On April 17, Washington Governor Jay Inslee vetoed part of SB 5518. If he had signed it, it would have inadvertently increased the difficulty for new minor parties to place presidential nominees on the November ballot. The veto would not have occurred if the Freedom Socialist Party had not noticed the problem, and persuaded the Secretary of State to ask the Governor to veto part of the bill. In Washington state, Governors can veto parts of bills; they don’t need to sign or veto the entire bill.
Existing law lets minor parties hold multiple nominating conventions at various places around the state. At least 1,000 voters must sign in as having attended one of these meetings. Meetings, to be valid, must have at least 25 attendees. Obviously it is far easier to get a total statewide attendance of 1,000, if the signatures can be collected at different places around the state. But independent presidential candidates must get all of their 1,000 signatures in one location.
SB 5518, by changing the definition of “minor political party” for campaign finance purposes, unthinkingly also changed it for ballot access purposes, so that a minor party that had not appeared on the ballot in the last presidential election would have needed to get all its signatures in one place. The Freedom Socialist Party did not place its presidential nominee on the ballot in Washington state in 2012, so if it does intend to place a presidential nominee on the Washington state ballot in 2016, it would have been adversely affected. Also adversely affected would have been any other party that comes into existence for the 2016 election. Thanks to Fred Hyde for this news.
Conventions must have 100 attendees. This is currently in 29A.20.141, but is incorporated within 29A.20.121 as amended.
The current law covers nominations for both president and other offices. The provisions for other offices are obsolete under Top 2, and was the purpose behind amending 29A.20.121.
29A.20.141(4) in current law actually combines two purposes. The first sentence is covering the instance of a minor party making nominations for different offices (eg legislators chosen by district conventions). The second sentence is covering cumulative conventions and applies to both minority parties and independent candidates, for federal and statewide offices.
The signature requirement for statewide office, and all federal offices, including US Representative is 1000 signatures. The signature requirement for all other offices is 100 signatures, and since a convention must have 100 attendees, there is no need for multiple conventions to nominate for those offices.
Independents are not included in the first sentence, because independents by definition are independent of all other candidates, including those running for different offices.
So literally, minor parties could hold multiple conventions and accumulate signatures from more than one, while independent candidates could not hold multiple conventions, but could accumulate signatures from multiple conventions.
This is clearly a contradiction (the new version of 29A.20.121 repeats the contradiction). Since it is implicit that multiple conventions may be held to accumulate signatures for the office of president, and this is the only purpose of conventions under Top 2, I’m quite sure an independent candidate may secure signatures from multiple locations.
The definition of major party was changed to be based on the previous presidential result (5% more of the presidential vote). When changing the definition of minor party, the drafters did not recognize that the complement of major party is not had a candidate less than 5% of the presidential vote, but rather did not have a candidate at all OR if they did, they did not receive 5% of the vote.
In reality, Washington law probably does need a substantive definition of “political party”, but this could not be added in a bill intended to make non-substantive changes to provide a framework for making substantive changes.
Washington should amend its Constitution to remove the current provisions for filling legislative vacancies. It is inconsistent to have a simple provision for election, “Legislators shall be elected, doh!” and such an elaborate procedure for the relative few instances when a replacement is necessary.
The Montana Constitution says that vacancies are filled by special election, but the legislature may provide for temporary appointment.
The Washington legislature could then get rid of the involvement of party committees in picking replacements. It is inconsistent with Top 2. If I wanted to make an attack on Top 2, it would be to challenge the notion that a candidate is not the nominee of the party, if the party may replace him in certain circumstances.
Since Washington has all-mail elections, it is straightforward to hold a special election. Washington conducts special elections to fill congressional vacancies, and legislative districts are about 20% of the size.
Washington could then eliminate election of party officials in the primary. Perhaps all parties could be required to hold a biennial statewide convention. Attendance at the convention, or preliminary delegate selection conventions would have to be 1000 persons.
Washington could make the August primary a Top 2 primary for president. This would eliminate the need for special procedures beyond naming a Vice Presidential candidate, and a slate of presidential electors.
If Washington wished to be more bold, they could offer to include the popular votes from any other State that holds an August Top 2 presidential primary, as long as the other State(s) did so on a reciprocal basis.
Have a filing fee of $1000 or 100 signatures per presidential elector, so it would be relatively easy to qualify nationwide.