Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) has introduced HB 1892, to provide that all qualified parties nominate by primary, rather than convention. The bill is surprisingly short and devoid of details. It appears that any party that had filed an intent to qualify, at the beginning of the election year, would then be free to organize its own primary and hire its own polling place officials and rent its own polling locations. The state would then reimburse the party for these costs. The primary would be in March. Apparently after the primary, the normal petition requirement would then be required. The number of signatures would presumably be equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, minus the number of voters who had chosen to vote in that new party’s primary. It is difficult to imagine that the state would be willing to pay for the administrative expenses of any party, even those that had not yet qualified for the ballot. Thanks to Jim Riley for the news about HB 1892.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Well, that does seem a bit silly. Why not have, say the top six political parties — based on some statewide election — have a primary process and then automatic ballot access for the winner?
Then have some lenient petitioning process for all other candidates?
I don’t see the point of requiring a primary and the reimbursing the party for its expenses. I thought the point of a primary was to get the state to pay for internal party operations.
Why not just let them nominate as they will and place the winners on the ballot?
Well, primaries began in the early 20th century mainly to democratize the internal workings of ‘the party’ and end the practice of candidates being handpicked in some seedy and sordib sort of affair, dirty old men in backrooms with cigars and brandy…or so that was the argument.
Minnesota does open primaries for major parties, but not for minor/Independent — who nominate via petition for the general election ballot. We have had as many as four, maybe five, major parties in the past.
There is no such thing as an intent to qualify.
Currently a new party is required to file an intent to nominate by convention. They must establish a state executive committee plus a county executive committee in each county where they will hold conventions.
Persons who wish to be nominated must file a declaration of candidacy, just as if they sought to be nominated by a primary, or were going to petition as an independent candidate.
For the nominations of a new party to be recognized they must draw 1% of the gubernatorial vote to their precinct conventions. This could almost be regarded as a quorum. A party is permitted to supplement this with signatures from voters who did not participate in the nomination activities (primary or convention) of other parties.
While strictly according to the law the signatures are not considered affiliation with the party, they are effectively so, since the effect of affiliation is to restrict participation in the activities of other parties.
There is no required participation level associated with a primary. A political party that wants to conduct a primary (ie that wants to nominate candidates), has to have organizational structures equivalent to those they would if they were organizing conventions. And parties that hold primaries also hold conventions.
In Texas, early voting for primaries is conducted by the counties. So it could actually be easier for 3rd parties to get voter participation. But they would still have to organize election day voting, and handle the other administrative responsibilities. If they actually held a real primary, there wouldn’t be a particular need to count noses.
#2 The purpose of a primary from the perspective of the State is to ensure that candidates are chosen by the voters in a democratic process.
The convention process discriminates against the elderly, invalids, overseas voters, people with jobs that conflict with the conventions, persons with limited transportation, possibly against minorities.
This is a dumb bill not only for the reasons mentioned above, but it leaves the primary process open to a lot of manipulation by party leaders, because the parties are in charge of the voting.
#6 A large share of voting is in early voting which is conducted by the county election officials. And election day voting is typically administered by by the same election judges who work the general election. It uses the same voting rolls, usually the same voting equipment, and often the same voting places.
Certainly the convention process is subject to more manipulation.
Mr. Riley,
What do I care about how or why a private party chooses their candidates for office? If I want a say, I’ll join the party by paying dues, signing an oath, etc. and go to the convention.
We don’t need to make it easy to participate in political parties any more than we need to make it easier to join the Freemasons or the local Elk lodge.
#8: Sometimes, as you know, all of the candidates for a certain office are from the same party. Without a party primary, grassroots voters would have no direct say-so in who is elected to such an office.
Realistically, states will continue to mandate and pay for party primaries, as the voters are accustomed to primaries and would raise hell if they were replaced by, e.g., conventions or caucuses.
#8 You can still do all that. You and 10 of your friends can meet in a basement and decide which one of you is going to run for governor. But why should that person be placed on the ballot?