1. Richard, now how does a 3rd party qualify for the ballot, since the bill allowing candidates to pay filing fees has died. I am in favor of filing fees, but I do not think a candidate should be required BOTH a filing fee and a petition or a Convention, to get a position on the General Election Ballot.

2. @Bama: Here in Tejas, if a minor party has at least one candidate get 5 percent of the vote in a statewide general election, the whole party qualifies for ballot-line access in the next general election.

   Greens have had some reason to worry about Democratic “blocks” in the past when they’ve announced early on a candidate for, say, a Texas Supreme Court seat where Democrats have yet to file, so they don’t announce candidates now until official filing deadline day.

   If Democrats would just worry about getting better Democratic candidates …

3. Texas, before 1967, let any party on the general election ballot with no petition. It would hold a nominating convention and certify the names of the candidates to election officials.

   In 1967 the legislature added a petition requirement, of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, which is a lot of signatures. If it submits the petition, then it is on the ballot. The Libertarians generally get enough votes to stay on, and they always nominate by convention. In Texas, only primary candidates (meaning only Dems and Reps) pay filing fees. Originally the filing fees were paid to the parties and the parties had to administer the primary election.

4. Richard, You are confused by the procedure. It is ordinary for a bill to remain pending at the end of a committee hearing. This just leaves it in suspense, so that they can go to another bill.

   Typically, bill are reported out the week after they are heard. This gives the author the chance to make changes or address concerns of committee members. It is unlikely for a bill to be brought up without the support to report it favorably. If it doesn’t have the support, it will simply remain pending for the rest of the session.

   Sometimes, bills are reported quite late in the session, such that they are likely to miss deadlines. You don’t have to kill the bill to have it die. There may also be an attempt to add provisions of a bill to another bill. Texas does have tougher germane-ness standards than most states. It would have to be election bill, to add election provisions. This is known as a Christmas tree bill, as all the various provisions are hung on it as if ornaments or tinsel. But if the bill was not reported by committee, there will be concern that the provisions had not been properly vetted.

   At the second meeting of the Elections Committee on March 23, the committee chair was absent because of a family illness, and it was announced that no bills from the first week (march 16) would be reported.

   I don’t know how HB 464 will be reported. Besides being unconstitutional, it is poorly thought out. The representatives of the Libertarian and Green parties explained what was wrong with the bill, but it might not have been in a way that committee members understood. That is, they might have thought, “the Green and Libertarian parties are against this bill, but of course they would be”, when they were really explaining why the bill was unconstitutional.

   Republicans and Democrats don’t like that they have to pay a fee, but their Libertarian or Green opponent don’t. They don’t recognize that the primaries are taxpayer subsidization of their private group activities, and that the filing fee is a tiny vestige of when the filing fees did pay for the primary.

   In the past when similar bills have come up, the Libertarian Party has had the option to have a primary, and got a fiscal note attached (such as cost to State – $15 milllion; Revenues a few $100,000; Unfunded mandate on counties, $Several million. This was quite effective in derailing a bill.

   I don’t know whether a fiscal note is necessary for a bill that imposes a fee. It is sometimes argued that user fees are a hidden tax. The opposing view is that the user is simply paying for the cost of the service.

   But when it comes to elections, a user fee (poll tax) imposed on voters is quite illegal. A user fee (filing fee) for candidates is suspect. A fiscal note that said that a few $100,000 would be raised, but that there would no costs to the state or counties might be useful in a legal challenge.

   If it did show a cost for processing an application, it would be discriminatory, since primary-nominated candidates and petition candidates don’t pay a filing fee, and surely any processing cost for their place on the ballot is similar to that for convention-nominated candidates.

5. Richard,

   The filing fee that accompanies an application for a place on the primary ballot is still paid to the party, and the party still administers the primary election.

6. Looks like we all agree on the way it SHOULD work everywhere in the country:
   1) Parties pay all the costs of administering their own primary elections (if that is the method they choose for nominating their candidates),
   2) Primary filing fees would be paid directly to the party to defray those costs,
   3) No filing fees for candidates nominated by conventions of ballot-qualified parties,
   4) Candidates of non-ballot-qualified parties and independents petition for general election ballot access in lies of paying any filing fees.

   Like the old Beach Boys song, “WOULDN’T IT BE NICE?”

7. in lieu of

8. See the SCOTUS filing fee case circa 1974.

   Mr. Winger can find the cite in the amazing BAN database.

9. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/709/case.html

   Filing fee case — from CA.

   Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974)

   One more MORON SCOTUS ballot access case since 1968 — about 15-20 other illogic UNEQUAL cases.
   —
   ONLY nominating petitions to get SERIOUS candidates.

10. Demo Rep,

    Richard Winger might also cite ‘Bullock v Carter’ (1972) and ‘American Party of Texas v White’ (1974)

    Texas used to require political parties to not only administer their primaries, but to also fund them, which they often did with extraordinary filing fees on candidates. At the time, statute set filing fees for state and legislative offices, but fees for other offices were based on apportioning the cost of the primary to filing fees. This was when elections were quite a bit cheaper, with the big cost printing ballots (typically by Ye Olde Newspaper). The ballot box could be made with wood from Ye Olde Lumber Store. Since the party was administering the election, there would be no reason to pay the Entry Level Party Hacks to act as election judges.

    Because of the decision in ‘Bullock v Carter’ the state started subsidizing the primaries, and also set the filing fee to be on the primary ballot.

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