpage. The “regulations” might have been drafted by the webmaster.
HB 2504 directs that the fee for county office to be paid to the county judge, the same officer who write-in and independent candidates file with. In Texas, write-in candidates pay a filing fee. The filing fee is the same as for primary candidates. The SOS webmaster inferred that because the fee for convention nominees was the same as for primary candidates, that they should be paid in December, rather than in August when similarly situated candidates filed with the county judge.
The only involvement the county judge has with Democrats and Republicans is as head of the canvassing authority for the general election in November.
“And even in the states that do require fees for persons nominated in a convention, such as Georgia, only the convention nominees must pay the fee, not persons who are merely seeing a convention nomination.”
Kansas requires only those who win the nomination at convention to pay the filing fee.
Anti-Democracy tyrant gerrymander regimes in all 99 houses in 50 State legis.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander dists = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Much much much worse primary math.
—-
NOOO primaries
equal nom pets
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
If a new party was being formed, they would have to identify candidates more than a year before they would take office. They would have to collect 100,000+ signatures on petitions, even though districts have not been defined. The candidates would file the petition with the SOS who would validate the signatures and presumably inform the party chair, even though the party does not have to inform the SOS until a month later.
Then 3 months later, this new party would have to hold conventions to actually nominate their candidates.
And then they would have to gather 80,000 signatures to qualify the party. They would not be able to count the signatures they had gathered previously.
The bill does not permit participation by those who will turn 18 in the next year, it won’t permit participation for new Texans, or who are newly naturalized.
This scheme violates the 26th Amendment in the same way the Jaybird Primary violated the 15th Amendment.
What Jim said. HB 2504 (and Jim, have you heard any recent info about the federal lawsuit over that and related issues? I’ve not had time to check recently) specifically said nominees. I said that here a year ago, Richard.
Jim’s right on the second part; dunno if this can get added as an addendum to that original federal suit or not.
@SG,
Trial on the merits in the federal case is January 18, 2022.
The federal court in its decision on HB 2504 decided that thee statute was ambigious enough, that there was not grounds for a temporary injunction. Since that time, a state court has ruled that the SOS acted outside the law in her interpretation of the statute. Generally, federal courts should give deference to state courts with respect to interpreting state law.
HB 2504 was ripped out of TEC Subchapter 146, Subchapter B. In Texas, write-in candidates must pay a filing fee or submit an in lieu of petition. The amount of the fee and number of signatures is the same as for primary candidates. This does not mean that write-in candidates are partisan candidates, it just means the legislature chose the same qualifying numbers.
Write-in candidates file with the secretary of state or county judge, just as independent candidates do. These filings occur after the nomination process. Remember an independent candidate may not to begin to collect signatures until after the primaries (or primary runoff if there is one for their office). Write-in candidates file in August just before the general election ballot.
The legislature is presumed to know what they are doing. The SOS essentially decided that Drew Springer was an idiot.
It would be trivial to draft regulations providing for a filing by nominees in August. The SOS/county judge would simply have to verify that the fee was paid, or signatures collected just like they currently do for write-in candidates. They could use the same form and add a line indicating that the candidate is in fact nominated.
@Jim No wonder I hadn’t heard anything. Good LORD that’s delayed too long.
That said, re 2504, I can’t remember the bill number and whether it’s House or Senate side, but … hasn’t this year’s Lege passed a bill, or at least one House of it, to take Ruth Hughs’ interpretation and to charge candidates, not just nominees after all?
This legislation is nuts!