On May 24, the Ohio Senate passed SB 148 by a vote of 23-10. Like a somewhat similar bill that has passed the house, HB 194, it attempts to fix the old ballot access law that was held unconstitutional in 2006.
SB 148 cuts the number of signatures in half, from 1% of the last vote cast, to one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. Thus, it is better than HB 194, which does not lower the number of signatures. For 2012, if SB 148 were signed into law, the requirement would be 19,263 valid signatures. However, the petition deadline would be 100 days before the primary, which is still unconstitutional. The bill does not attempt to move the primary, so in 2012 the primary would be March 6 and the deadline would be the day after Thanksgiving this year.
The bill has a silly provision that says only half the signatures would be due in late November of the year before the election, and the other half would be due in early December of the year before the election. The original version of SB 148 had a special, much later deadline for parties that only want to run for President (80 days before the general election), but that idea was deleted from the bill before it passed the Senate.
Since congressional primary ballots must be mailed out 45 days before the election, and there must time to verify the petitions and then have a filing period for candidates seeking nomination by the new party, how can 100 days be seen unconstitutional?
There is no need for states to provide primaries to newly-qualifying parties. There is a procedure in 43 states already by which a newly-qualifying party can appear on the ballot, with a party label, at least for president, even though it didn’t go through a primary. Ohio is one of the 7 rigid states that won’t print a party label on the November ballot unless that party had a primary. Yet, before 1947, Ohio let parties on the ballot even though they hadn’t had a primary. Also, because of court orders, Ohio permitted parties on the November ballot even though they hadn’t had a primary in 1968, 1970, 1976, and 1996.
Pingback: Ohio Senate Passes Bill Making Small Ballot Access Improvements | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#2 If a State is going to accord a group of voters “party” status, it is reasonable to require that the the state require the party to choose its nominees in a process that is open to the voters that constitute the party recognized by the State.
It is not necessary for a State to recognize political parties nor permit party labels. You don’t want to be making an argument on the basis of necessity.
How many States if you remove the qualifier “at least for president” and which States are they?
#4, Louisiana and North Dakota permit presidential candidates who qualify as candidates to choose any ballot label they wish, if it isn’t too long and doesn’t mimic the name of a qualified party. But those two states don’t extend the same freedom to independent candidates for office other than president. So “two states” is the answer to your question.
The US Supreme Court said in Cook v Gralike that states must treat all candidates equally in the matter of ballot labels. There is no requirement that any state permit party labels on ballots. But once states let some candidates choose a label, they must extend that to all candidates.
I wouldn’t mind nominating by convention. It would save the state on money too!
#5 If I am understanding you correctly, the answer to my question is “41”.
Which are the 9 enlightened States that don’t accord special privileges to party bosses?
You are making a pretty broad interpretation of Cook v Gralike. The word “equal” only appears in the Rehnquist concurring opinion.
Ohio does not let any candidate choose his or her ballot label. Ohio permits groups of voters organized as political parties to choose a nominee in a primary, and the nominee bears the name of the party in the general election.