Pennsylvania Ballot Access activists have posted this 5 and one-half minute you tube, on how activists can lobby their state legislators for better ballot access laws. The video is most useful to people in Pennsylvania, but it is also valuable for other states with bad ballot access laws.
The two recent statewide general elections in Pennsylvania with no minor party or independent candidates (referred to in the film) were 2006 and 2010. In 2010, Pennsylvania was one of only five states that had a statewide partisan election with a Democratic-Republican monopoly. The others in 2010 were Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Washington.
I don’t mean to be a “negative nellie” but there is no sure fire way for lobbying legislators for providing more fairer ballot access to independents and 3rd partisans. If one thinks one can, have at it. You obviously have not been around in the ballot access battle for very long.
The major party legislators – regardless of party – are NOT, I repeat, NOT going to make it easier for anyone – especially an independent or a 3rd party candidate to oppose them at election time. Dream on.
Other than federal court relief – and that is about as rare as a discovery of a new vein of pure gold – the only way is to use intimitation just as the civil rights movement did in the 60’s to win their access to vote.
But it seems to me that many leaders in the 3rd party movement are made up of the biggest crop of “wimps” that I’ve encountered in decades. What happened to ole fashioned Constitutional guaranteed protesting to the point where the major parties leaders get tired of it, give in, and give us what we are entitled to in the first place.
For years, in Alabama, I’ve advocated regular “Bridge Crossings” at Selma to remind the people that there is still one more class of voters whose voting rights are still denied. I suggest that even if I were to undertake the expense of the organization of a Bridge Crossing to symbolize this injustice, I could not get the leaders of the 3rd parties in Alabama to support me – let alone the handful of members that each party claim they have. It would be a media embarrassment. I don’t even know if some of our Black citizens in Alabama who have experienced this injustice, would join in sympathy with us.
All I have to say, is if you want real ballot access laws that are fair, you are going to have to work for them. As for me, I’m tired of circulating and begging for signatures on petitions. Payment of filing fees is the only fair and equal way for independent or 3rd party ballot access and this is what we all should demand.
Oh well, just my thoughts.
In fairness, I opened the U tube just to see what it advcated. I could not beleive my ears and eyes! Who wrote and put together this crap? Some 10th grade Civics Class?
Any videos calling for —
P.R. and App.V. ???
NO robot party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
Alabama Independent, how many Alabama state legislators have been visited by Alabama activists who advocated improving ballot access improvements? I am guessing fewer than five.
Visiting state legislators does work, and it has worked in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia (in 1986), Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Even one dedicated activist can, with enough time and energy, talk to dozens of state legislators. People like Ken Bush in Missouri probably talked to a majority of state legislators and he got the ballot access reform bill through. How many state legislators in Alabama have you sat down with and talked to?
You are also wrong when you say that constitutional court victories are rare. 48 of the 50 states have had at least one ballot access law declared unconstitutional, or in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Richard:
“Visiting state legislators does work, and it has worked in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia (in 1986), Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”
With the lone exception of the Colorado Presidential electors, I don’t know of any of the states listed that allows filing fees as the alternative to qualifying independent or 3rd party candidiates for office.
If you folks think reduced numbers of signatures on petitions is a great accomplishment, then have at it. Enjoy your illusion.
I have talked with several legislators in Alabama over the years – both Democrats and Republicans. Most of them want some type of “measurement of popular support” i.e., signatures on petitions for ballot access. I say nothing should be acceptable other than the alternative of filing fees in lieu of petitions.
Wnen I referreed to federal court rulings, I was speaking of rulings striking down laws requiring petitions signatures only for ballot access.
To settle for anything less, is to sell out our souls. I will not be part of it.
Comment #5 is a great example of the phrase “The perfect can be the enemy of the good.”
Even Canada and Great Britain have some petitions. It is 100 signatures in Canada, and 10 in Great Britain, to run for parliament, along with filing fees.
Hmmm.
Which SCOTUS opinion had the *modicum of support* stuff for ballot access ???
Very good luck in trying to get SCOTUS to change that idea.
To # 6. Yes, when you are getting down to say 100 signatures at most for a statewide office, then this is different. But when a 1% requirement turns out to be 10,000 signatures or more, this is discrimitory. Call it what you want, it is discrimination. In a democracy (as as democracy should be properly understood) it is a RIGHT to run for office – even if the Courts have already said such is not true.
The information given will work.