On September 2, the Ohio Secretary of State ruled that the Libertarian Party may make a nomination for the State House race, 87th district, even though the party did not run anyone for that office in the May 2010 primary.
The Democratic primary winner in that race, Clay Baker, withdrew from the general election ballot a few weeks after the primary. When that happens, Ohio lets the party of the withdrawn candidate substitute a new nominee. Ohio law also lets other major parties make a new nomination, or if the other major party hadn’t run anyone in its primary, that other major party can make an original, late nomination. Ohio defines “major party” as a qualified party that polled 20% of the vote in the last election.
Ohio law even lets an independent candidate committee make a new nomination, if any independent had entered the race originally and that candidate and his or her substitution committee want to withdraw the original nominee and replace him or her with a new nominee. But read literally, Ohio’s law didn’t seem to let qualified minor parties enter such a race late. However, the Secretary of State construed the law to mean that all qualified parties should be treated equally in matters relating to substituting new nominees. As a result, the Libertarian Party’s choice for the seat, Tim Sanders, will be on the November ballot.
Excellent!!!
So anytime a major party candidate withdraws all the minor parties can choose a nominee?
The essential problems are:
(1) Primary too early;
(2) Permitting candidates to withdraw after being nominated in the primary;
(3) Vesting candidate rights in political parties, rather than the individual candidates.
If the primaries were later, there would likely be fewer withdrawals. An early primary means an early filing deadline, and some candidates may be less committed when they won’t take office for almost a year later. With a later primary, there may not be time for candidates to withdraw before the general election ballots are printed.
The presence of Clay Baker on the primary ballot may have discouraged other Democratic candidates, and his withdrawal permitted party bosses to choose the nominee almost 3 months later than the voters did. And his filing might have simply been a ploy to guarantee a spot on the general election ballot for the party.
The candidacy rights belong to the party, there may be a sense of them running the candidate (just as a rancher runs cattle), rather than the candidate running with their support.