North Carolina elects all of its state legislators this year. Republicans managed to recruit someone in every district except one, the State House district, 24th district. It is too late for any new candidates to be added to the May primary ballots. So the Republican Party is backing an independent candidate in that district, Ken Fontenot.
Because the ballot access reform last year did not ease the petition requirement for independent candidates for the legislature, Fontenot needs 2,200 valid signatures, due April 23. That deadline, which was made worse by a bill that was signed into law in early 2017, is certainly unconstitutional. In 1980 North Carolina also had an April petition deadline for independent candidates, and it was struck down that year in Greaves v North Carolina State Board of Elections. The legislature then moved it to June, but in 2017, it forgot why it had done that, and moved the deadline back to April. A lawsuit is currently pending against the April deadline for independent candidates. See this story about how hard the Republican Party is working on the Fontenot petition. Thanks to Kevin Hayes for the link.
This wouldn’t be a problem under Top 2.
Recent gerrymander data needed in all districts in a very few States.
—
PR and AppV
In a fully representative North Carolina Assembly of 120 seats elected under pure proportional representation (PPR), the threshold would be .83% (plus one vote) per name, with a guaranteed state-wide voter satisfaction level of 99.6% (plus 120 votes).
The best interests of the State would be served by a truly competitive election, where every name on the ballot has equal access and complete liberty to self-categorize, thereby free to attract votes to their name with the word(s) they choose.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) and self-categorization liberties for more than twenty-three consecutive years and the PPR/liberty to self categorize works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
“This wouldn’t be a problem under Top 2. – Jim Riley
Even less of a problem under Top 1.
@CO, Why do you feel that way?
Top 1 is twice as efficient as Top 2 at eliminating competition on general election day.
Top 2 determines the most competitive candidates and lets voters choose between them on general election day (or in a runoff). North Carolina already uses Top 2 for some offices.
Oh goody, it let’s us choose between two! How generous to take away choices! Puke.
@JS,
North Carolina requires $207 for a candidate to file for a legislature for the primary but requires a large number of signatures for an independent candidates.
As it stands now, voters will be choosing between one Democrat. Under Top 2, it would be easier for independents to get on the ballot. Your pretend choice is not real.
There is no necessary connection between type of primary system, and difficulty of ballot access. When the Arizona initiative for a top-two system was on the ballot in 2012, it called for petitions of one-half of 1% of the registered voters for all candidates to get on the primary ballot for statewide office, and 1% for district office. If that had passed, it would have made it very difficult for candidates to run in the primary.
On the other hand, many non-top-two states have very easy ballot access for all types of candidates. For example, Tennessee only requires 25 signatures for independent candidates for any office (except president is 275) and no filing fee; also 25 signatures for primary candidates, again no filing fee.
At the time of the Top 2 initiative in Arizona, partisan candidates required 1% of their partisan base, so there would not have been much difference. The current independent requirement in Arizona for independent candidates is 3% of the non-partisan voters.
It may be a criminal offense in states with a partisan primary system to vote for the candidates of your choice.
You have never addressed the following question: Should it be legal for someone to contribute to a candidate of a different party (particularly before the primary)? What about displaying a yard sign, or giving verbal support, or recruiting a candidate? If you say it should not be illegal, why not?