On April 27, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Crow, a semi-retired Reagan appointee, upheld Kansas’ policy of providing no write-in line on voter registration forms, concerning the voter’s choice of political party. Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, 10-4043. Here is the 17 page opinion. The Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified in Kansas but has placed nominees on the ballot through the independent candidate procedure.
The 10th circuit had ruled in 1984 that Colorado must provide write-in space on voter registration forms, so that voters could register as members of unqualified parties. Kansas is in the 10th circuit, so Judge Crow should have followed the 1984 decision, which is called Baer v Meyer. But, he said that if Kansas showed a blank line on the voter registration form, the voter filling in the form might have bad handwriting and it would be difficult for election officials to understand what the voter had written. This is not a good argument, because the same thing could be said about the voter’s address on the form, but somehow Kansas officials manage to cope with reading handwriting for addresses and other hand-written entries on the form. Also, Judge Crow said letting voters register into an unqualified party would make extra work for elections officials.
Ironically, the Libertarian Party of Kansas had filed a similar lawsuit in 1987, when it wasn’t a qualified party, and it had won the case. Kansas conceded the case, which was called Merritt v Graves, and started printing a blank line on voter registration forms so that voters could register as members of an unqualified party. But, then, in late 1990, the Libertarian Party successfully petitioned to become a qualified party, so the state then stopped printing the blank line on the voter registration forms. Judge Crow did not mention Merritt v Graves. The Constitution Party will probably appeal.
He explained why he did not follow ‘Baer v Meyer’
In that case the Libertarian and Citizen parties were recognized by Colorado, and the decision was based on the state having to add a ‘C’ or ‘L’ to the registration data base, rather than a “R” or a “D”. Colorado either had to put those two organizations on the form or treat them as declared write-ins.
I wonder what Colorado uses for Constitution Party.
BTW, doesn’t the Constitution Party prevent voters who are merely registered with the party from participating in party matters (similar to the Libertarian Party).
Kansas can not administer an election without voter name and voter address, so they are forced to decode the handwritten data.
The Libertarian and Citizens Parties were not recognized by Colorado in 1984. Those parties were reduced to using the independent candidate petition procedure to place their nominees on the November ballot. Colorado, like 26 other states, lets candidates who petition onto the November ballot choose a partisan label. Another beef the Libertarian and Citizens Parties had in that case was that any person could claim the name of those parties, whether the candidate had any connection with those parties or not. The Libertarians and Citizens Parties won on that issue also.
“But, he said that if Kansas showed a blank line on the voter registration form, the voter filling in the form might have bad handwriting and it would be difficult for election officials to understand what the voter had written. This is not a good argument, because the same thing could be said about the voter’s address on the form, but somehow Kansas officials manage to cope with reading handwriting for addresses and other hand-written entries on the form.”
This is one of the stupidest arguements that I’ve ever heard.
“Also, Judge Crow said letting voters register into an unqualified party would make extra work for elections officials.”
Oh boohoo. Those poor election officials might have to work a little bit harder.
Going by this judge’s “logic” (or lack thereof) the public should be denied more choices on the ballot because more choices mean that the election officials will have to work harder. Hey, why not just stop having elections and pay the election officials anyway? Then they won’t have to work hard, and you can keep the same people in office for life. When the people who are in office die one of their family members can take their place. Monarchy for Kansas because the election officials are too lazy to work!
#3 Since you quoted Richard Winger’s statement, it makes it appears that you are saying that Richard Winger is making one of the stupidest arguments that you have ever heard.
I wouldn’t characterize his argument as stupid, but rather misguided.
Election officials spend a great amount of time and effort decoding voter names and addresses because those are essential for the voting process. 3rd-party registrars may do a bad job since they may be getting paid on a piece rate, and have no incentive to be accurate.
A party affiliation is not necessary for the voting process. As more States go to an Open Primary, there will simply be no need for party registration. Are there any other countries in the world that include party affiliation in one’s voter registration?
#2 You seem to imply in your first note that the judge in the Kansas case said that Baer v Meyer did not apply because election officials might have a hard time decoding voter handwriting.
That is simply not what the Kansas judge said. He said that in the Colorado decision that there was a specific requirement that Libertarian and Citizen voters be permitted to indicate an affiliation for those groups on the ballot. That affiliation need not have been through free form entry, but might have been via a check box. But it was at least by declared write-in status (remember the Colorado decision said the registration data base could easily accommodate “C” for Citizen and “L” for Libertarian).
In Kansas, a group is wanting free-form entry, and the State to attempt to decode it. Since the judge determined that strict scrutiny did not apply, then dealing with messy handwriting met the rational interest test.
The second part does not apply in the Kansas case does it?
Kansas or any State simply has no interest in registering party affiliation except to ensure that those voters who affiliate via their registration make the choice of candidates.
Your viewpoint is of a party-boss-centric model. In essence, if voters vote for who the party bosses put on the ballot, then the party bosses should be able to continue to put candidate names on the ballot.
“Jim Riley Says:
April 28th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
#3 Since you quoted Richard Winger’s statement, it makes it appears that you are saying that Richard Winger is making one of the stupidest arguments that you have ever heard.”
No, I was talking about the court ruling.
“Election officials spend a great amount of time and effort decoding voter names and addresses because those are essential for the voting process.”
That’s what they get paid to do. It’s called doing their jobs.
“3rd-party registrars may do a bad job since they may be getting paid on a piece rate, and have no incentive to be accurate.”
3rd parties rarely have any money to pay people to collect voter registrations. Most people who regester to vote under a 3rd party banner, or for that matter, most people who register to vote in general, register to vote on their own.
On the rare occassions when any 3rd party has any money to pay people to collect voter registrations, the people getting paid to collect voter registrations have every incentive in the world to make sure that the printing is clear because they want to make sure the registration counts as valid so they get paid. Duh!
Pingback: onstitution Party Loses Case over Kansas Voter Registration Forms | ThirdPartyPolitics.us