On August 25, the Washington Secretary of State issued a press release, saying that four petitions for presidential ballot status are valid: those of the Libertarian, Green, Socialism & Liberation, and Socialist Workers Party.
As reported previously, there is no determination yet about the petitions for the Constitution, American Solidarity, and Alliance Parties, because the Secretary of State is waiting for a state court to tell her if she can count signatures of voters who signed more than one presidential petition.
It’s kind of amazing that the Socialist Workers Party is this (relatively) successful with ballot access when they don’t even have a party website or social media presence. Even the Prohibition Party is more with the times than them.
I am not understanding this. Were the Constitution, American Solidarity, and Alliance Parties working together on their petitions? Are we actually supposed to believe that nobody signed both a Socialism & Liberation and Socialist Workers petition? Quoting Slow Joe, “C’mon, Man!”
We didn’t work together on the ptitions but it turns out we did use the same petition circulators.
Definitely curious about how some of the socialist parties have been relatively successful this year. Are they using a different group of circulators, or lots of volunteers? Electronic signatures were accepted this year, though the process was complicated.
Is there a law in Washington that says a WA voter can only sign a petition for one candidate for each office?
Andy, yes, but it is vague and was written before Washington started using top-two. The law is poorly written and doesn’t say if any signature counts, and if so, the one that was submitted first or the one that was signed first.
It sounds to me like they are at risk of having all of their signatures thrown out.
Out of interest, given that information on SWP’s current ballot access is lax, is there a list somewhere of the states Kennedy’s on the ballot, along with where she has write-in access?
Just curious.
I can’t speak to write-in status, but by my count she is on the ballot in Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington. Six states for 53 electoral votes.
@JB,
The duplicate signers could also have signed petitions for the Libertarian, Green, Socialist Workers, or S&L parties. But any duplicates were not enough to disqualify them.
This is effectively a kamikaze attack whereby the signatures from one party destroy those of another. Or Missile Command. Mutually assured destruction.
Many thanks, Liberty Green, for the response.
Surprised to see Tennessee on that list (I cannot imagine that state would garner them many votes), but more power to them.
We need fair electoral reform. Make ballot access reasonable by making each third party and independent Presidential candidate get a number of signatures in each state equal to 1,000 times the number of electoral votes for that state and include a filing fee in case a candidate filed but didn’t reach the signature threshold. So, let’s say, if the ballot access threshold for a Presidential candidate is 11,000, if a candidate only got 9,000 signatures, it can pay a $2,000 filing fee which would be included as part of the 11,000 threshold.
I oppose the proposed arbitrary thresholds proposed by antiproportionalist do-gooders.
The 538 Electors are a fine goal for any individual and/or political party.
Once us men unite to change strategy then the sky is wide open.
United Coalition USA
http://www.pprelectoralcollege.com