James Traficant, a former Democratic member of Congress from Ohio, attempted to run this year as an independent candidate for U.S. House in Ohio’s 17th district. However, he was told that he needed 2,199 valid signatures, and after his petition was checked, he was told that he only had 2092 valid signatures.
Now elections officials have acknowledged that their earlier determination of how many signatures were required was incorrect. See this story. Ohio requires independent candidates for district office to submit a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote within that district. Ohio would make less work for itself if the law said such a candidate needs a petition of 1% of the vote cast for the particular office the candidate is running for. That would be easier, because anyone could easily know the vote cast for that particular office, just by looking at the official election returns from that past election. By making the formula 1% of the vote for governor in the last election, that forces elections officials to do a calculation of how many votes for Governor were cast in a particular district, something that is not apparent from the election returns. Thanks to Carter Momberger for the link. It appears that even though elections officials acknowledge error, the new calculation is only 29 signatures fewer than than the original calculation, so Traficante probably still doesn’t have enough valid signatures.
The newspaper story in incorrect when it says an independent candidate for district office needs signatures from each county in the district.
If you use the vote for a particular office, you run into problems after redistricting, or it might depend if the race were contested or not. The gubernatorial vote is a good broad measure of actual voter participation. Any competent election administration would have the election precincts associated with a particular district coded, so that they could verify that all precincts have returns for the race.
From the sound of it, this is part of a broader effort to fight for every last signature. How unlikely is another 78 signatures out of the 900-some rejected?
Maybe Jimmy should have run under the banner of the Modern WIG Party! 🙂
Using the standard of 1% of the vote for governor doesn’t have to be difficult, though.
Wisconsin has an excel spreadsheet with every precinct, sortable by congressional district, state assembly district, state senate district, so it’s really easy for anyone, not just election officials, to find the total votes for governor in any particular district.
Hmm . . . sounds somewhat like the facts of a Michigan Court of Appeals case: _Martin v Secretary of State_, 280 Mich App 417; 760 NW2d 726 (2008).
/===============================================
. . . MCL 168.544f imposes a graduated scale
for the number of signatures required on the
nominating petitions that is based on the
population of the district. Before April 1,
2003, the 23rd Judicial Circuit was made up
of Iosco and Oscoda counties and included one
judge. 2002 PA 92 amended MCL 600.524 by
restructuring the 23rd Judicial Circuit to
include Alcona, Arenac, Iosco, and Oscoda
counties and add one judge. With the
additional counties, the 23rd Judicial
Circuit has an estimated population of
65,745. Under MCL 168.544f, the minimum
number of signatures required on a
nominating petition for an individual
seeking to be a judicial candidate for
the 23rd Judicial Circuit is 200, and
the maximum number of signatures on the
nominating petition is 400.
MCL 600.550(1) requires the State Court
Administrator’s Office (SCAO) to notify
the Bureau of Elections “with respect
to each new circuit judgeship authorized
pursuant to this subsection.” This
notice requirement is triggered when
the county board of commissioners of
each affected county approves the
creation of the judgeship by resolution
and files a copy of the resolution with
SCAO. MCL 600.550(1). However, MCL
600.550a(4) eliminated the requirement
of approval by the county board of
commissioners for certain judicial
circuits that were restructured,
including the 23rd Judicial Circuit,
[Page 420] thus rendering virtually
inoperable SCAO’s notification obligation
under MCL 600.550(1). The Bureau of
Elections, which publishes signature
requirements, was thus not notified of
the change in the 23rd Judicial Circuit,
and it provided erroneous information
about the signature requirement for
candidates seeking a judgeship in the
23rd Judicial Circuit, indicating that
it was 100 to 200 signatures rather
than the 200 to 400 signatures required
by MCL 168.544f. The Secretary of State
published this erroneous information,
and it appeared on the Secretary of
State’s website.
According to affidavits submitted by
Martin, he or individuals associated
with his campaign made at least two
calls to the Secretary of State in April
2008 to verify the number of signatures
necessary to get his name on the ballot
for the position of judge of the 23rd
Judicial Circuit, and on both occasions
the Secretary of State informed them
that Martin needed to submit between
100 to 200 signatures and that submission
of more than 200 signatures was a crime.
In addition, a document entitled “Filing
Requirements for Non-Incumbent Judicial
Candidates” contained the same inaccurate
information regarding the number of
signatures required for the 23rd Judicial
Circuit. In his affidavit, Christopher M.
Thomas, Director of the Bureau of
Elections, asserted that “[t]his
publication has been posted on the
Department of State’s website and sent
directly to candidates.”1 Relying on
the Secretary of State’s erroneous
information regarding the number of
signatures required, Martin filed 158
signatures with the Bureau of Elections
on April 23, 2008. On May 1, 2008,
after the April 29, 2008, deadline for
gathering signatures and [Page 421]
filing petitions had passed, Bergeron
filed a challenge to Martin’s eligibility
to have his name placed on the ballot,
arguing that Martin’s petitions had an
insufficient number of signatures and
therefore failed to comply with MCL
168.544f. On May 5, 2008, Martin
attempted to submit 208 additional
signatures, but the Bureau of Elections
refused to accept the signatures because
the deadline had passed. On May 15,
2008, the Bureau of Elections sent Martin
a letter informing him that he was
ineligible to have his name listed as
a candidate on the primary ballot because
his petition contained less than 200
signatures and was therefore insufficient
on its face.
===============================================/
_Martin_, 280 Mich App at 419-421. The 2-1 conclusion was as follows:
/===============================================
III. Conclusion
We share and agree with the concerns raised by
the dissent that citizens possess the right to
redress grievances involving elections through
our courts. We emphasize that nothing in this
opinion should be con- [Page 430] strued to
limit citizens’ access to our courts to ensure
that the election laws of this state are
enforced. Rather, our opinion must be narrowly
construed and limited to the unique facts of
this case. This narrow holding stands solely
for the conclusion that pursuant to the
dictates set forth by our Supreme Court in
_Federated Ins Co_ and _Nat’l Wildlife_,
a candidate for judicial office has not
suffered an injury and therefore is not
an aggrieved party and does not have standing
solely because the candidate is required to
run in a contested judicial election.
Because we conclude that appellants are not
aggrieved parties under MCR 7.203(A) and
have failed to articulate a legally cognizable
right granting them standing in this matter,
we need not address any additional arguments
advanced by the parties.
Affirmed. No costs, a public question having
been involved.
===============================================/
The 8-page majority opinion is here:
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20080821_C286015_55_125O-286015OPN.PDF
The 6-page dissent is here:
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20080821_C286015_56_125D-286015OPN.PDF
As usual – ANY thing that a MORON party hack election law bureaucrat says about anything is absolutely WORTHLESS.
The *law* is the *law* — regardless of all such MORON bureaucrats.
i.e. an army of lawyers is now needed to even get ballot access for anything — due to the EVIL party hacks in the 50 State legislatures and such dumb and dumber bureaucrats.
Pingback: James Traficant Finds Error in State’s Determination of How Many Signatures He Needs | Daily Libertarian