West Virginia State Senator Clark Barnes (R-Beverly) has introduced SB 417, to ease the definition of “political party.” The existing law, ever since 1916, has defined a political party as a group that polled at least 1% of the vote for Governor in the last gubernatorial election. SB 417 would define “political party” as a group that either polled 1% for any statewide race at the last election, or which has registration of at least one-twentieth of 1%. That works out to 608 registered members. A companion bill will probably be introduced in the House soon, but its registration threshold will be exactly 1,000 registered members.
If either bill passed, the Libertarian Party would automatically be back on the ballot, since it has over 1,000 registered members. The Constitution Party, which did the work of getting the bill introduced, probably could get its registration up that high fairly quickly. The Green Party is already ballot-qualified in West Virginia, although its name is the Mountain Party. It also has over 1,000 registered members.
If the bill were enacted, it would relieve minor parties of the burden of always feeling they must run a gubernatorial candidate. Sometimes minor parties would rather save their resources for lower level offices, but when ballot access depends on a party’s polling a certain vote in one high-profile race, they have no choice but to run in such elections. Thanks to Jeff Becker for the news.
Every office, partisan or nonpartisan, is totally separate from any other office — one more point that the SCOTUS MORONS can not detect in their one celled brains.
Thus the giant ballot access mess since 1968.
Demo Rep,
What are you even talking about? We’re trying to do something positive here in West Virginia. This does not involve the Supreme Court and it has nothing to do with 1968. In fact, as Richard mentioned, it goes way back to 1916 so you are over fifty (50) years off.
If you are a West Virginia resident, I suggest you contact either the Constitution Party (cpwv.org) or Libertarian Party (lpwv.org) to get involved in this action and help out with lobbying.
This bill (SB 417) is presently held in the seventeen member Senate Judiciary Committee, so these are the folks that need to be contacted to jiggle it loose and move it out to the floor for a full vote. I would appreciate only constructive comments here. Thank you.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election results — except perhaps the number of actual voters in the election area involved.
i.e. a New party candidate on the ballots in the smallest election area of a State WITHOUT having to worry about any statewide stuff.
Election AREA — Candidates in that AREA — most voters to least voters.
??? Folks, you just can’t argue with idiots.
Equal ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the same office in the same election area — i.e. equal nominating petitions.
P.R. and App.V.
Way too difficult for constitutional law MORONS to understand – especially the MORONS trying to play games with EVIL Donkey / Elephant party hack gerrymander robots in the State legislatures and the Congress.
Jeff Becker, I would advise you not to engage the troll.
Good advice – Especially for a troll who obviously lives in his parents’ basement.
#2 Prior to introduction of the Australian ballot, elections were essentially entirely write-in; though there had been court decisions that had ruled that mechanically-printed ballots qualified as having “printed” the name of a candidate. So political parties had established the practice of distributing ballots with their favored slate of candidates. Individual voters could still edit the party ballot, or make their own ballot.
When the Australian ballot was first proposed in New York state, the bill was vetoed by the governor, who said it would prevent “self-nomination”, by which he meant that any voter could nominate a candidate – it did not have to be by a political party. Advocates of the Australian ballot argued that requirements for nomination were so trivial that this was really not a barrier. When the Australian ballot had been introduced in Australia, only two signatures were needed, that of the nominator and the nominee.
In America, the practice of party ballots was stitched into the Australian ballot. So instead of each party distributing its ballots, they gave the ballot to the government who printed it for them. Before, parties would often try to disrupt distribution of ballots of their opponents. Now they would try to set higher ballot access barriers, or use legal strategies. Armed toughs were replaced by lawyers.
Primaries were instituted to let voters have a choice in who appeared on the ballot, but the parties co-opted them to help them organize and block competition.
If all candidates had to qualify for the ballot in the same way, then previous results wouldn’t matter. Why should the performance of a popular candidate in a prior election (eg Jesse Ventura) determine whether candidates of that party appear on the ballot for a difference office in a future election?
“1968” probably refers to the date of Williams v Rhodes “1916” was about the time political parties started increasing the barriers to ballot access.
State legislators started using the Australian ballot laws to keep unwanted parties off the ballot as early as 1893. But the worst period for making the ballot access laws more restrictive for minor and new parties, and for independent candidates, was 1967-1974. 1967 is the year Texas legislature make the ballot access laws far more restrictive.
Official primaries and Official general election ballots came along due to the EVIL party hacks trying to control all nominations in caucuses and conventions — connected with the secret ballot reform.
Copy and paste the below on a wall or computer screen near you.
The WAR for Real Democracy continues against the EVIL forces of monarchy / oligarchy in the last 6,000 plus years — (for New Age MORONS and juveniles (an overlapping group on this list) – i.e. the top party hacks in the Congress and each State legislature — names change, the party hack gangs continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
The 1968 mention in #1 was obviously Williams v. Rhodes as noted by the expert in # 7 and the additional comment in # 9.
Heaven protect the U.S.A. from the many political / legal history MORONS / juveniles on this list.
Perhaps have an age test — NO body under 40 or 50 or 60 ??? — i.e. some folks who have done some reading and can connect the dots regarding ALL of the EVIL connected with the election systems in the U.S.A. — especially unequal ballot access laws and gerrymanders.
typo # 7 >>> # 8 meant
The 1893 mention in # 9 may be deemed sort of connected with the first SLAVE law in the Brit-American colonies in the 1600s — circa 1619 in VA — gotten rid of the HARD WAY in 1861-1865 — 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides.
See the folks dying in the streets in Egypt trying to get rid on one more tyrant regime in the Middle East.
Jim, Richard: Some very good coherent information. Thank you! Unfortunately this bill has been double-whammeyed from the start and sent to both the senate Judiciary and senate Finance committees. So it has to get out of two(2) committees to get to a floor vote. Now what election laws have to do with finance, I have no idea!
# 9 The anti-3rd parties and independents stuff happened in part due to the gerrymander cases in SCOTUS in 1964.
Thus the current circa 30 percent minority rule gerrymander systems with party hack robot extremists.
—- About 60 percent of the votes in a bare majority of the gerrymander districts for control by the Donkey gang or the Elephant gang, as the case may be — for dummies in the media and this list — 60 x 1/2 = 30.
Zillion census stats coming out in Feb-Mar 2011 to be used in making the 2111-2114 gerrymander districts.
I sure hope this passes.
Tom, are you in West Virginia? Your name sounds familiar. If so, we need help lobbying. It has to get past seventeen senators in the Judiciary Committee, and then fifteen different ones on Finance. Total of 32 of our 34 state senators. Ugh! Please contact me through cpwv.org (304) 591-7076 or chairman@cpwv.org. Thanks.
#14 a bit ahead of time
2011-2014 meant
Pingback: West Virginia Bill to Ease Definition of “Political Party” | Independent Political Report
Pingback: West Virginia Bill to Ease Definition of “Political Party” | Daily Libertarian