Ken Lindell was a Republican member of the Maine State House during the 2005-2007 term. While he was in office, he tried to pass a bill that would have substantially eased the definition of “political party”. His bill would have let a party be recognized if it had a state organization. His bill did not pass. A somewhat similar bill in that session, sponsored by Green Party legislator John Eder, also failed to pass. Also, a somewhat similar bill also failed to pass in the 2007-2008 session.
Lindell was defeated for re-election in November 2006. However, he won a 3-person Republican primary last month for the same seat, the 41st State House district. The incumbent Democrat is not running for re-election. Lindell was once a member of the Libertarian Party, and it seems likely that if he is elected this year, he will work for a better definition of “political party” in 2009. Maine requires a party to poll 5% for either Governor, or President, at either of the last two elections, to remain on the ballot. The median vote test in the 50 states is 2%.
Getting favorable legislation passed to reduce barriers to third parties and independents is a huge battle and requires far more resources than we have available. I have personally worked on several such efforts in the past in several states including Maine.
We should, however, work together to reduce signature requirements, reduce ballot retention requirements, and make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot, stay on the ballot, raise money and nominae candidates.
That said, and our resources being limited, we have one more reason NOT to dilute our efforts and waste our resources by backing poorly considered and disaterous efforts such as the National Popular Vote Plan and Instant Runoff Voting.
Since efforts such as NPV and IRV will actually make our nation LESS free, I may have no choice but to spend my limited resources opposing them instead of working for positive change such as might be possible in Maine.
Let’s get back to work on rational, realistic, and winnable Ballot Access Reform.
I’m not aware that any minor party, or any independent candidate, is spending any resources on National Popular Vote. For the most part it is Democrats who are working for it. There are a few Republican legislators who have supported it, and the National Popular Vote Plan people fervently seek Republican support. One can see how much mainstream support the plan has when one observes that bills have been introduced for the plan in almost every state legislature in the nation.
Hi –
Thanks for the plug. But you got my name a little bit wrong!
Regards,
Ken Lindell
Oops! I’ll fix it.
Thanks Richard!
A little bit of background on the bill I sponsored:
It was modeled on Vermont law which has a mechanism for organizing a “minor party” with full ballot access in general elections. The minor party must organize by caucusing in at least one town in each county, and forming municipal committees that then elect a state committee. The State committee can then nominate candidates to run in the general election.
The attractiveness of this process is that it doesn’t change any of the requirements for a major party.
The bill was actually passed, but it was amended to a study commission. I was not named to be a member of the commission by the Speaker of the House, so the commission wound up going in a different direction: fusion voting.
I plan to reintroduce the bill if I am elected to the House again in November.