Virtually all states are having budget problems. This situation may provide an opening for activists to suggest that state legislatures replace ballot access petitions with filing fees. Canada and Great Britain depend on filing fees, rather than difficult petition requirements, to regulate access to the ballot. And in the U.S., almost two-thirds of the states already depend mostly on filing fees, not mandatory petitions, to regulate access to primary ballots.
Fiscal considerations ought to support this idea. Election administrators must expend resources to handle petitions, especially if state law requires that all petitions be checked. On the other hand, filing fees not only cost nothing to administer, they add to government revenue.
Of course, past U.S. Supreme Court precedents require states to leave petition alternatives in the law. Also, of course, it is bad policy for the filing fees to be exorbitant.
States that already use filing fees to regulate independent candidate access to the general election ballot are Louisiana, Florida (but not for president), Oklahoma (but not for president), and Colorado (president only).
Richard:
I have for years advocated and worked for filing fees as an option to petitions for 3rd party and independent candidates for ballot position. About 4 years ago, I successfully persuaded a Senator and a Representative in the Alabama Legislature to introduce a bill in each house that would have done just that. The Senate bill (if my memory is correct) actually got out of committee.
But guess what happened? The 3rd party leaders in Alabama sat on their butts and wouldn’t do nothing for the bills. In fact, the Chair of the Alabama Libertarian Party at that time (whose name I cannot remember) called me and stated something to the effect that he was opposed to the bill because he couldn’t raise that kind of money for filing fees. I didn’t think to retort at the time, but I should have said (and still say) “why the hell do you (as Chairman) have to be responsible for raising the filing fees?” It is the CANDIDATE who should raise his or her own filing fee. If a candidate who has been nominated by a 3rd party hasn’t got enough motivation to get off their butt and at least raise the several hundred dollars (or even the thousand of two) for the filing fee, then then don’t need to be running for office in the first place! Here, I have to agree with our Democratic and Republican antagonists. If a candidate doesn’t demonstrate he or she is serious, they don’t need to be cluttering up the ballot.
So to all Alabama independents and 3rd partisans – including the Libertarians – if you want to try getting similar bills introduced again – and this time will get off your butts and work for them – then contact me and we’ll go from there.
Otherwise, continue to be bull-headed and stand out in the hot sun and the cold and rain and gather your signatures.
So Alabamians, what will it be?
I hope you comment again and include your contact information.
I have had a some what similar experience trying to get third parties motiviated behind ballot access reform bills in MN/ND/SD and at the Federal level. Alot of egos and ignoreance and petty-ness gets in the way.
Also, UK and Canada do require some petitioning to register a party or for an independent candidate along with a fee…
I think filing fees are a good idea.
Frankie, I hope you comment again and include some contact information for yourself, so people in those states can get in touch with you.
The ballot access petitions for Parliament in Great Britain are only 10 signatures; in Canada 100 signatures.
Richard:
When I see some response from those who indentify themselves as Alabamians, and they write about filing fees as a option in the affirmative, I’ll give my contact information. But last time, when the various 3rd parties leaders wouldn’t lift a finger, I said “to heck with’em.” I had gained some rapport with with the legislators who agreed to stick their necks out and introduce the legislation, and then I had “egg on my face” when our people didn’t come through.
I’m not going to do it again unless they is a coalition of Alabama 3rd parties and independents committed and organized to take action. But it’s like “Frankie” wrote, there are alot of “egos, ignorance, and pettiness” that get in the way. One of the reason we have so many 3rd parties which are so similar in their basic philosophy is because of too many “nabobs of no-it-all” who think “they and they alone” must run the party.
In the 2008 Presidential election alone, there were at least four (4) major 3rd party candidates all competing for the “independent” vote. All four of these parties should have joined in coalition behind one Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket. But of course if that had happened, someobody would have been deprived of “calling the shots,” so that was not to be.
Again, my offer still stands for Alabamians interested in legislation allowing filing fees as an option for petitions. Demonstrate you’re serious, and we’ll get together.
Ballot access petitions can be on 3 x 5 cards / forms — i.e. print in a newspaper and send it to the govt official involved.
I.E. Ballot access 24/7 — especially as long as the Congress and ALL 50 State legislatures are anti-Democracy indirect minority rule gerrymander regimes.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule. Much worse with primary math.
Louisiana has long provided two ballot-access options for ANY candidate for ANY office: a petition OR a filing fee.
Do away with party primaries, and high-count petitions will disappear.
Simple system:
No campaign activities before the first of May (6 months before the general election). Candidates may declare any time in the next 4 months (until end of August).
Candidates who file petitions before the end of July would need 1/50 of 1% of the vote for governor in the previous election for statewide offices, or its equivalent for non-statewide offices. If more than 9 candidates qualify for a race, additional signatures may be gathered. Any candidate who is among the Top 9 or has 1/10 of 1% of the signatures by the end of August appears on the election ballot.
Primary is end of September. Voters may indicate a party preference, but are not restricted to voting for candidates of that party.
The Top 2 candidates qualify for the general election, along with any candidate who receives 10% of the vote. In addition, the leading candidate for any party that receives 1% of the vote will advance with the nomination of the party.
#9: “… the leading candidate for any party that receives 1% of the vote will advance with the nomination of the party.”
You say, “do away with party primaries,” and yet you’re throwing a blanket primary into the mix, in which it’s possible to win a party nomination.
Why not just have one big election and use IRV?
BTW: A state could not mandate a system such as you proposed in #9, as it would violate California Democratic Party v. Jones.
The parties who wanted to participate in a blanket primary would have to do it voluntarily, as with the Democrats and minor parties in Alaska.
#10,#11 The system would incorporate a Pick-A-Party primary within a Top 2+ Primary.
Foremost, voters would be selecting the candidate who they wanted to be elected (or at least advance to the general election ballot). The 10% threshold addresses your concern about only two candidates being on the general election ballot, when 3 or more have significant support.
But in addition, party members could nominate a candidate for the general election ballot. Since the nomination would be determined only by members of the party, it would not run afoul of Jones.
For example, a Republican or an independent could vote for Obama or Clinton and it could help them reach the 10% threshold, but it would not count as a vote as far as determining the Democratic nomination.
I am not generally in favor of IRV. It is difficult for voters to rank many candidates; and the use of IRV would likely result in an increase the number of candidates. Voters can focus on the leading candidates in the general election. And remember that there can be many races on the ballot. I was able to vote in around 55 races in November.
Richard:
Isn’t it strange how your post which dealt with promoting the idea of filing fees as an option to petitions, has gone off into tangents by some of your bloggers?
I could live with an “Open Primary” similar to the one Louisiana has or Alaska has, (in both cases there are no “2nd or Run-off Primaries” – only a General Election) and such may be the real end result if Alabama legislators start looking for ways to cut the costs of elections. With such, as is with Louisiana’s Open Primary (I’m not sure about Alaska’s Open Primary), I would assume there would be the option for 3rd party nominees and independent candidates to pay a filing fee.
Meanwhile, if we are serious, lets stick to the current idea. I can’t help but believe there are many 3rd party and independent leaders in Alabama who read these blogs. Still, as of this date, I’ve seen no response to my offer. Apparently most would rather engage in “day dreaming” exercises such as the previous entries here reflect.
Again (and I’m not going to continue making this offer if we wait until we get too close to the bill filing date cutoff) if there are those who are serious about a bill which would allow 3rd party nominees and independent candidates to pay filing fees as an option to petitions, then let’s see some serious response from those in Alabama.
#12, Using filing fees as a money raising measure is impractical. Even trying to tie filing fees to the cost of elections is more likely to result in fewer election, than more candidates.
The fundamental cause of high-count petitions is that the major political parties want to funnel all political activity through them.
Still haven’t heard from anyone in Alabama wanting to get bill filed to give independent and 3rd party nominees option to use Filing Fee to obtain place on General Election Ballot.
Guess people like standing out in the heat,cold and rain, and having “door slammed in their face” when asking for signatures on ballot access petitions.