Arizona Senate Tentatively Passes Bill to Make Primary Ballot Access More Difficult for Libertarians

On March 24, the Arizona Senate tentatively passed HB 2608, which makes it more difficult for Libertarian candidates to get on the Libertarian Party primary ballot.  Current law says a member of a small qualified party that is not a new party needs signatures from one-half of 1% of the party’s members.  The bill says a statewide candidate needs the signatures of one-fourth of 1% of all the registered independents in the state, plus the number of members of that party.  U.S. House and legislative candidates will need one-half of 1% of that base.

The bill has already passed the House.  It has no effect on the Green Party, so far, because the Green Party is considered a new party for both 2016 and 2018, because it petitioned early this year.  Here is a news story about the bill.  Thanks to Rick Hasen and Thomas Jones for this news.

The bill is irrational.  The purpose of ballot access petitions is to keep ballots from being too crowded.  But the Libertarian Party ballot in Arizona is never crowded and virtually never has more than one candidate listed.  Assuming the bill becomes law, a Libertarian running for U.S. Senate in 2016 would need 2,987 signatures of registered Libertarians and/or registered independents.  Under current law, only 139 signatures are needed.  UPDATE:  here is another news story.


Comments

Arizona Senate Tentatively Passes Bill to Make Primary Ballot Access More Difficult for Libertarians — 6 Comments

  1. ALL right/left wing third parties are direct threats to the Elephant/Donkey gerrymander robot party hacks in control of each State regime.

    Divide and conquer stuff from thousands of years ago.

    SCOTUS and ALL of the know-it-all MORON lawyers are nonstop brain dead ignorant about –
    1. Each election is NEW.
    2. Separate is NOT equal in ballot access. Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.
    3. Equal ballot access requirements.
    —-
    NO primaries.
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  2. Someone in the comment section of one of the articles mentioned the fact that had Libertarians not allowed Independents to vote in their primary, this bill would not affect the Libertarian Party. This makes sense.

  3. The approval was on a voice vote in the Committee of the Whole. The only speaker in opposition did not understand the terms used in the bill.

    Currently, statutes are ambiguous about which registered voters are counted for various purposes such as petition signatures.

    An “inactive voter” is not a voter who doesn’t vote, but one who election material have been sent to his address and have been returned. These voters are still eligible to vote AND sign petitions.

    But since there is a strong possibility that they have moved, it has been the practice to not include them in calculating the number of voters needed to sign petitions. The bill just clarifies current practice in that regard.

    Back when Libertarians won the right to close their primaries, the SOS ruled that the excluded independents could not sign Libertarian petitions. The Libertarians then re-opened their primary to increase the pool of petition signers.

    I suspect that if the Libertarians re-closed their primary, they could win a decision to limit petition signers and the calculation of signatures needed on that basis.

  4. “The bill is irrational.” What bills designed to deal with 3rd parties and Independent candidates are rational? Very few bills which become law are favorable overall to 3rd parties and Independent candidates.

    Only until Filing fees – no greater than those required of a major party candidate – are passed in every state, and public financing of all candidates will see the fulfillment of what our Founding Fathers envisioned – a government of, for, and by the people.

  5. Alabama Independent… how did you put the Cross of St. Patrick in your image? It is really cool! (I know it is really a saltire but …)

  6. The Democratic and Republican primary ballots are not crowded either.

    In 2014, the Democrats had 82 legislative candidates for 90 positions, 11 congressional candidates for 9 seats, and 7 candidates for 8 statewide offices. 100 candidates/107 offices = 0.93 per office.

    Republicans had 105 legislative candidates, 14 congressional candidates and 21 statewide candidates. 140/107 = 1.31 per office.

    What is irrational is having partisan nominating primaries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.