On November 15, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) introduced SJR 41, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to provide for a direct popular vote for President. Here is the text. It allows Congress to write ballot access laws for presidential candidates in the general election. It allows all adult U.S. citizens to vote for President, even if they reside in a U.S. territorial possession.
Here is an editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, endorsing the bill.
This may actually make it easier for minor parties since they would only have to deal with one bullshit set of arbitrary ballot access laws instead of 51 different sets.
Of course, a rule can be easy to understand but hard to accomplish — not to mention unfair. To whip up a quick example:
(1) The two parties with the most members in each state’s legislature qualify their Presidential tickets automatically for the ballot in all elections until that state’s next general legislative election.
(2) All other candidates may qualify for the ballot of a state only if they submit petitions with the valid signatures of at least ten per cent of the voting-age population of that state.
The only benefit from this would be that candidates don’t have to file electors. They would still have to deal with the petitioning.
Bills for a federal ballot access petition requirement for the whole country were introduced in nine separate seesions of Congress. The first was introduced in 1985 by John Conyers. Later it was introduced by Tim Penny (D-Minnesota). Then Ron Paul introduced it in several sessions of congress. The standard was a petition of one-tenth of 1% of the last vote cast for the office. It applied to all federal office, except the last bill only related to US House.
As I read that proposed amendment, it looks like it would give Congress the right to decide the qualifications for appearing on the presidential ballot. So I don’t see anything that would prevent Congress from deciding that only two candidates could appear.
If multiple candidates do appear on the ballot, it looks like it’s up to Congress to determine, by statute, how the winner is determined. I can see all sorts of potential for manipulation. For example, let’s say that the candidate of the party in Congress that is in the minority is the leading candidate in opinion polls, and there is a third candidate in the race. Projections show that this candidate will have a plurality but not a majority. If the statute says plurality winner, that Congressional majority could amend that statute to require a majority winner, and if there is no majority, some default procedure (maybe the House decides). So there is plenty of potential for Congress to manipulate this.
One more MORON proposed Amdt.
The definition of Elector is NOT the same in ALL States, DC and the occupied areas — the usual suspect regimes will be having the usual suspect added group of Electors — even foreign folks in some regimes.
Time, place and manner includes ballot access and results.
NO mention of *uniform* Congress laws for ALL of the U.S.A.
Adding more unnecessary words means only more stuff for the SCOTUS hacks to mystify and corrupt.
Too many MORONS in the gerrymander Congress to count — who could not write a proper const amdt to save their moron brains.
—-
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA —
Sec. 1. Each Citizen of the United States who is 18 or more years old and who has registered to vote in his or her precinct of residence shall be an Elector in all elections of all governments within the United States containing such precinct.
Sec. 2. Section 1 shall not apply to persons who have been declared mentally incompetent in a court of law or who have been convicted of a crime having a punishment, in whole or part, of 2 years in jail and will be in jail on election days.
Sec. 3. The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be jointly elected by the Electors for 4 year terms in nonpartisan elections.
Sec. 4. Other executive officers and justices/judges of the United States may be elected for 4 and 8 year terms respectively in nonpartisan elections — or specified officers (U.S. Attorney General, Marshals, District Attorneys and justices/judges) SHALL be elected.
Sec. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this amendment by laws uniform throughout the United States.
Sec. 6. [list of ALL of the current language to be repealed — to NOT have SCOTUS HACKS mess around].
Ballot access can of course be added in an amdt (i.e. petition signatures to get names directly on general election ballots) — along with specified election days — i.e. to END more of the ANTI-Democracy stuff and fatal loopholes in the 1787 USA Const. – i.e. more election requirements the better – to NOT have the Congress and SCOTUS HACKS manipulate election laws.
——–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
TomP, such a law would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, according to many U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If the U.S. constitution didn’t prevent congress from dictating that only two candidates appear on the November presidential ballot, then that same constitution would not prevent the states from doing that also. But the US Supreme Court has said over and over that states can’t do that.
The problem with the proposed amendment is that it would invite wholesale intervention by Congress in the presidential election process, which would likely carry over into other federal elections, and state elections as well.
While Congress has similar authority with respect to congressional elections, they have largely resisted using it other than to require elections on a certain date, election from districts, and certain campaign finance restrictions. The likely reason is that New York congressmen would vote against any proposal that would say that they should be elected like in California, and Texas congressmen wouldn’t like to be told that they should be elected like in New York.
But in a single nationwide election, there would be all kinds of efforts to standardize and homogenize elections.
There is no reason to have a joint ticket for President and Vice President. The amendment should also provide for election of judges, and term limits for Congress.
BEFORE READING THIS I ALREADY WROTE TO MANY PEOPLE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU PRESENTED. I ALREADY WROTE TO MY STATE LEGISLATOR.
It will never pass; this legislation was brought forth by a Democratic senator that wants to simply improve the odds for her party, plain and simple.