On Sunday, December 1, the New York Campaign Finance Reform Commission released its report on what the law should be regarding public funding of candidates for state office, and for the definition of “political party”, and the number of signatures needed for statewide independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. Here is the report. It says that it is necessary to make ballot access more difficult, because only candidates with a great deal of support should be allowed to receive public funding. It also says that fewer parties on the ballot will make a less confusing ballot. Finally, it says that changing the definition of party to a group that polled 130,000 votes for both president and governor matches “the longstanding policy of this state for centuries.”
The latter claim is historically untrue. The original New York ballot access law, passed in 1890, said that a statewide independent needed 1,000 signatures, and a qualified party was one that had polled 1% of the vote for any statewide race. There was no gubernatorial election in 1890 (back then gubernatorial terms were 3 years, and sometimes gubernatorial elections were in odd years, such as 1891). But there was a statewide election in 1890 for lesser statewide office, so 1% of the 1890 vote would have only been 9,746 votes.
In 1895, the vote test was changed to 10,000 votes for Governor. At the gubernatorial election of 1896, 1,350,422 votes were cast (not counting blank votes), so the new vote test was easier than it had been. Whereas the old law had been 1%, the new percentage at that time was .74%.
In 1918, the vote test was changed to 15,000 votes for Governor, to take into account that women were voting for the first time in 1918, and the electorate was expected to double. At the 1918 gubernatorial election, 2,131,918 votes were cast, so the new percentage worked out to .70%, virtually unchanged.
In 1922, the vote test was raised to 25,000 votes for Governor. The vote cast in November 1922 was 2,531,378, so the new requirement worked out to .99%.
In 1936, the vote test was raised to 50,000 votes for Governor. The vote cast in November 1936 for Governor was 5,552,514, so the new percentage worked out to .90%.
The Commission wants to raise the vote test to 130,000 votes for Governor, or an even higher amount if that works out to something less than 2%. If it works out to less than 2%, then the Commisison vote test would be 2%. In 2018 the gubernatorial vote was 6,097,368, so the new 130,000 requirement would be 2.13%. The new vote test would therefore be greater than 1% for the first time in New York history.
The Commission’s new statewide petition, 45,000 signatures, would also be the highest in New York history, as a percentage of the number of votes cast. The original requirement of 1,000 signatures was .10%. The 1891 requirement of 3,000 signatures was .26%. The 1896 requirement of 6,000 was .42%. The 1918 requirement of 12,000 signatures was .56%. The 1971 requirement for 20,000 signatures was .28%. The 1992 change, which lowered the petition to 15,000, worked out to .22%. Yet the Commission’s 45,000 signatures, as a percentage of the 2018 gubernatorial vote, works out to .74%, the highest in history.
The Report leaves out some very important points. South Carolina has disaggregated fusion, just as New York does, and South Carolina has eight qualified parties, but the South Carolina general election ballot is very clear and easy to read. It is possible for a state to have disaggregated fusion (which means the voter can choose which party label to support, when the voter votes for a fusion candidate), and a large number of parties on the ballot, without having a confusing ballot. New York also has eight qualified parties.
The Report fails to mention that New York is one of only eleven states with no means for a group to become a qualified party in advance of an election. The Report fails to mention that the existing petition deadline for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, is unconstitutionally early, as a result of a bill that passed early in 2019. It is now in May, whereas it had been in August until early 2019. Six states have had their June petition deadlines struck down, so it seems obvious that May is too early. If the Commission is trying to reform New York’s ballot access laws, it is being irresponsible by not correcting existing problems.
The Report fails to mention that the Second Circuit already ruled in 2010 in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 616 F 3d 213, that if a state has public funding, it is constitutional for it to make it far easier for candidates who are nominees of the Republican and Democratic Parties to get that funding, than it is for anyone else. New York is in the Second Circuit.
Campaign finance “reform” has, thus, become a new, covert way to limit ballot access, and, consequently, suppress the choices of voters who care to show up. It thus reveals itself as a more insidious method of voter suppression, all in the hypocritical name of improving democracy.
ONE more HACKS *report* with now routine perversions of history
— FIT ONLY for the political history graveyard/trash pile — NOT to be re-cycled.
The comm had 7 RED donkeys – 2 token Elephants.
“The Second Circuit already ruled in 2010 in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 616 F 3d 213, that if a state has public funding, it is constitutional for it to make it far easier for candidates who are nominees of the Republican and Democratic Parties to get that funding, than it is for anyone else.”
And the Second Circuit is, of course, wrong about that. But there should not be taxpayer funding of elections at all.
Please note that the commission wanted to combine this ridiculous, unfair, and possibly unconstitutional standard which leaves only the Democrat, Republican, and Conservative Parties ballot qualified, with an end to fusion. their plan was to kill off all the left-wing third parties and force the Conservative Party to run candidates against the Republican Party (for its own survival), thus virtually guaranteeing a permanent, unbreakable Democrat majority.
That was the intent here, and do not EVER let them deny it.
The Green Party appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.
Ironically, the final report doesn’t eliminate fusion.
THE SCOTUS HACKS HAVE BEEN D/R STOOGES SINCE 1861 — SHOWS IN ALL PARTISAN CASES.
The US Supreme Court was very friendly to ballot access in the period 1968 through 1970, and also 1976 through 1983, and also in 1990. The US Supreme Court struck down some ballot access law of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois (twice), New York, Ohio (twice), Pennsylvania, and Texas. This happened either with a full opinion, or a summary affirmance. Also it remanded cases from California and Maryland that resulted in good changes in those two states. Also the US Supreme Court struck down all loyalty oaths for candidates and parties in 1974. Every action involving early petition deadlines that the US Supreme Court took has been helpful; those cases were from Arkansas, Maryland, and Ohio. And the US Supreme Court struck down requirements that forced petitioners to be registered voters, and laws that outlawed paying petitioners. Those last two were both cases from Colorado.
When did SCOTUS apply 1954 Brown v Bd of Ed to EQUAL ballot access ???
How many MORON States have a FIXED number for ballot access –ie NOT percentages ???
This AIN’T 1888-1890 – start of official ballots.
ALL the 1968-2019 SCOTUS ballot access cases have failed to be EQUAL regarding ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for partisan offices —
olde/new PARTY = 2 x major/minor PARTY 2
independent 1
2×2 = 4 + 1 = 5 TYPES — WITH POTENTIAL HAIR SPLITTING SUB-TYPES.
ie AD HOC ARBITRARY
The ENTIRE ballot access ROT is akin to the olde ad hoc fractional black/white ROT stuff –
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, etc. black or white — free or slave States.
Problem – 15th Amdt [1870] gives some sort of negative/positive constitutional *status* to *race* and *color* for being a USA/State voter/elector.
—
Uniform POSITIVE definition of USA Elector-Voter —
USA Citizen, 18 Plus years olde —
REPEAL ALL the negative language.
—
Ballot access – only via equal nom pets — akin to 13th Amdt – ONLY free persons in the USA.
demo rep
The first major ballot access case was williams v rhodes. it has a strong defense of third parties under the 14th amendment
EB–
NOOO mention of 1954 Brown v Bd of Ed and EQUAL ballot access in Williams v Rhodes –
thus mere 51 years of ad hoc SCOTUS ballot access cases — esp JUNK *severe* vs not *severe* tests for ballot access.
IE SCOTUS hacks acting as an ARBITRARY super-legislature in ballot access cases like they do in many other legal subject areas.
Keeps RW and BAN busy trying to decipher the SCOTUS JUNK — while totally rotting the brains in the lower Fed courts and all State courts.
The hearing in the WFP/Conservative cases is December 12. The two Republican members of the commission have also filed a cross-complaint.
The report appears to be a rationalization of the party threshold increases.
If we are going to spend all this money we need to make sure voters aren’t confused by too many candidates, and “ensure that political parties whose candidates will draw down on public funds under the public matching program reflect the novel and distinct ideological identity of the electorate of New Yorkers”
What is the magic/occult *too many candidates* number ???
1, 2, 3, 4, etc. ???
WOW just what I was searching for. Came here
by searching for a
Hundreds of accommodation facilities in more than 50 countries provide their services through GuestService! Economic.
Aşk Hatırlamalarla Yaşar, Umutlarla Son Bulur. – Refik Halit Karay
Son dakika dizi haberleriyle ilgili en sevdiğim şey, beklenmedik gelişmeleri öğrenmek. Bir karakterin geri döneceğini duyunca çok mutlu oluyorum!
The bot spam comments make as much sense as demo rep, now known as AZ.