On September 30, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2351, which makes it easier for a group to qualify as a party in California, and also makes it easier for an already-existing party to remain ballot-qualified. The old law required an already-existing party to either poll 2% for any statewide in a general election, or to have 103,004 registrants (1% of the November 2010 turnout). The old law required a new party to obtain either 103,004 registrants, or submit a petition signed by 1,030,040 valid signatures.
The new law requires an old party or a new party alike to have about 60,000 registrants. Also, an old party can remain ballot-qualified if one of its members polls 2% for any statewide race in a midterm year, in the primary. The new registration requirement is exactly .33% of the total state registration. Currently the state has 17,634,876 voters, so currently .33% is 58,195.
California is the only state that eased the definition of “party” during 2014. During 2013, the only state that did so was Maine, which changed from requiring a petition of 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to having 5,000 registered members. Before that, the last time a state eased ballot access for new parties and independent candidates, relative to the amount of support required, was in 2009, when West Virginia lowered the petitions from 2% of the last vote cast, to 1%.
As a result of the new law, the two states that require support from the greatest number of supporters to get on the ballot are North Carolina (89,366 signatures) and Oklahoma (66,744).
Fantastic news – so the Greens, Libertarians and Peace and Freedom Party are all safe through 2018 at least?
While this is great news, there is more work to be done. Under current law a candidate for statewide office needs to pay a high filing fee or gather 10,000 signatures in lieu of filing fees. For a two and a half month campaign this is excessive and we need a bill to lower that amount to a reasonable number, say 1,000 signatures. It does little good to have a party if you can’t get your candidates on the ballot. The Top Two primary or Only Two general election has lead to a 70% drop in the number of candidates from the alternative parties in California.
Yes.
Americans Elect didn’t poll as much as 2% in the June 2014 primary for its only candidate (Lieutenant Governor), so it will go off.
You folks in California are so fortunate. But still, there are some parties like the AIP that just takes this blessing for granted. We in Alabama would love to have the option of signatures or party membership to get on, and the obtaining of only 2% of the vote in the general election for a statewide candidate.
But Alabama’s deliberate harsh election laws, while requiring only 3% of the voters on a petition to get on, require a whopping 20% of the vote to retain ballot position for the next election cycle. (Of course, presidential candidate can use the option of obtaining the 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot, but are tagged as an Independent candidate on the ballot- even though they may be the nominee of a 3rd party.
Shame on the Alabama Legislature for their not caring. And with the exception of a handful of them, they don’t care, and sleep well as night without any conscience of depriving what should be a fundamental right.
That’s great news. Now a free speech word can be included on the ballot by your name when you’re as small as 60,000 people!
Another distraction from the nonstop ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders in CA and all other States in the USA.
CA – the totally rigged system due to the CA gerrymander commission and the top 2 primary.
How many voters read what the minor parties have to say in the CA voters guides ???
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep:
“How many voters read what the minor parties have to say in the CA voters guides ???”
A good question. But any 3rd party in order to grow must have a base and build on it. I have to give acknowledgement to the fact the Libertarian Party has grown. Since 1972, they have worked to build a base. Unfortunately, as I’ve commented before, I think many Republicans are becoming libertarian, thereby cancelling any future growth by the Libertarian Party. I could be wrong.
The Constitution Party is not growing – at least as I see it. If the Republican party does become libertarian, then there is a chance the CP might start to grow.
Again, time will tell.
It is more difficult to get people to register to vote under a new and/or unqualified party banner, than it is to get them to sign a petition for a new and/or unqualified party.
This new law is an improvement over the previous law, but getting 58,195 people to register to vote under a new and/or unqualified party banner is not easy by a long shot.
They should also have petition signature requirement that new and/or unqualified could use to gain party status in California. Why did they not include a petition requirement in this bill?
Under the Top 2 Open Primary, there is no rational or constitutional reason to have more than a minimal number of registrants (perhaps 100) to ensure that a party is indeed a political party.
New parties could qualify based on a petition, with the party registration of the voters changing if the petition is successful.
This new law requiring only about 60,000 members should keep the American Independent Party qualified for the California ballot for the indefinite future.
The problem is getting that party to offer any statewide candidates. But in fairness, is the qualifying fee fairly steep for a party to qualify a candidate in the “Top Two” Primary?
Louisiana has a “Top Two Primary, but I think the qualifying fee is only $500 – a very reasonable fee if one is serious in running for the office.
The filing fee is based on the salary of the office. For statewide candidates, it is not really unreasonable given the size of the state.
It is fairly high for congressional and legislators because they are paid a lot. It can be expensive for local officials as well.
It really does not make sense to base it on the salary – it’s not like any one is really going to run for the legislature because they aren’t getting paid very well in their current job.
Jim Riley:
“The filing fee is based on the salary of the office.”
Are you referring to Louisiana or California?
Speaking of Oklahoma, isn’t the filing fee for Independents just a minimal? Seems like I remember learning that about Oklahoma, despite the signature requirement for a party the 2nd highest in the nation.
Alabama must rank about 3rd or 4th. I believe I read that even the state only requires 3%, that can range to around 40,000 signatures to account for invalid signatures.
Let me reword my last comment about Alabama.
“Alabama must rank about 3rd or 4th for a 3rd party. I read that even though the state only requires 3% for a 3rd party to obtain ballot position, to be certain the party has enough signatures, it can range around 40,000 signatures to account for any invalid signatures.”
California.
For governor it is 2% of salary ($3500).
For US Rep 1% ($1749.).
For legislature ($952).
The petition requirements are fairly high (10,000 for statewide, 3,000 for state senator or US Congress, 1,500 for Assembly). California does permit a mixture of fee and petition signatures.
If I were King, I would base the number of signatures on 0.1% of gubernatorial turnout (10,095 for statewide; about 190 for US Rep; about 252 for state senate; and about 126 for Assembly). The fee would be based on signatures*(10 minutes/60 minutes per hour)*minimum wage($9):
$15,143 for statewide.
About $286 for US Rep.
About $379 for state senate.
About $285 for Assembly.
So it would cost the same to run a candidate in every district statewide, as it would to run a statewide candidate statewide.
Washington the filing fee is 1% of the annual salary. $1740 for US Reps, $421 for legislators. The in lieu of petition is equal to the dollar amount (eg for legislature, 421 signatures). There are no statewide offices on the ballot this year, but I’d guess they are in the $1000 to $1500 range.
Louisiana has specific fees for each office. For governor $750, ranging down from there for other statewide offices. For US Rep $600, for state senator $300, for state rep $225. There are specific petitions for each office.
Jim: Thanks for clarifying the state and giving the dollar amount of the qualifying of both states. $3,500. is not bad in California if the party and candidate are serious about the election. California has 5 or 6 times as many people as Louisiana. So one would think a 3rd party in California could muster 5 or 6 times the membership as a 3rd party in Louisiana.
But I would disagree on your theory of what Mr. King ought to do about having $15,143 statewide, unless you mean such a sum would cover ballot position for all candidates of a 3rd party.
I trust this is what you meant.
I went back and checked some of Richard’s earlier posts. It took 44,829 valid signatures to get on Alabama’s 2014 General Election Ballot either as 3rd party or Independent for a statewide office. No 3rd party or Independent made it for a statewide office.
Which means, a 3rd party or Independent would have to gather at least 55,000 signatures or more just to take care of those signatures thrown out.
I still have not given up on a more fairer election law being passed by the Alabama Legislature for 3rd parties and Independent, though I know the prospect looks bleak.