Two bills have been introduced in the West Virginia legislature to require declared write-in candidates to pay filing fees. West Virginia filing fees are 1% of the annual salary of the office sought. However, the presidential filing fee is capped at $2,500. The bills are SB334 and HB 2657. Thanks to Jeff Becker for this news.
In 2000, a U.S. District Court ruled that West Virginia’s old filing fee for declared write-in candidates is unconstitutional. The case is Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp.2d 587. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 and 1974 said that filing fees are unconstitutional unless they are needed for the compelling government interest in keeping ballots uncrowded. The names of write-in candidates are not printed on the ballot, so the existence of write-in candidates does not result in a crowded ballot. Therefore, filing fees on write-in candidates cannot stand. Other states in which filing fees have been declared unconstitutional for write-in candidates are Maryland and California.
_Phillips v Hechler_ is here in an 11-page PDF file:
http://cpwv.info/main/?dl_id=2
And it does feature the same fairly simple logic as Richard’s commentary: the only legitimate justification for filing fees is to prevent ballot overcrowding or confusion — but since write-in candidates by definition don’t crowd or confuse the ballot, you can’t charge them filing fees.
1. John Anthony La Pietra Says:
January 29th, 2010: “since write-in candidates by definition don’t crowd or confuse the ballot, you can’t charge them filing fees.”
Oh, this from a government system that illegally charges to bring automobiles in from other states. When forced to give the ill gotten gains back, they do so [soon to be recalled Governor Gray Davis] in the most expensive manner yet, as a publicity stunt. Nothing like have politicians beat you over the head with tools purchased with your own taxes ………..
Presumably you are referring to Bullock v. Carter and Lubin v Panish? You are over-reading the decisions, which do not restrict the compelling government interests to ballot overcrowding, and were in any case more related to the amount of the fee.
In Bullock v. Carter there was no alternative to paying the fee, such as a petition or write-in voting (the case involved Democratic primaries for local offices). Texas still does not permit write-in voting in primaries. It does, however, require payment of a fee or a petition.
Texas also requires a fee or petition for write-in candidates in general elections. However Texas requires that lists of declared write-in candidates be posted in each polling booth, and also requires that votes for declared write-in candidates be counted. It does have an interest in limiting frivolous candidacies in such a case.
“It does have an interest in limiting frivolous candidacies in such a case…….”
No facts here, just a value judgement!
Ah, the old compelling state interest argument is trotted out again. Of course entrenched incumbent political machines have an interest in compulsion to keep competitors off the ballot. This ‘compelling state interest’ is also know as prior restraint or censorship and a stripped version of the Alien and Sedition laws.
Just open up the ballot to all comers. I want to see candidates who more frivolous than the ones anointed by the corporate establishment. People have the right in a republican form of government with First Amendment free speech and association rights to elect imbeciles to office so long as the imbeciles meet the constitutional requirements of citizenship, age and residency. It can hardly be worse than the imbeciles the establishment picks to front for them.
Of course, there’s also the option of secession from this sadistic regime.
How relevant, really, is a filing fee of a few hundred or a few thousand bucks when the USSC now says that corporations and unions are free to spend millions of money from their treasuries advocating for one candidate over another?
But hey…no histrionics, OK? Let’s remain “dispassionate and well-reasoned,” right Richard?
#4 States may make value judgments. Do you not approve of judgment or value?
#5 Texas has around 8,000 precincts with 10s of thousand of voting booths to which lists of declared write-in candidates would need to be distributed, and arguably included with any mail ballots.
Even with slates of 34 presidential elector candidates there is a potential for 100s of thousands of imbeciles.
Governments can’t charge people to vote, or to run for office, just to help pay for election administration. The Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Ct, “increases in the cost of administering the election system is not a sufficient basis for infringing appellees’ First Amendment rights.” (p. 218)
8 – Keep arranging the deck chairs. But keep your reason and dispassion, by all means.
It was entirely rational to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Someone had an insight that almost 100 years later, technology would find a way to find the sunken ship and take pictures which would be seen by the whole world. So, the 1912 deck chair-arrangers wanted to spiffy things up for their future audience.
14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still around — regardless of the senile party hack appointed Supremes.
*** But when the [[[right to vote]]] at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, [[[is denied]]] to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, [[[or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,]]] the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
I.E. have a zillion write-in candidates — and see what happens ???
Sorry females until 19th Amdt in 1920.
See 26th amdt in 1971 for age 18 folks.
The WAR for REAL Democracy continues — against the EVIL party hack minority rule incumbents.
Hmmm, perhaps they’re really on to something good here. IMAGINE if ALL candidates were write-in candidates, including Republicans and Democrats. All filing fees based on the actual cost of printing official write-in candidate lists for the precincts covered by that office.
IMAGINE the cost savings: NO Primaries, NO printed ballots, NO election machines, NO questionable voting machine programmers.
ALL ballots would HAVE TO BE hand counted.
Sounds like a fait accompli to me! (/WISHFUL THINKING/)
#8 The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a poll tax for local and state elections. It upheld a federal law that banned such a poll tax as within Congress’s discretion under the 14th Amendment. And in any case, the state can simply impose a head tax on all persons, deposit the money in the general fund, and then expend money from the general fund for elections, and no one is the wiser.
The fee for write-in candidates is not for the cost of administering elections, just as the fee for on-ballot candidates is not to pay for the administration of elections.
Bullock v Carter was a case where the Texas Democratic Party was charging extremely high fees for local candidates, much more than for state or legislative candidates, and then using the money to fund its primary. Not much to do with write-ins at all.
How about Harper v Virginia Board of Elections (1966)?
There was no federal statute that banned poll taxes. The Constitution was amended to ban the poll tax for voting in federal elections in 1964 (24th amendment) but some southern states kept right on charging a poll tax for state and local office, but in 1966 the US Supreme Court said all poll taxes for all offices are unconstitutional.
#14 Oops! I mixed up literacy test and poll tax. I was thinking Oregon v Mitchell
Richard –
This just in from my hometown newspaper –
Dogs R’ Us, Inc., a corporation which runs a local dog sitting business, has decided to throw its support behind a third party candidate who has declared his candidacy for the US Congress. It’s going to dip deep into its treasury, thanks to the recent ruling by the USSC, to print up 100 8.5×11 flyers which will be stapled to a VERY LARGE number of telephone poles in our town.
Word has it the 8 term Congressman is quaking in his boots over this insurgency, fueled by the surprisingly populist shift the court has apparently taken.
What a boon for third parties this ruling is! Richard, you must be bristling with newly found hope. And Bushie-Bushie dispassion and reason, of course.
I have just received the following correspondence from the chief sponsor of this bill, WV State Senator Bob Williams:
Bob Williams
to Jeff Becker
date Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Mr. Becker:
The Supreme Court ruling in 2000 ruled that the write-in candidate received no services in the write-in and therefore should not be charge the filing fee. This bill reduces the fee for a write-in candidate to 25 % of the full fee to help off set the cost of certify the candidate and preparing and posting the list of approved write-ins at the polls.
Bob,
So are you saying that it is your belief that candidate filing fees are imposed to pay the costs of administering elections?
– Jeff
Jeff:
No, I fundamentally believe that write-in candidates should be required to pay the filing fee as does any other candidate. But since the Supreme Court ruled that their names were not printed on the ballot and they receive no service, the fee was unconstitutional. The Court, in part, ruled that the “state failed to show that the administrative expenses related to a write-in candidate warranted (the fee)”. This bill, if passed, would only require that the write-in candidate pay 25% of the filing fee. This is the amount that the Secretary of States office feels that is appropriate to cover the administrative costs and that they can support that claim.
Thank you for your interest in this bill.
Bob Williams
Thanks, Jeff, that’s interesting.
It’s odd that the state legislator doesn’t even know which court invalidated the filing fee for West Virginia write-ins. It was a US District Court, not any Supreme Court.
But the US Supreme Court did invalidate poll taxes for voters, of only $1.50. Obviously the government spends at least that much money per voter to administer elections, so it’s clear that the government can’t charge people for voting, or running, even if the amount of the charge is just to offset the cost of election administration for that one voter. The US Supreme Court case is Harper v Virginia State Bd. of Elections.
#18 But he does appear to quote from the decision.
Did Howard Phillips pay the filing fee for a declared write-in candidate in Texas in 2000?
Now the other Democrat state senator pushing this has replied back to me as follows:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Randy White wrote:
…if you want to be eligible to have votes cast for you in an election, it seems fair to me that you also pay the same filing fees as though who went through the other process for running for office.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Jeff Becker wrote:
Randy,
Thanks for your reply. I just want to make sure that I correctly understand your reasoning. Is it your understanding that the purpose of the filing fee is to cover the administrative costs of an election? In the case of write-ins, there is no expensive electronic voting machine programming involved. Please let me know if I am understanding you correctly.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Randy White wrote:
actually, it is more expensive to count write-in votes because they are not pre-entered into the counting machines and have to be counted separately by hand. Also, again if a person decides albeit late to run for office, he should be required the fee as everyone else has paid.
###
I have since replied back to Senator White asking just exactly what these expenses for counting by hand and by machine are so that I could see them compared. There are currently two counties in West Virginia which use paper ballots and either no or only a few machines: Braxton and Wyoming counties.
– Jeff