Earlier this year, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 2079, which makes it more difficult for a party to remain on the ballot. The old law said that a party was a group that had polled 5% for a statewide race at either of the last two elections. The new law says it is a group that polled 5% for a statewide race at the last election. The bill passed unanimously and was signed into law on April 28, 2016.
The motive for the bill was the Green Party win in the Sixth Circuit of July 2, 2015. The old law said a group that successfully petitioned for party status was then entitled to be on the ballot for one election. The Sixth Circuit had ruled that the law was discriminatory. A new party that successfully petitioned only got one election, but an old party had two elections to meet the vote test.
The flaw in the law could have been fixed in two ways: either the law could have said that a petitioning group is entitled to two elections; or the law could have deprived old parties of the ability to meet the vote test at either of the last two elections. The legislature chose the restrictive solution instead of the liberalizing solution.
States that allow a party to meet the vote test at either of the last two elections, instead of just the last election, are Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
1. Every election is NEW.
2. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area.
Armies of MORON lawyers and even worse judges in ballot access cases since 1968 — a mere 46 years ago.
What is a reasonable equal test for ballot access?
1/10 of 1% of the previous gubernatorial vote in the area of the district AND/OR a fee equal to that number divided by 6 X minimum wage for the state. Signatures may mix and match with fees.
For statewide office in Tennessee this would be 1354 signatures and/or $1636
For US Representative (average) 151 signatures and/or $182
For State Senator (average) 42 signatures and/or $50
For State Representative (average) 14 signatures and/or $17.
Top 2 eliminates partisan nominations and segregated partisan primaries so there is really no need for a high qualification standard for parties. A state might require a showing that a party actually exists.
Perhaps 1/100 of 1% of gubernatorial vote of affiliated members, a set of rules/bylaws, responsible officers, financial reporting, officers responsible to members (ie republican form of governance), and some level of activity such as a biennial state convention.
So in Tennessee this would be 136 members (Tennessee does not have party registration), a filed set of rules/bylaws, an executive body including a chairman and treasurer, annual financial reports (more frequently based on $$$ and election activity), election of executive bodies, and a biennial state convention (perhaps 14 persons to be quorate).
ONLY equal nominating petitions for the same office in the same area.
The robot party hacks will fill the ballots with same name candidates if fees are allowed.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The most reasonable test for a party to get or stay on the ballot, for states that have registration by party, is to use registration data. However 20 states don’t have registration by party, so for them that is not an option. For states without registration by party, a vote test of 1% for any statewide race seems to work well in states that use it, such as Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Wisconsin.
The most reasonable test for a party to get or stay on the ballot, for states that have registration by party, is to use registration data. However 20 states don’t have registration by party, so for them that is not an option. For states without registration by party, a vote test of 1% for any statewide race seems to work well in states that use it, such as Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Wisconsin. Actually Michigan is even easier; the 1% is 1% of the winner’s vote, not the total vote.
It is not reasonable for any candidate to have preferential access to the ballot based on who the candidate associates with. Therefore there is no reasonable standard by which a candidate should be placed on the ballot based on his party affiliation.