Law Professor Rick Hasen, whose blog is ElectionLawBlog.org, sometimes allows guest posters. Here is a link to a guest post by Professor Darry Sragow, which is fairly lengthy, and which defends Americans Elect against various criticisms made by Hasen himself, and others, of Americans Elect.
One minor criticism of the Sragow article is that implies that California requires 1,030,080 valid signatures to qualify a new party. The piece is referring to the California procedure that says if a new party wishes to qualify by petition, it needs the signatures of voters equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote. But California does not require new parties to qualify by petition; instead they may qualify if they persuade 103,008 voters to fill out voter registration cards, listing themselves as members of the new group. Both choices are far too difficult, but it is not strictly accurate to say that California requires over 1,000,000 signatures. If the only method for a new party to get on the California ballot were a petition of 10%, then the California law would be unconstitutional. All mandatory ballot access requirements for new parties, and for independent candidates, in excess of 5% of the number of registered voters, have long ago been held unconstitutional. Such cases have been won in Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio.
Did Mr. S. write his apple pie response for the usual suspect MORONS ???
—-
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
ABOLISH the timebomb parts of the U.S.A. Constitution –
the 3 minority rule gerrymander systems – House, Senate, Electoral College — and the EVIL Prez monarchy veto – a vestige of the EVIL divine right of kings stuff in the DARK AGE.
The Sun will continue to rise IF the U.S.A. has a DEMOCRACY regime —- and NOT its EVIL gerrymander / monarchy regime since 4 Mar 1789.
Pingback: Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog Carries Professor Darry Sragow’s Defense of Americans Elect | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
One thing I found interesting is that the AE board members are’t supposed to support any AE candidates. From the article:
“Board members shall not communicate or act in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for President or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect”
But recently AE board member Gov. Christine Todd Whitman was saying she hopes that John Huntsman would seek the AE nomination. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69639.html
Is that support?
Sragow’s argument for Americans Elect sounds suspiciously like the standard argument in favor of Top Two. Voters should choose the candidates directly rather through political parties and/or independent candidacies. He portrays the rationale for the on-line convention in the same language Top Two proponents use to defend the first round of their system. Political parties should not choose candidates.
People who say this are either naive or disingenuous. It is possible to weaken political parties. But that does not empower voters. Instead, it gives even more power to those with money. The naive supporters of Top Two, Americans Elect, et al, don’t understand this yet. The disingenuous ones understand it completely. That’s why they are supplying the money.
Sragow’s defense of AE’s financial secrecy is fascinating. Apparently, the business and commercial interests funding this thing believe that they are in the same category as donors to the Socialist Workers Party — subject to the same kinds of reprisals and entitled to the same degree of privacy. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.