On October 18, the Texas Secretary of State filed this brief in Miller v Hughs, the ballot access case filed earlier this year by several minor parties. This brief concerns the Secretary of State’s new rules on filing fees for individuals who want to seek the nomination of a party that nominates by convention (the Libertarian Party and the Green Party currently, plus any new party that could conceivably qualify next year). Thanks to Jim Riley for the news about the brief and Oliver Hall for the link.
14-1 EQUAL ballot access test(s) for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the same office in the same election area.
Difficult ONLY for MORON so-called lawyers and much worse so-called judges ???
19 Oct 1781-
Joint USA-France VICTORY over Brits at Yorktown, VA
— a LONG 6.5 years of WAR since 19 Apr 1775 – Battles of Lexington and Concord.
Armistice happens >>> 1783 USA-Brit Peace Treaty – ratified by USA Art Confed Congress in Jan 1784.
The Brit TYRANT KG III goes even more insane NUTS.
Stage set for destruction of monarch/oligarch regimes in Europe and rest of the world — still ongoing process.
That actually addresses not a single word of the plaintiffs, including not addressing the clear language of “general election” … candidates. Wow.
And, its use of words like “flout” is arrogant.
I have updated my original blog post about the suit: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/07/third-parties-sue-texas-over-hb-2504.html
The brief actually claims that the state interest is having its laws enforced. It has nothing to do with modicum of support or ballot crowding. It is about enforcing the law.
The plaintiffs could not have claimed a due process violation because they did not not know the SOS would misinterpret the words of the actual statute. They had to make up a fictional person to sue because the SOS office was headless.
Always a statist *interest* to enforce UNEQUAL statist *laws* — for 6,000 plus years.
Texas – one more ANTI-Democracy gerrymander oligarch regime – with lurking wannabee monarchs under rocks and in $$$ oil wells.
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP
how do you judge fees?
Explain how a write-in ballot can be “crowded” with too many candidates. It might seem crowded with too many offices to fill, but how can the state have have an interest in preventing too many voters having too many preferences?
Oh, if those preferences are not for a Democratic or Republican candidate. Yeah, right!
EQUAL fees = alternative to EQUAL nom pets
Fee = X $ x min Nom pet sigs
— SCOTUS op circa 1974
In Texas, candidates pay a filing fee to appear on a primary ballot. In Texas, primaries are conducted by the individual parties (at least in theory). You literally go to a different location to vote in a Democratic or Republican primary, in different buildings, or at least separate rooms. At one time primaries were paid for by filing fees and donations. Filing fees for certain offices were fixed in statute, which meant others became exorbitant. ‘Carter v Bullock’ outlawed such fees. As a result, the state of Texas began subsidizing the cost of primaries.
The primaries are still run by the parties. Candidates file with a party chair and write a check to their respective party. After the primary and any runoffs are completed and canvassed, the party chairs certify the party nominees to the SOS and county election officials. The party chairs document their expenses, deducting the filing fees, and the SOS writes them a check. The primary is for the benefit of the party, and much of the expenses are for party members. Election workers are likely to be party members, and may donate their wages to party candidates. County chairs are also paid for administering the primaries.
Nominations by convention are similar, except that there are no state subsidies. Conventions are conducted by the party in accord with state law. Candidates apply with party chairs to be considered for nomination. There is no filing fee, with conventions funded by contributions (and frugal spending). Instead of going to the Republican or Democratic polling place, voters go to a Libertarian or Green precinct convention where they choose delegates to subsequent conventions (county, district, state) where the nominations are actually made. The delegates choose a nominee from among the candidates who made an application for being nominated. Only after the nomination is made, do they inform the SOS or local official who was nominated.
New parties nominate in the same manner. They qualify based on attendance at their precinct conventions, supplemented if necessary by petition.
Until the parties inform the SOS who they have nominated, she has no more definitive knowledge than the general public. Unofficial election results are posted on the SOS website by the political parties.
The filing fee is assessed in December the year before the election. But overseas ballots are sent in January. The fee in part is used to pay for paper and ink for those ballots.
To be continued …
HB 2504 passed this year imposed a filing on a “candidate who is nominated by convention” to be placed on the general election ballot. It left implementation details up to the SOS. The law did not go into effect until September 1st, just two months before the filing deadline. It was not until after the lawsuit was filed that the SOS issued updated instructions and new forms for convention parties (the lawsuit largely concerns the procedures in place prior to HB 2504).
The new regulations require a person who applies “to be considered for nomination by a convention” (TEC 181.031) to pay a filing fee (or in lieu of petition) at the time they make the application.
A person who makes an application for consideration might not be nominated, and in any event the nomination would not take place until 3 or 4 months later.
The party might nominate a different applicant. The Libertarians had contested nominations for senator and governor in 2018. The convention might choose not to nominate anyone. In the past, the ex-mistress of a Democratic senator used to file in an apparent attempt to embarass the senator. One time the Libertarians nominated this sole applicant, another time, no delegate chose to put this person before the convention. The convention might not be held. Or perhaps the party won’t qualify. In 2018, there were applicants for consideration for nomination by the Green Party. I don’t know whether the Green Party nominated them or not, but the party did not qualify.
While the SOS might have the authority to regulate the fee for a certain class of persons, they do not have the authority to expand that class of persons.
It would be like requiring people who register on a dating website indicating that they are seeking a spouse to pay for a marriage license because they might be married in the future as a consequence of signing up.
Even if the statute read as the SOS reads it, there would be a whole slew of equal protection and due process viloations.