The organizers of Unity08 say they will choose an independent presidential candidate in the spring of 2008, using internet voting. The organizers say they will not start a formal new party.
This strategy seems not to have taken Texas ballot access laws into account. Texas requires independent presidential candidates to file 74,108 valid signatures, to get on the ballot in 2008, by early May. Signers must not have voted in the March presidential primary. Independent presidential candidates’ petitions are 1% of the last presidential vote, so the 2008 figure can be known today; the comment below that says the number is not yet known is inaccurate.
Texas has the earliest petition deadline of any state, for independent presidential candidates. There wouldn’t be time for a candidate chosen in April to successfully petition in Texas as an independent. No other state has a deadline earlier than mid-June, but the Texas deadline was upheld in 2004, in Nader v Connor, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear Nader’s appeal.
The way out is for Unity08 to create a new party. A new party could circulate its petition in Texas between the March primary and the end of May, and substantially fewer signatures would be required. The party petition could be circulated before the group had chosen its presidential candidate.
I certainly hope you told them, Richard. They may not have known.
When they say they don’t plan to start a new party, they probably don’t mean that they are ruling out a dummy party (or rather, a series of state dummy parties) to expedite ballot access. Just like Ralph Nader did with his Populist Party in the last election.
I suspect Unity08 will use all means at its disposal, ie party creation when necessary in certain states, to have a viable opportunity for putting forth a Unity ticket in 2008.
Richard,
Couldn’t they just nominate their candidate earlier?
Can they start working toward ballot access now in some states? Could they just choose a slate of presidential electors pledged to vote for the Unity08 nominee?
Do you have a past article or a link to comprehensive resource comparing the ballot access requirements in each state?
Thanks,
Doug
I am tired of merely making the bad guys sweat! California Governor Gray Davis is out of office! Congress Icon ‘Puke’ Cunningham is in Federal Prison! Like a bad penny, Lobbyist Brian Bilbray is back after his shocking DEFEAT a few years ago!
I do not want mere ‘Malox Moments’ for the over paid thugs and liars. I want them to have their careers (and even lives) ruined as a smattering of justice from a justifiably outraged and inflamed public!
2008 has some thing TR (and California Direct Democracy Governor Hiram W. Johnson, 1912), and John B. Anderson (1980) and Perot I and Perot II did not have: lack of belt way incumbant.
Be it (National) Unity (Party) 2008, Bloomberg, Trump, or other real or even semi reformer, the establishment can be temporarily beaten to a pulp in 08!
I do not want sweat; I want blood!
The way these con artists (both —-all three, Bushes and both Clintons) have mistreated the American Public, I can demand nothing less. For me, for our children, for our children’s children!
Where’s an available ice flow when ya need one?
You say 74,000 some odd signatures are required in Texas to get on the ballot. Actually, we don’t currently know how many signatures will be required for independent or third party candidates in Texas yet for 2008. That will be decided by the gubernatorial voting in November 2006. The threshold of signatures will be equal to 1% of voters in this years gubernatorial election. For 2004, yes, it was around 74,500- because about 7.45 million Texans voted for governor previously. But, this year, we may have about 12 million Texans voting for governor (ironically, because of interest generated by independent gubernatorial candidadtes), which will push the signature threshold to around 120,000 or so. Furthermore, since the Secretary of State- who counts the signatures- works for one of the corporate parties, indepedents and third parties are usually forced to gain about 2 times the required amount to allot for “throw outs” of “bad” signatures. (i.e. those voters who voted in the primary or folks who aren’t registered or misspell any part of their address of leave off a zip code.. the list goes on). Point being, any third party or independent who wants to run in Texas in 2008 will be facing the task of collecting 200,000 to 250,000 signatures to assure ballot access. Good luck, and welcome to true democracy!
I say instead of collecting signatures, all those disaffected folks pool some money and sue the state so see what they can do. We’d have a lot better chance for change if and independent wins the governorship in November- but don’t hold your breath.
Unity08 seems to exclude Third parties? Is this true?
That’s unfortunate because Unity08 supposedly is against left-right partisanship.
If you look at the Nolan Chart, its easy to see that the Libertarian Party in neither left nor right, but in between the republicrats.
Reading between the lines, I thought Unity 08 was the up dated version of the broad spectrum Unity 80 and John B. Anderson and the National Unity Party.
(I could be wrong; I hope not!)
I will be taking a wait and see additude on the non-party “Unity Party.” It is interesting how the media gave extensive coverage to a new party, while ignoring other, older and more successful independent political parties.
It was almost as if the fact that this party was being created by a moderate Republican and Democrat, but suddenly it was newsworthy.
So they may not be able to get on the ballot in Texas using their current strategy… not a big deal.
What a defeatist attitude. Don’t rain on the parade.When the going gets tough the tough get going.