Texas has a uniquely restrictive law for independent candidates (for office other than president). It requires them to file a notice in early January, if they intend to petition for a place on the ballot. Petitioning itself can’t start in Texas until after the primary, but anyone who didn’t file the January notice has already given up the chance to try to circulate a petition later in the year.
In 17 of Texas’ 32 U.S. House districts, at least one independent candidate filed the form. Here is the list. For statewide state offices, there are no independents except two for Governor, Stephen McGee and Kevin Sill.
Texas also requires an unqualified party to file a notice by the same early date, if it intends to try to petition for a place on the ballot later in the year. Four parties filed the notice: Constitution, Green, Reform, and Socialist. The Texas petition to qualify a new party also can’t start to circulate until after the March primary. It requires 43,991 signatures. Independent candidates for statewide office also need that number of signatures in 2010. But independent candidates for U.S. House only need 500 signatures.
The Constitution Party has only once successfully petitioned for the Texas ballot, in 1996. The Green Party also completed the petition just once in its history, in 2000. The Reform Party has never appeared on the statewide ballot in Texas (Ross Perot in both 1992 and 1996 petitioned as an independent, and Pat Buchanan in 2000 also petitioned as an independent). The Socialist Party has never completed the Texas petition. Before 1967, Texas did not require any petition for a new party to get on the ballot. Before 1967, any party that held a state convention, and county conventions in any 20 counties, was put on the ballot. Texas never had a ballot that was crowded with too many parties. The highest number of statewide parties ever in Texas history was six parties, and that includes the Democratic and Republican Parties.
If the cereal aisle can have 56 choices 365 days a year, can we not have a ballot with 6 choices one day every two years? How much blood have our soldiers shed so that other countries could have free and open elections. Sincerely, Justifiably Angry
Separate is still NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
NOT brought up in a zillion ballot access cases since Williams v. Rhodes (1968) — the first of the *modern* ballot access cases — due to armies of MORON lawyers and judges.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election.
Also so very difficult for MORON lawyers and judges to understand.
Just wondering is the Reform Party petitioning to be a party or are they running candidates in 2010?
If anybody knows please speak up.
Jake: I have not read the Reform Party platform but was familiar with Ross Perot’s run in 1992 (and 1996). Can you tell me in what manners the party differentiates itself from Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and others? I think there is intrigue in seeing the party become a force but if the members see themselves under the banner of the Libertarians or Constitution Party, it may be easier to get candidates on the ballot under those parties.
The Constitution Party aligns itself a lot with religion and various religious ideals. While I do believe that there are some good people in their party and they do feature some of the same ideas, I would have to say being Jewish would not fit in at all in the Constitution Party, and either would any religion besides Christianity it seems.
Second, I believe the LP has too many radical issues in their platform. Also, I believe the LP has no real direction and in my state the NJLP has failed on numerous levels.
Craig, I would go to the Reform Party website and read the platform, and join the forums. There, this topic has been discussed a few times.
Simply put, I joined the Reform Party because unlike the CP and LP one’s religious and social beliefs isn’t the debate compared to foreign policy, economic, and trade issues, which I believe are much more important especially at this current time.
ALL sorts of party hack international and civil WARS due to *religion*.
1776-1789 folks were quite familiar with –
The horrific Crusades, the various Inquisitions, the Protestant takeover of England in the 1500s (Henry VIII), the horrific Thirty Years War (1618-1649) (mass murder of Catholics and Protestants in central Europe) and the James II regime in England (last attempt by the Catholics to re-take the English regime).
Result in America – religion language in the 1st Amdt.
NO public religion.
NO public attacks on private religion (belief parts – sorry NO human sacrifices allowed).
SOOOOOO difficult for the party hack Supremes to understand.
World War II — Japanese Emperor-god trying to take over Mother Earth — with kamikaze suicide folks in 1944-1945.
See the current de facto WORLD WAR III between Muslim fanatics and Western Civilization — start 1948 ? (creation of modern Israel) or 1979 ? (Iran regime takeover of U.S.A. embassey — a fictional sovereign part of the U.S.A. at the time). ABC Nightline — America held hostage — until day 1 of Reagan regime 20 Jan 1981.
Statism = party hack control freaks with their EVIL leftwing / rightwing control freak agendas = having actual or merely tax slaves (or just mass murder).
See the Stalin and Hitler regimes.
Texas is very similar to California in the manner by which political parties qualify to nominate candidates. The difference is that Texas does not have persistent party affiliation. The other difference is that smaller parties in Texas use a convention system rather than primaries to nominate candidates, while in California all parties use primaries.
In both States, qualification is based on 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. When a voter registers with a political party in California, he is actually declaring his intent to affiliate with the party at the next primary. He fulfills his intention by actually voting in the primary – though California does not actually track whether party-registered voters do vote in their primary.
At the beginning of each even-numbered year, Texas voters are unaffiliated. They then affiliate by participating in partisan nominating activities, typically by voting in a primary or runoff, or participating in a convention. Once they have affiliated with a party, they can not switch, but all affiliations lapse after the general election.
Parties may also maintain their qualification to nominate based on performance in statewide elections. California has a somewhat easier test, 2% vs. 5% in Texas, but Texas has more statewide elective offices, and in recent elections the Democrats have not nominated candidates for all of them.
Nomination by convention by smaller parties is roughly concurrent with nomination by primary for larger parties. The initial precinct conventions are held one week after the primary, and the county conventions on the next Saturday. County conventions nominate candidates for county and precinct offices (eg JP, constable, county commissioner), as well as for district offices contained within a single county. 65% of House districts, and 25% of Senate and congressional districts are contained within a single county.
Parties attempting to have their nominees placed on the general election ballot count the voters who affiliated with the party by attending their precinct conventions – the equivalent to voting in a party primary. They may supplement the convention list, by petition. Petition signers may not have participated in another party’s nominating process before, or after signing the petition. Signers are in effect saying that they didn’t attend the precinct conventions but endorse the nomination process started there.
In Texas, nomination of independent candidates is by voters who did not participate in the nominating process for that office. If a party had one or more candidates on their primary ballot for a particular office, a primary voter is presumed to have voted in the nomination contest, and may not sign the petition of an independent candidate for that office. In effect, independent candidates are nominated by ad hoc single-office parties. Pre-declaration of candidacies ensures that voters who wish to help nominate an independent candidate may forgo voting in the primary.
For independent nomination for statewide offices, Texas requires 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, while California requires 1% of registered voters. For district offices, it is 5% in Texas vs. 3% in California, which narrows the gap somewhat between actual voters and registered voters, but Texas has the cap of 500, which makes a dramatic difference for congressional and senate districts, and a smaller amount for house districts. While not all 34 candidates will actually gather the 500 signatures, consider that in California only 9 independent candidates have qualified for Congress in the last 900 or so races.
#3 The Reform Party would have filed under Election Code Sec. 181.0041, which reads: “A political party that intends to make nominations under this chapter for the general election for state and county officers must register with the secretary of state, in the manner prescribed by the secretary, not later than January 2 of the election year.”
So they have filed their intent to make nominations by convention in 2010 (that is the only way that they may make nominations). To have their nominees placed on the ballot, they would have to have 43,000-odd voters participate in their precinct conventions in March. They may supplement the convention lists by petition signers before the end of May.
Gathering that many signatures without actually nominating anyone doesn’t fulfill any real purpose under Texas election law. They would have to repeat the exercise in 2012.
It could conceivably have some legal utility in terms of control of the national party. If they have an actually functioning state executive committee and county executive committees, and actually hold a state convention, it may have more value than merely having a web site and a PO Box.
Pingback: Many Texas Independent Candidates for Congress File Notice of Intent | Independent Political Report
“The Constitution Party aligns itself a lot with religion and various religious ideals. While I do believe that there are some good people in their party and they do feature some of the same ideas, I would have to say being Jewish would not fit in at all in the Constitution Party, and either would any religion besides Christianity it seems.”
The CP is not a party that “aligns itself with religion…” We are a party that aligns itself with the Constitution. Everyone is welcome. We do have Jewish members and Mormon members. We have former Democrats, Liberterians, and Republicans.
Our party is one that believes that the Constitution is the foundation of our government and if we stray from it then we are forgetting our founding fathers’ ideals.
Government Health care is unconstitutional, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is unconstitutional, bailing out banks and automakers is unconstitutional.
Get the idea?