On September 2, Kanye West submitted 57,892 signatures to be on the Arizona ballot as an independent presidential candidate. The requirement is 37,769. The deadline is September 4, so for this petition, he did not wait until the last day to file. See this story.
The story says the requirement is 39,039. That is an error. The requirement is 3% of the number of registered voters as of March 1, 2020. The author of the story seems to think it is 3% of the current number.
According to https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/State_Voter_Reigstration_2020_Primary.pdf, there are 3,989,214 registered voters in Arizona. 3% of that number is 119,676, so by your interpretation, Richard, he didn’t even submit half.
Can Kanye file supplemental signatures tomorrow?
My guess is from reports I have heard, that he will not have enough valid signatures out of the 57,892 signatures in order to survive the state’s validity check, so he ought to submit more tomorrow if the law permits it.
@Jeff, it’s 3% of all voters “not affiliated with a qualified political party” according to:
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Arizona
aka, 3% of independents
@Andy, dunno if he can submit more but agree that 58k may not be enough. But his claimed out of pocket budget was for $500k @ $8/valid signature + bonuses, so it may be a way for cutting off his out of pocket expense from canvas’ers going bonkers.
OK, thanks for the clarification. As of August 4, there were 1,273,215 registered “Other” voters of which 3% is 38,197. That is almost halfway between a March 1 requirement of 37,769 and an erroneous current calculation of 39,039. Makes sense now.
I didn’t really consider that the signatures themselves may not be drawn from those otherwise registered to a “qualified party”. That seems like it would be a really tough haul collecting signatures from just that segment of the population. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
I think the applicable AZ code section can be found here:
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00321.htm
F. For the purposes of this article, “qualified signer” means any of the following:
1. A qualified elector who is a registered member of the party from which the candidate is seeking nomination.
2. A qualified elector who is a registered member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804.
3. A qualified elector who is registered as independent or no party preferred.
Justin, in 1999 a U.S. District Court struck down the old Arizona law that said only independents could sign for an independent candidate. Campbell v Hull. So now any registered voter can sign. Ironically Campbell v Hull was a Green Party case, when Greens tried to get Ralph Nader on the ballot as an independent in 1996. Although he didn’t get on in 1996, the lawsuit got the law improved.
Q: Does anybody happen to know the list of qualified parties vs unqualified parties wrt AZ 16-804 (eg, are Libertarian or Green 16-804 qualified)?
Not obvious to find the list via google….
Oh, thanks Richard, sorry my last msg crossed paths with you. Interesting that it’s still on the books….
What the heck, this is so confusing. Campbell v Hull applied to the requirement in AZ 16-341(C) which enjoined it from enforcing. The requirement was indeed subsequently removed. But then at some point it seems like the requirement is back in 16-321(F). Looking at Justia law shows 16-321(F) didn’t exist in 2005 but there it is added in by 2019. Haven’t looked through to see when it appeared yet. That and I’m not a lawyer so who knows whether I’m not on some wild goose chase. Apologies to any and all if that’s the case.
Fwiw, AZ 16-321(F) pops up for the first time in 2015. Delighted to hear clarification from the better informed.
Not like it matters; given his track record, most of those signatures will be amateurishly fraudulent, and not because of membership or non-membership in political parties.
Looks like the the whole issue may be moot. Looking for official confirmation.
Maricopa County judge rules the Kanye is not eligible as an independent.
https://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2020/09/breaking-kanye-west-will-not-appear-on.html
Brian, the signatures were collected by a professional firm headed by Edee Baggett. She is very experienced and has been in the business for decades.
Justin, 16-321(F) does not say only independent voters can sign for an independent candidate. The words “means any of the following” preceding the three types of voters makes this clear.
Hi Richard. Thank you for your reply, but I’m afraid that I don’t follow you. 16-321(D) says that a petition circulator shall verify that “in his belief” … “that each signer is a qualified signer.”
16-321(F) defines a “qualified signer” as being any one of three categories:
1) A member of the party seeking nomination (in Kanye’s case that’s the Birthday Party) OR
2) A qualified elector no longer entitled to representation pursuant to 16-804 (ie, a party NOT receiving 5% of the vote in the past election) OR
3) A qualified elector registered as independent or no party preferred.
Which of these 3 categories do you believe would allow a registered major party elector to sign? I don’t see a path to eligibility, but it’s entirely possible (probable even) that I’m just slow.
All three categories can sign for an independent.
Yes, any of the 3 categories definitely can sign for an independent. We agree unequivocally.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans fit into any of those three categories, so they are not “qualified signers”.
No?
It feels like we are talking past each other I’m clearly either missing something in this discussion or am not communicating well and I apologize for that.
One more thought: is it possible that you are thinking that the code is merely making clear that these 3 categories are eligible to be “qualified signers” just in case the reader was under the impression that they weren’t and then there is this whole other group of people that belong to major parties that also are actually “qualified signers” but don’t need to be explicitly defined because, I dunno, it’s just obvious that they are qualified signers?
I ask because in my opinion 16-321(F) defines exactly who are the “qualified signers” and if they ain’t in that list then they ain’t qualified.
Is it possible that this is where I am missing what you are communicating?
Richard, judging from comments in other threads and from news reports, it seems Mr. West lied about why he was seeking those signatures (there are claims that the signatures were sought for an initiative to legalize marijuana). Was Ms. Baggett in on the scam or being used? She might want to ask some questions of Mr. West. So might her lawyers.
Edee Baggett is the head of the professional petitioning company who got the Kanye West signatures. She has been in the business for decades. She does not want her workers to lie, and the fact that some witnesses noted some petitioners were lying doesn’t really show that most of the petitioners were lying. Furthermore most individuals will not sign a petition until they take a quick look to see what it is they are being asked to sign. I have petitioned myself and the typical person looks at the sheet before deciding whether to sign or not.
Edee Baggett is not working direct for the Kanye West campaign. Her company is subcontracting through another petition company.
Some of the petitioners likely did lie/misrepresent the petition, but I do not believe that Edee, or the petition company with whom she was subcontracting, or Kanye West, or any of his campaign staff, instructed any petition circulators to lie, or misrepresent the petition, nor do I believe that all of the petition circulators did this, but there were almost certainly some “bad apples” out there who engaged in such behavior.
My experience is that only one in ten signers look at the text of the petition. Most trust what i say or just sign to be friendly/helpful. But signatures are valid regardless, just as they would be if it was a cell phone contract that they signed.
You know those pot voters: someone says “this candidate will help legalize cannabis”, and they hear “this will make it legal to blow smoke in candidate’s faces”. Of course Dems will come up with stories of signers lied to, but look see if there is any sworn testimony that shows a pattern of this behavior. Papers will print whatever is said without any independent verification.
Yes, sometimes people make up stories about petition circulators lying, but on the flip side, some petition circulators really do lie. I have seen it happen (that is intentional lying/deception).
I know people who were on the ground working the Kanye petition in AZ, and they told me that some of the other petition circulators engaged in misrepresentation/deception.