On December 1, the Texas Libertarian Party filed a new lawsuit against the law that requires candidates seeking a convention nomination to pay a filing fee. Bilyeu v Scott, w.d., 1:21cv-1089. The party already has an earlier federal lawsuit pending against the old filing fee law, and it has a lawsuit in state court against the old law as well. The old law was ambiguous and did not make clear whether the filing fee had to be paid by convention nominees, or persons merely seeking a convention nomination. The new law says explicitly even persons seeking a convention nomination must pay the fee. Here is the Complaint.
The Complaint explains how irrational it is to require members of parties that nominate by convention to pay filing fees. Filing fees for parties that nominate by primary are rational; they keep the primary ballots from being too crowded. But that rationale doesn’t relate to parties that nominate by convention.
The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, who already has the older federal ballot access case.
At least the TX LP lawyers seem to be new.
Filing fees —
https://ballotpedia.org/Lubin_v._Panish
1972
The old statute was not ambiguous.
To interpret it ambigously requires one to interpret “is nominated [under the process for nomination]” as “seeking to participate in that process”
As a matter of statutory construction, one can not assume that the author of a bill is a bozo (even if that may be factually true).
The fact that the anount of the filing fee is the same as paid by primary candidates is not relevant. Write-in candidates in a general election pay the same fee and to the same agents as specified in HB 2504.
If the SOS had gone through the formal process of promulgating regulations the error might have been corrected. Instead you have a memo posted to the SOS web site purporting to have the force of law.
It is at least as lawless as certain county clerks interpreting other provisions of the Election Code expansively.
How about an army of law and polisci profs write a *** MODEL ELECTION LAW *** — with various options ???
Various inter-state compacts about stuff – esp biz commerce / contracts.
Being experts, or alleged experts, does not mean they would come up with something better. They may well come up with something worse. Academia comes with its own set of institutional biases.
better or worse than what ???
NOW — monarch/oligarch gangs enacting laws via UNEQUAL ballot access laws and ANTI-DEMOCRACY minority rule gerrymanders
– esp tax/borrow/spend laws for the $$$ benefit of the monarch/oligarch LOOTER gangs —
govt officials / contractors / welfarers / creditors.
Better or worse than status quo, or other groups or individuals arriving at model election laws. The rest of what you said remains true if and when academics come up with model legislation, which the most likely already do. It’s still up to current politicians to introduce, amend, and pass any proposals. There’s no guarantee that a plan advanced by academics would make those other things better rather than worse even if it did pass.