At least two bills have already been introduced in the Texas legislature to make ballot access more restrictive.
HB 418, introduced on December 10 by Representative Leo Berman, would require the nominees of political parties that nominate by convention to pay the same large filing fee to the government, that candidates running in primaries must pay in order to get on the primary ballot. This bill is aimed squarely at the Libertarian and Green Parties, both of whom are currently entitled to nominate candidates by convention.
Requiring filing fees for candidates nominated in a convention does not make sense. The purpose of a filing fee in a primary is to keep the primary ballot uncrowded, but there is no equivalent problem that needs solving in the context of a convention. The Berman bill says that if the nominees of a convention do not pay the filing fee, they must submit the same number of signatures that an independent candidate would need. That also does not make sense. Parties have a freedom of association right, not to have their nominees be subject to a veto by non-members of the party.
HB 318, introduced on November 18 by Representative Roberto Alonzo, moves the primary from early March to early February. That would have the indirect effect of moving the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from May to April. It would also have the effect of moving the deadline for a new party to tell the state that it intends to submit a petition, from early January of the election year, to December of the year before the election. And it would move the petition deadline for a new party from late May to late April.
STRIKE DOWN THESE BILLS, TEXAS!
What percentage of govt spending is for having elections ???
— also a percentage of GDP — or even Gross State Product — in each rotted to the core indirect minority rule gerrymander State ???
P.R. and App.V.
Leo Berman is one b** s*** crazy cat.
How many of the Donkey/Elephant robot party hacks in both houses of the gerrymander Texas Legislature were UN-opposed in the 2006-2008-2010 so called wave elections ???
P.R. and App.V.
Re HB 418: The filing fee in primary elections is paid to the political party conducting the primary to defray the cost of the primary, and offsets state payments. A while back, there were some instances of candidates manufacturing signatures to get on the primary ballot, and the petition was made optional for most offices. So for candidates seeking nomination by party primary, the petition is effectively in lieu of the filing fee.
Currently, independent candidates do not pay a filing fee, and HB 418 would change that. The bill does not recognize the signatures collected to get on the ballot as the equivalent of in lieu signatures.
HB 418 would set the number of signatures for convention-nominated candidates to the same as candidates seeking a primary nomination. This number is less than that required for an independent candidate (or in some instances nominally so).
For statewide office, the difference between 5000 and around 50,000 is significant. For district offices, the independent threshold is 5% of the gubernatorial vote, vs 2% for primary candidates. But there is a cap of 500, so that they are effectively the same for congressional and senate districts, and most house districts (the average for a house district would about 650 without a cap, so some districts will be below the cap).
“Parties have a freedom of association right, not to have their nominees be subject to a veto by non-members of the party.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. As you know, Texas does not have permanent party affiliation. It only lasts during the election period of even-numbered year. A voter becomes affiliated with a party by participating in its nominating activities. This includes signing the ballot access position of a candidate seeking placement on a primary ballot.
I’m not sure how making it illegal for a voter affiliated with the Democratic, Green, or Republican parties to sign a Libertarian candidate’s petition is said to give them “veto power”. Please explain.
HB 418 is not really clear whether the party affiliation rule would apply in the case of post-convention petitions. It doesn’t appear to recognize that certification of a convention-nominated candidates occurs relatively soon (20 days) after the convention that makes the nomination, so this would provide a relatively short period for collection of the additional signatures.
Are there other states that have filing fees for some on-ballot candidates, but not others?
Re HB 318. Texas requires political parties that nominate by convention to make those nominations contemporaneously with parties that nominate by primaries. One reason for this practice is that it simplifies application of the party affiliation rules.
New parties do not qualify in advance in Texas. Contrast this for example with California, where if a party wants to hold a presidential primary in February 2012, they must qualify sometime in 2011.
In Texas, a new party notifies the state that they intend to nominate by convention. This gives an opportunity for voters to decide which party (if any) they will affiliate with that election cycle, and also an orderly candidate filing.
The first round of conventions that lead to nominations of candidates occurs on primary election day. If a voter wants to participate in the nomination process of a convention-nominating party, including a new party, he attends a precinct convention rather than voting in a primary election.
It is the attendance at these precinct conventions that determines whether a convention-nominating party’s nominations are placed on the general election ballot. This requirement is waived for parties that have demonstrated a modicum of electoral support in the past. And a party may supplement its convention attendance roster by voters who effectively affiliate with the party in next couple of months.
Whatever one thinks about the idea of moving the primary to February, it does make sense to keep the nomination activities of all parties and candidates in a contemporaneous period.
I doubt that Rep. Alonzo’s bill will go anywhere.