The Washington Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections will hold a hearing on Thursday, February 19, on SB 5681. That is the Secretary of State’s bill changing the definition of qualified party from one that polled 5% for a statewide nominee, to one that polled 1% for President. Also it defines an unqualified party to be a group that submits a petition of 100 signatures. If the bill passes, candidates will not be able to put a statement on the ballot that they “prefer” any imaginary political party. Instead they will only be able to choose the name of a group that is either a qualified party or a group that has submitted 100 signatures that year.
Richard, any word on how an independent would gain ballot access?
All candidates in Washington state (except for president) qualify by paying a filing fee. This bill doesn’t change that. This bill regulates the labels that appear on the ballot, but not candidate ballot access per se. Independent candidates have no ballot label saying they prefer any particular party. If an independent wanted to appear on the ballot with the label “Prefers Independent Party”, though, he or she would need to get 100 signatures to establish the Independent Party, under this bill.
I believe the technical term for independent on the Washington State ballot is something along the lines of “States No Party Preference”
The primary reason for SB 5681 is to clean up Washington’s election laws, which are difficult to understand because of all the litigation, vetoes, initiatives, etc. It would presumably simplify any further “as applied” challenges since they would be based on the law as it was actually written, and not on what the Grange may or may not have intended. It also would mean that the legislature will have enacted the Top 2 primary.
The bill defines parties as either a “major party” or “minor party”, not as “qualified” or “unqualified”.
A major party would hold a presidential preference primary (though they would continue to be free to ignore the results, as the Democrats have in the past), and would have the the right to nominate a presidential/vice presidential candidate and associated presidential electors. They also would elect their party precinct officers at the general election. A major party would maintain its status from presidential election to presidential election by receiving 1% of the presidential vote.
A candidate in a non-presidential partisan election may express a preference for any party, major or minor, or express no preference for a party, and that preference would appear on the ballot.
A minor party may nominate a presidential candidate, though that nomination would have to be supported by 1000 voters at conventions within the State. A minor party would become a major party if their presidential candidate received 1% of the vote.
Independent candidates for president would also qualify by a convention with 1000 voters.
Minor parties would not be persistently recognized, but would have to re-qualify at the beginning of each even-numbered years. Contact information would be included in the Voter’s Guide
I was Ralph Nader’s Washington state ballot access coordinator in 2008 and had to petition for ballot access for president.
I found it odd that we were allowed the label of “Independent candidate”, but downticket candidates were not in the primaries.
Will this be fixed under the new bill, Richard? Or will they still have to be labeled as “states no party preference?”
Phil has it right (comment #3). There is nothing in this bill to change the label for independent non-presidential candidates.
#6 Since there are no non-presidential party candidates (that is, none are dependent on a political party for their nomination) the concept of an Independent candidate is meaningless. All non-presidential candidates are in a sense independent.
Phil is right about Washington law. It is “States No Party Preference.”