Vermont Bill to Move Independent Petition Deadline from August to May

Fifteen Vermont Representatives, all Democrats, have introduced HB 97, which moves the petition deadline for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties from August to May. The bill passed the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on February 22.

There over thirty court precedents that the petition deadline for non-presidential independents cannot be earlier than the date of the primary. The Vermont primary is in August, so the bill would be unconstitutional if it passes.

The bill also outlaws “sore losers”, and makes it more difficult for an individual to be nominated by write-in votes at the primary. Current law says a write-in winner must receive a number of write-in votes equal to half the number of signatures that would have been needed to gain a place on the primary ballot. The bill doubles the number of write-ins needed.

When the bill was originally introduced, it only raised the write-in requirement, but it was amended in committee to make other restrictive changes. Thanks to the Progressive Party for this news. The Progressive Party is fighting the bill.


Comments

Vermont Bill to Move Independent Petition Deadline from August to May — 6 Comments

  1. SINCE WHEN DO STATE GERRYMANDER HACKS PAY ANY ATTENTION TO USA CONST/LAWS AND COURT OPS ???

    SCOTUS MORONS HAVE MADE THEM ***IMMUNE***

  2. here’s a new case about signature deadlines:

    If you want to submit a petition to initiate a state statute or amend the state constitution in South Dakota, you can’t start collecting signatures more than two years before the election you want to qualify for and you must submit all signatures no less than one year before that same election. A South Dakota ballot question committee challenges these deadlines under the First Amendment. The district court strikes down the deadlines for initiating state statutes but upholds them for the far more grave process of amending a state constitution. Eighth Circuit: Half right. They’re both unconstitutional.
    https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/213195P.pdf

  3. All of this nonsense would be completely beside the point and avoided under my proposal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.