Most state legislatures have rules, limiting a state legislator to introducing a small number of bills. State legislators are now deciding which bills they will introduce next year. If you are dissatisfied with your state’s ballot access laws, November of even years is the key month to ask state legislators to introduce bills to improve them. December is also appropriate, but it is more difficult to communicate in December, because so many people are away, or distracted by holidays.
Half the battle to getting a law improved is finding a legislative sponsor.
Virtually every state legislature is far more active in odd years than in even years. In a handful of states, notably Texas, legislatures don’t even meet during even years, except for specialized topics. Opportunities thus come only once every two years.
Richard
People should know the state legislatures are more of the problem rather than the solution. Ralph Nader pointed out after his 1996 Campaign that State Legislatures are made up almost exclusively members of the Dominant Parties who have a vested interest in keeping Ballot Qualification Law exactly the way they are. He went on to state the more successful 3rd Parties are the more likely the possibility of State Legislatures drafting and approving EVEN MORE ONEROUS LAWS to affection the exclusion of 3rd Parties and to expect more such laws in the future.
Nader has stated the most likely course of action for 3rd parties to take is to seek harmonization of individual state laws. I can only see that coming through the Federal Courts.
I agree that legislatures are part of the problem. But we have to keep trying. Maybe having an order that seems to have least “damage” to majority parties – such as IRV and Universal Registration first, then lowering signature requirements to that equal of major parties, etc…
State legislators have voluntarily (without being forced to by a court decision) improved the ballot access laws, since 1985, in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. We have made more progress via legislatures than we have through lawsuits. But if we start out thinking state legislatures are certain not to help us, then we have defeated ourselves.
Asking the party hack gerrymander monarchs for easier ballot access laws is like asking Jefferson Davis in 1862 to free the slaves or like asking Hitler in 1942 to stop killing Jewish folks — a TOTAL waste of time and effort.
ALL gerrymander incumbments (i.e. de facto Kings / Queeens of *their* gerrymander areas) are the ENEMIES of real Democracy via 100 percent proportional representation.
THE problem is the armies of lawyer MORONS doing the same old losing ballot access cases.
Brown v. Bd of Education 1954 — separate is NOT equal.
Too much for the lawyer MORONS to understand.
Thus – Equal nominating petitions for ALL candidates for the same office. NO primaries, caucuses and conventions are needed.
P.R. and A.V.
Perhaps with the latest destruction of the R Party the remaining R Party *leaders* NOW may want some P.R./ A.V. reforms — before there is a TOTAL economic meltdown of Western Civilization.
Richard,
Does any organization have pre-written legislation to propose? For example, here in South Carolina we have no registration by party. Some states allow members of one party to vote in another party’s primaries. Some states have ridiculous signature or election percentage requirements to establish or retain ballot access.
Here in SC I would like to see registration by party with a minimum registration required to establish or maintain ballot access. Is that a good idea in your opinion?
Oklahoma is the equivalent of scaling Everest or K-2 to get on the ballot. Republicans have taken total control of the Legislature for the first time since statehood. The Republicans will not permit any lowering of the ballot access barrier established by Democrat David L. Boren thirty-four years ago. Former U.S. Senator Boren is now President of the University Of Oklahoma. You can infer the power structure arrayed against lowering the bar to the ballot in Oklahoma.
Therefore, I am proposing that the multi-party coalition for ballot access in Oklahoma take a hard principled approach to ballot access: Abolish any barrier. Zero. Zip. Nada. My argument is that the right of self-nomination to public office is morally and politically equivalent to the right to vote. Why would anyone have to get the permission of five percent of existing voters to cast one’s vote? It’s an absurd contention and so is petitioning for access to the ballot.
For those in other states, you position is only slightly less absurd even if you choose to accept it.
Anyone care to critique my premise? Join in at okballotaccessnow on Yahoo groups.
For minor parties, there are pluses and minuses to registration by party. On the plus side, a minor party can benefit very much by getting a list of voters who register into that party. There is no better mailing list. Also on the plus side, if a state has registration by party, then the election law can (as Gregg suggests) contain a reasonable minimum number of registered voters to determine if a party remains on the ballot. That frees it from having to poll a certain percentage of the vote for some statewide office. Maybe a minor party would rather not run candidates for statewide office and would rather concentrate on legislative races.
On the minus side, states with registration by party frequently then enact barriers to whom a party can nominate. California is the worst. No one can get his or her name on a California partisan primary ballot if that person has been a member of another qualified party an entire year before filing. And that law survives even though the US Supreme Court has said frequently that parties should be the judge of whom they wish to nominate.
As to Frank’s post (#6) the logical response ought to be that Oklahoma, and every state, should have write-in space on ballots.
I will try to get some lobbying done to ease some of the procedures in Maine.
In the meantime, is there anything we can do to support the lawsuits that have been filed in Connecticut, Maine, and Oklahoma to see if we can resolve some of the issues there in a favorable way?
In response to Richard’s post(#7), that is quite logical in that it ties the act of a write-in vote to the act of nomination as two simultaneous but logically distinct acts. It is self-nomination only when one writes-in oneself.
There remains the problem that having one’s name pre-printed and rotated on the ballot removes the unnecessary burden of the write-in.
In addition, widely used optical scan voting machines are unable to read write-in votes. Such votes must be hand tabulated in a manner which is separate and unequal to the treatment given to pre-printed candidates. Often write-in votes are not even tabulated.
Registration of candidates in advance places self-nominated candidates on an equal footing with all other candidates appearing on the ballot. Furthermore, it also allows the legal qualifications (age, residence, etc.) to be challenged in advance of the election. Of course, there is no way to challenge the qualifications of an extemporaneous write-in candidate until after the ballots have been cast. This could lead to the voters writing-in a candidate who is not qualified for the office. This can result in unnecessary controversy recount disputes.
I agree that write-in votes for candidates, even if unqualified, should be universally allowed nevertheless. If for no other reason than to allow voters the opportunity to avoid voting for a dead candidate by substituting a write-in. But free self-nominated candidates, subject to qualification checks, is superior to extemporaneous write-ins in all but untypical events.
If free, open self-nomination is legalized, then the need to resort to extemporaneous write-ins is substantially reduced. The voters gain choices and lose nothing.
Excellent dialogue. Thank you for keeping it educational and insightful. I am going to write my legislature in Indiana hoping to make it much more simple than the 2% of everyting from the top to the botton for signatures. Despite reading what you have stated, I will still try for a solid number like 5,000 to get statewide access. This will keep most people off but will allow the serious candidates to be on. We supposedly live in a free country so they should be able to run for office if they so desire. I hope to appeal to the heartstrings…..
For the many ignorant – see the *RIGHT TO VOTE* and *DENIED* in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — at least for males.
Sorry females — regardless of the 19th Amdt (which failed to update such 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 to include females — i.e. ALL adult citizens).
Craig, (#9): how does anyone know who is a “serious” candidate before the campaign begins and the voters REVEAL who they consider serious?
I agree that 5,000 signatures is more palatable, but it still sticks in the craw of principle. Doesn’t 3000 taste even better? And doesn’t 1000 taste really good? Nothing taste better than zero however. Good luck anyway.