On Saturday, October 11, David Patterson, the Libertarian nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, lost his lawsuit to gain entry into a debate sponsored by Kentucky Educational Television, which is a state agency. U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the government may sponsor candidate debates limited to candidates “with a realistic chance of winning”. The decision is Libertarian National Committee v Holiday, e.d., 3:14cv-63.
The decision is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court precedent Arkansas Educational Television v Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998), which said that when government sponsors a candidate debate, it may not exclude candidates with a bona fide campaign. The Forbes case involved a candidate who “generated no appreciable public interest…the voters lacked interest in his candidacy…he had little, if any, financial support, failing to report campaign finances to the FEC…there was no campaign headquarters other than his house.” Patterson’s campaign has been far more vigorous than the Forbes campaign, and Patterson has been at 5% in recent polls.
Judge Van Tatenhove said that as long as there is no evidence that the government failed to invite a candidate because of his or her political views, then it is constitutional to exclude that candidate. He said, “Voters may actually benefit by a forum or debate that includes only those candidates that have a realistic chance of winning rather than many voices competing for very limited time.” This sentence is deceptive, because there are only three candidates on the ballot in the U.S. Senate election this year, not “many voices.” The decision also says, “Kentuckians will have the benefit of hearing the views of the two major candidates. And, no doubt, the positions of less-established candidates will also be heard this election season, albeit without the mandate of a government-funded forum. Nothing about this circumstance weakens the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
Early in the year, Kentucky Educational TV said a candidate would be invited if he or she met any one of these four conditions: (1) had made pubilc position statements on political issues; (2) maintained an active website; (3) had raised at least $10,000; (4) received 5% in a poll. Later in the year, the criteria were changed to require that a candidate must have raised at least $100,000 and must be at 10% in a poll.
It may be that it is socially useful for debates to be held that only include the two candidates with a chance to win, but if so, private organizations can host such debates. It is not the function of government to host debates that exclude any candidate with a significant campaign.
In many states where one party dominates, you’d never have debates since the other party wouldn’t have a realistic chance of winning. Republicans have a hard time winning in Mass for example or incumbents who only face ballot line candidates with on organization.
Yes, that’s also true for states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah, where Democrats for statewide office never win anymore.
And I also think that many candidates have no chance of winning mainly because they are excluded from the debates. And they are then excluded from the debates because they have no chance of winning. Repeat ad infinitum. In 1992, Ross Perot shot up to first place in the polls after they let him in the presidential debates. If he hadn’t dropped out and dropped back in, thus hurting his poll numbers, he may very well have won.
I said all along that if Gary Johnson was let into the presidential debates in 2012, he would have a very good chance of winning, but if that didn’t happen, he had no chance whatsoever. For statewide office, the effect may be less pronounced, but on the other hand, it’s somewhat rarer that you get a third-party candidate for state office with as much experience as Johnson or as much money as Perot.
At the very least, including third party candidates in state-wide debates could, depending on the state, help them get easier or automatic ballot access for local races, which are completely winnable for third parties if they campaign right. I’ve said that here in New York, my goal is for the Libertarian candidate to get 50,000 votes for governor, thus getting us “major party” status and allowing us to more easily make a difference in local government.
I agree with you, although concerning Ross Perot, he only lead in the polls in June 1992. The 3 debates were all in October 1992. Perot re-entered the race on October 1, and he was at 7% when he did that. But because he was in the 3 debates and he did well, he received 19% of the vote. So definitely being in the debates helped him hugely.
I used to tell my history students, if Ross Perot had (1) listened to his initial advisors (Ed Rollins and Hamilton Jordan)who were experts in managing a campaign,(2)had not dropped out of the race, then re-entered thereby losing credibility with the voters, and (3) had selected a better vice-presidential running mate (nothing personal against Admiral Stockdale), he could have became the 1st Independent to win the Presidency of the United States.
Still, to obtain 19% of the popular vote, was quite a feat, despite the three (3) major blunders Perot made. I doubt in my lifetime a Independent will ever have as good a chance to win as Perot did in 1992.
How sad to reflect on such a lost opportunity.
Ross Perot wasn’t an independent, since he ran as the Reform Party nominee (same party that later nominated Jesse Ventura and Pat Buchanan)- but George Washington was an independent, and is usually credited as the only President to have won election as such. Also, John Tyler for most of his term was a true independent, after being expelled from the Whigs (on which ticket he was initially elected Vice-President).
Perot would have been the first president from a party that has not previously held the White House since 1860, or the first non-D/R to hold the office since Fillmore won in 1850 as the last Whig.
Here’s an interesting question – how do you handle candidates who are on the ballot but are running a joke/satire campaign? The New York gubernatorial debate in 2010 included Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is Too Damn High Party, and his theatrics really distracted from the other candidates in the debate, including four serious third-party candidates. The Libertarian candidate Warren Redlich came close to getting the 50,000 votes needed for major party status, and he said that if not for McMillan proving to be a distraction during the debate, he would have gotten that. Redlich was probably the best candidate at that debate, but all most people remember is “THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!!!!!”