Any party that is not now on the Texas ballot, and wishes to be on the ballot in 2008, must tell the Texas Secretary of State no later than January 2, 2008. That deadline is only two weeks away, and so far only the Green Party has filed the necessary form. The Libertarian Party is not affected since it is already on the Texas ballot.
This advance notice law was passed in 1993. It is probably unconstitutional, but no one has ever challenged it. It effectively makes it impossible for a new party to be organized in an election year. Of course, the only group that would have standing to challenge the law would be a party that was formed in an election year (i.e., an even-numbered year). The last time a new national party was formed in an even-numbered year, and which tried to get on ballots in the year it was formed, was 1992, when the Natural Law Party was formed in April.
Past parties of great significance that were not formed until an even-numbered year, and which tried to run candidates in the year they were formed, were the Republican Party in 1854, and the Progressive Party of 1912.
Unity08 will be submitting their party organization filing soon in Texas. I am surprised that the Constitution Party of Texas has not filed yet.
PLEASE END LATEST NEWS ON DALLAS REFORM PARTY CASE
It is the same deadline as is used for candidates to file to be on the ballot for a party primary. It is also the filing deadline for independent candidates who intend to attempt to qualify for the general election ballot. A party that does not hold a primary must nominate its candidates by a convention process, and the precinct conventions are held the same day as the primary. A new party is actual filing (1) to nominate candidates; and (2) to qualify for the general election ballot.
The standard for qualifying for the general ballot is actually the number of persons who attend the precinct conventions of the new party. However, the election law permits this to be supplement by signature on the petition by voters who did not participate in the primary or other nominating process of other parties.
So what is unconstitutional since it is consistent with the nominating process used for all candidates, and makes access by the voter to the nominating process of the party of their choice, including a new party, open and more or less uniform.
Would it really be better to have the Green Party (for example) bosses choose the nominees with no participation from the ordinary citizen voter who would choose to participate in the nomination process of the Green Party?
Jim, I don’t understand your last two paragraphs. Could you re-phrase? Thanks.
What is unconstitutional is that it prevents the voters from forming a new party during an election year, and having that new party participate in that election. There are many other states with deadlines for the already-established parties to meet, but these other state laws exempt new parties. For example, South Carolina parties must hold certain meetings in the spring, but federal courts have ruled in both 1996 (Natural Law Party case) and 2006 (Working Families Party case) that such deadlines cannot be forced onto new parties.
Texas is probably the only jurisdiction in the world which makes it impossible for a party formed in an election year, to participate in that year’s election.
Furthermore, no Texas law forces independent presidential candidates, or the presidential candidates of minor parties, to file any notice in January of the election year. Even Texas knows that would be unconstitutional.
Does this have any effect on candidates who run as independents (as in with no political party)?
Why end the latest news on Reform party case? Does the truth hurt someone????
Andy independent require twice the amount of signature.
Hope the Constitution Party wakes up and sign on.
Texas law does not prevent new parties being formed during an election year. It requires that they conduct their nominating activities at the same time as established parties. This permits voters to choose to participate in the nominating activities of an established party, or to participate in the activities of a party that is attempting to become ballot qualified.
The South Carolina/NLP case would not appear to apply, since, in South Carolina, ballot qualification for the party is independent of the nominating activities of the party. In Texas, it is the number of persons who participate in the precinct conventions that determines ballot qualification – though this number may be supplemented by petition subsequent to the conventions. The filing date for qualification in Texas is actually after that in South Carolina.
In Texas, ballot placement for the presidential candidate of all parties is the same. There is a January filing date for candidates in the presidential preference primary, but only the Republicans and Democrats hold primaries.
While independent presidential candidates are not required to file in January (unlike independent candidates for other offices), the petition period is the same (in April and May). Since voters in the presidential preference primaries are not allowed to sign petitions of independent presidential candidates, it would appear to be an oversight that a January filing is not required, rather than any constitutional concerns.
BTW, in 1854/5, there were Republican candidates for Congress in only 4 states (Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin). 5 of the winning Republicans were Whig incumbents. It wasn’t until 1856/7 that Republicans contested elections across all non-slave States.