MONTANA BALLOT ACCESS SAVED

On April 27, the Montana House State Administration Committee passed SB 565, which vastly increased petition requirements for minor parties and independent candidates. It also made it more difficult for a party to remain on the ballot. But in the evening of the same day, the House defeated the bill 39-60.

The bill had passed the Senate on April 3. It had been tabled in the House committee several times, until it was revived on April 27 on the orders of the House Speaker. National Republican Party leaders had exerted extreme pressure on Montana Republican legislative leaders to pass the bill, because they wanted the Libertarians off the ballot in 2024. The U.S. Senate race is expected to be close, and Republicans perceive that people who vote Libertarian would mostly vote Republican if the Libertarians aren’t on the ballot. But SB 565 would have not only removed the Libertarian Party from the U.S. Senate race, but for all races.

Already Montana has the nation’s most severe petition requirement for non-presidential statewide independent candidates. Current law requires a 2024 independent candidate for office other than president to submit 16,659 signatures. That represents 2.76% of the 2020 presidential vote. The percentage in the next most difficult state is Alabama, where the 2024 requirement, 42,459 signatures, is 1.83% of the 2020 presidential vote.

Currently Montana requires 5,000 signatures for an independent presidential candidate. The bill tripled that to 15,000. The existing Montana presidential independent law is the tenth most difficult in the nation when percentages are compared.

The existing 5,000 signature requirement works out to .83% of the 2020 presidential vote. If the bill had become law, the Montana presidential petition of 15,000 would be 2.49% of the 2020 presidential vote, easily the most difficult in the nation. The second highest presidential percentage is the District of Columbia’s 1.48%, followed by Wyoming’s 1.40%.

The bill made the distribution requirement for the party petition more difficult. Current law was declared unconstitutional last year because the current law violates one person, one vote. It requires signatures from 34 different state house districts, but in some districts the requirement is as many as 150 signatures, but in others it is as low as 55 signatures. The bill increased the number in each state house district to 250 signatures or 5% of the last vote cast, whichever is less.

The Montana Libertarian Party deserves a great deal of credit for defeating the bill on the House floor. The party has some skilled activists who worked non-stop to defeat the bill. The bill would also have injured other minor parties, especially the No Labels Party, the Forward Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party, but only the Green Party helped the Libertarians defeat the bill.

Another Montana bill that would have injured ballot access, SB 566, passed the State Senate on April 4, but didn’t make any additional headway. It would have set up a top-two system in 2024 for just one office, U.S. Senate. All candidates would have run in the June primary, and then only the two highest vote-getters would have been allowed to run in November. The national media publicized this bill, but did not publicize SB 565.

There were attempts to put the provisions of both SB 565 and SB 566 into yet a third bill, HB 774, but that bill didn’t pass either.

On April 4, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed SB 277, the bill to ease ballot access for newly-qualifying parties. It lowers the number of signatures from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote (27,212 signatures) to exactly 10,000. It expands the petitioning period from three months to fourteen months in presidential years, and sixteen months in midterm years. It eases the deadline from four months before the primary, to three weeks before the primary. The primary is in March in presidential years and May in midterm years.

On March 28, the Arizona legislature passed HCR 2033. It puts a constitutional amendment on the November 2024 ballot, asking voters if they wish to protect the ability of qualified political parties to have their nominees placed on the general election ballot. If it passes, then future initiatives for a top-two, top-four, or top-five would not be possible without repealing the provision. Because this is a proposed constitutional amendment, not a bill, it doesn’t need a signature from the Governor.

The bill does not restrict Ranked Choice Voting, even though many news stories have asserted that it does. Another bill, which would have banned RCV, was vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs on April 12.

On April 19, the House passed HF 1830, an omnibus bill that changes the definition of a qualified party from a group that got 5% for a statewide race in either of the last two elections, to 10%, and which goes into effect immediately. However, the Senate omnibus bill, SF 3230, does not contain that provision. There is some indication that the idea of doubling the vote test has lost support.

The rationale for raising the vote test was to eliminate the Legal Marijuana Now Party from the 2024 ballot, but legislators have recently become aware that instead of removing the party from the ballot, they should instead pass a law to give more parties more power over who runs in their primaries. Democrats in the legislature had been upset that some people who run in the Legal Marijuana Now Party primary are insincere and are running only to receive votes that would otherwise go to Democrats.

The new idea is to provide that no one can get on a primary ballot without a certain amount of support from the party. Candidates with no support from the party could still get on a primary ballot, but would need a petition.

If the House bill does get signed into law, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is prepared to file a lawsuit, on the grounds that it violates due process to make it more difficult for a party to remain on the ballot, without giving it a chance to try to meet the new requirement.

On March 31, the Mississippi legislature adjourned, without passing a bill to restore the initiative. This is the second time in which bills to bring back the initiative have failed. Both houses had passed the bill, but the two versions didn’t agree.

Illinois: SB 2306, which would have moved the deadline for primary candidates to file from December of the year before the election to November of the year before the election, failed to advance and is now dead.

Kansas: on March 28, the Senate Federal & State Affairs Committee amended HB 2086, an omnibus election law bill. The Committee deleted the part of the bill requiring declared write-in candidates to pay a filing fee.

Maine: two bills that improve ballot access will be considered in the special session that began on April 5. LD 769 would ease the definition of a qualified party from a group with 5,000 registrants during its first four years but 10,000 registrants afterwards, to simply a group with 5,000 registrants. It has already passed the joint policy committee. LD 1320 would let independent voters sign a petition for a candidate seeking to get on a primary ballot.

Nevada: SB 53, to move the deadline for filing a declaration of candidacy from February to March, failed to advance and cannot pass. The bill even applied to independent candidates.

New Mexico: on March 30, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB 180, the bill that doubles the number of signatures for the nominees of ballot-qualified parties that nominate by convention. The Green Party hopes to bring a lawsuit against the new law.

Oklahoma: on April 26, SB 375 passed the legislature. It moves the non-presidential independent candidate deadline from mid-April to early April. In Oklahoma, independent candidates need not petition; they merely file a declaration of candidacy and pay a filing fee. The bill also moves the non-presidential primary a week earlier, so that in 2024 it will be June 18 instead of June 25.

Texas: on April 27, the Senate passed SB 1705. It requires all qualified parties except new parties to nominate by primary instead of by convention. The bill’s analysis says it would cost the taxpayers $9,000,000 in 2024 to pay for the Libertarian and Green primaries. Both parties would rather continue to nominate by convention.

Connecticut: on April 12, the Joint Committee on Government Administration & Elections passed SB 6908, which moves the presidential primary in 2024 (but not in future years) from the last Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in April. The purpose is to avoid a conflict with Passover.

Hawaii: SB 1005, to create the state’s first presidential primaries, has passed both houses, but it hasn’t passed yet because the versions in each house do not agree with each other.

Idaho: the 2023 session of the legislature appears to have killed the state’s presidential primary. Although it passed a bill moving the primary from March to May, the bill didn’t contain any details about how the presidential primary should be administered. Some legislators are asking that a special session be convened to fix the problem.

Iowa: on April 12, the House Ways & Means Committee passed HF 716, which prohibits parties from letting people vote in their caucuses unless they appear in person. The Democratic Party had been planning to expand participation in its 2024 caucuses, to let people vote by mail. The bill probably would be held unconstitutional if it were passed. The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of association for political parties, and Iowa parties administer and pay for their own caucuses.

Kansas: on April 21, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed HB 2053, which restores presidential primaries. Candidates need either a filing fee of $10,000, or 5,000 signatures, to get on a primary ballot.

Missouri: on April 24, the House defeated HB 267, which would have restored presidential primaries. In 2024, Missouri will be the most populous state without a presidential primary.

New York: has not decided when its presidential primaries will be held. But political observers are predicting that the legislature will pass a bill setting them on April 2. In 2020, the state didn’t hold them until June 23. But in 2016, they were held on April 19.

California: on April 20, the Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 1227. It lets Santa Clara County use Ranked Choice Voting for elections for its own officers. Santa Clara voters already voted in favor of this idea in 1998, and in 2022 the county elections office said it can now handle RCV. But the state must give its approval. Santa Clara County is the most populous county in northern California.

Hawaii: SB 141, to replace "disobedient" presidential electors, has passed both houses, but the two versions don’t agree so the bill still hasn’t passed. That is also true of SB 47, which would change the order of candidates on the ballot from alphabetical (based on surname) to random.

Minnesota: the Senate omnibus bill, SF 3230, provides that the state will join the National Popular Vote Plan. The bill hasn’t passed yet but is considered likely to pass.

Nebraska: LB 776, the bill to end the practice of letting each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector had a hearing on March 2, but it has made no progress and is considered unlikely to pass.

Nevada: on April 17, the Assembly passed AJR 6, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ask voters if they want their state to join the National Popular Vote Plan. Because it is a proposed constitutional amendment, it doesn’t need a gubernatorial signatures.

North Dakota: on April 19, the Senate failed to override the gubernatorial veto of HB 1273. Therefore, Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting are still legal in the state, and Fargo, the state’s largest city, can continue using Approval Voting for elections for its own officers.

North Dakota(2): on April 10, SCR 4013 passed the legislature. It increases the number of signatures for a constitutional initiative from 4% of the population to 5%, and requires that such initiative must pass at both the primary election in June and the general election.

Ohio: on April 19, the Senate passed SJR 2. It says that constitutional initiatives need 60% to pass. A related bill, SB 92, also passed. It says that if SJR 2 passes, the voters will vote on it in August 2024, at a time when no other elections are being held in the state. An initiative to legalize abortion is now circulating in the state, and a majority of legislators want the 60% threshold to be in place before the abortion initiative is voted on. SJR 2 also says that constitutional initiatives need a substantial number of signatures in all 88 counties of the state.

Arizona: on March 30, the Democratic Party sued the Secretary of State to force him to remove the No Labels Party from the ballot. Arizona Democratic Party v No Labels, Superior Court, Maricopa County, cv2023-004832. The lawsuit says the party submitted affidavits from its state leaders too early, and that they should have submitted them when the petition was complete.

California: on March 21, the State Court of Appeals, 4^th district, issued an opinion in Boydston v Padilla, D080921. It upheld the ability of parties to decide for themselves whether to let independents vote in their presidential primaries. The plaintiffs had argued that any independent voter should be able to cast a presidential primary vote, even for a candidate running in a primary of a party that doesn’t let independents vote in its presidential primaries.

Connecticut: on April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2^nd circuit, upheld the petition requirements for candidates seeking to get on a primary ballot. Gottlieb v Lamont, 22-449. The law requires someone without support at a party meeting to get the signatures of 5% of their party’s registered members, in only two weeks, if they are running for the legislature. If they are running for statewide office or U.S. House, they have six weeks to get the signatures of 2% of their party’s members. The decision is not signed, but was before Judges Susan L. Carney (Obama appointee), Robert D. Sack (Clinton appointee), and Joseph Bianco (Trump appointee).

New Jersey: on April 21, two congressional candidates asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case against the law that allows partisan slogans on primary ballots, but restricts their content. The 1944 law says the label, which can be as long as six words, must not mention the name of any living person without his or her permission. Mazo v Way, 22-1033.

New York: on April 6, the Erie County Supreme Court struck down a 2021 law that says write-in candidates in primaries cannot receive valid votes, unless they are members of the party whose primary they are running in. Kowal v Mohr, 801603/2023. The case had been filed by members of the Conservative Party and the Working Families Party.

2024 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY QUALIFICATION DEADLINES

State	Filing Opens	Deadline	Election code	Formula for Deadline
Ala.	party discretion	Nov. 10, 2023	17-13-102	116 days before primary
Az.	Nov. 10, 2023	Dec. 11, 2023	16-242	100 days before primary
Ark.	Oct. 30, 2023	Nov. 6, 2023	7-7-203(c)	7 days after first Monday in November
Cal.	unlimited	Nov. 5, 2023	6340	120 days before primary
Colo.	unlimited	Dec. 10, 2023	1-4-1204	85 days before primary
Ct.	no filing	Feb. 15, 2024	9-466	Sec. of State announces 74 days before primary
Del.	unlimited	Feb. 23, 2024	Title 15, sec. 3184	60 days before primary
D.C.	unlimited	March 6, 2024	B23-0212	90 days before primary
Fla.	no filing	Nov. 30, 2024	103.101	date named in law
Ga.	no filing	Nov. 1, 2023	21-2-193	date named in law
Hawaii	Nov. 9, 2023	Jan. 7, 2024		85 days before primary
Ill.	Nov. 27, 2023	Dec. 4, 2023	10 ILCS 5/7-11	106 days before primary
Ind.	Jan. 2, 2024	Jan. 30, 2020	3-8-3-4, 3-8-2-4	10 days before 88 days before primary
Kansas	unlimited	Jan. 19, 2024	HB 2053	60 days before primary
Ky.	unlimited	Jan. 30, 2024	118.591	last Tuesday in January
La.	Dec. 6, 2023	Dec. 8, 2023	1280.22	Friday after first Wednesday in December
Me.	Oct. 1, 2023	Nov. 20, 2023	21A, sec. 442	date named in law
Md.	no filing	Feb. 23, 2024	Art. 33, sec. 8-502	80 days before primary
Mass.	no filing	Jan. 5, 2024	Ch. 53, sec. 70E	first Friday in January
Mich.	no filing	Nov. 10, 2023	168.614a	second Friday in November
Minn.	no filing	Jan. 2, 2024	207A.13	63 days before primary
Miss.	no filing	Jan. 15, 2024	23-15-1089	date named in law
Mt.	Jan. 11, 2024	March 4, 2024	13-10-405	85 days plus 7 days before primary
Neb.	no filing	February 2024	no deadline in law	Secretary of State discretion, but in February
Nev.	Oct. 2, 2023	Oct. 16, 2023	298.660	nine weeks before primary
N.H.	undetermined	undetermined	655:47	Secretary of State decides
N.J.	unlimited	April 1, 2024	19:25-3	64 days before primary
N.M.	no filing	Feb. 15, 2024	1-15A-5	date named in law
N.Y.	undetermined	undetermined	Ch. 17, 6-158.1	ninth Monday before primary
No.C.	no filing	Dec. 11, 2023	163A-1253	90 days before primary election
Ohio	unlimited	Dec. 19, 2023	3513.121	90 days before primary election
Okla.	Jan. 8, 2024	Jan. 10, 2024	20-102	Wednesday after 2nd Monday in January
Ore.	no filing	March 2024	no deadline in law	Secretary of State discretion, but in March
Pa.	Jan. 22, 2024	Feb. 12, 2024	Title 25, sec. 2868	ten weeks before primary
R.I.	Jan. 18, 2024	Jan. 20, 2024	17-12.1-4	94 days before primary
So.C.	undetermined	undetermined	political parties decide date	dates are set by political parties
So.D.	unlimited	Mar. 26, 2024	12-5-3.14	last Tuesday in March
Tenn.	nofiling	Dec. 16, 2024	2-5-205	third Thursday in December
Texas	Nov. 11, 2023	Dec. 11, 2023	172.023	second Monday in December
Utah	July 1, 2023	Oct. 16, 2023	20A-9-803	date named in law
Vt.	unlimited	Dec. 15, 2023	Title 17, sec. 2702	date named in law
Va.	undetermined	undetermined	24.2-544.B	State Election Board sets dates by Aug. 1, 2023
Wash.	no filing	Jan. 18, 2024	29A.56	53 days before primary
W.V.	Jan. 15, 2024	Jan. 27, 2024	3-5-7(c)	last Saturday in January
Wis.	no filing	Jan. 5, 2024	Title 2, sec. 8.12(1)(b)	first Friday after first Tuesday in January

This chart shows the window of filing by presidential candidates running in presidential primaries. The column "Filing Opens" shows the earliest date a candidate may file. "Deadline" is the last day to file. Some of the dates in this chart are subject to change.

In some states, the election officer of the state, or state party leaders, or both, decide which candidates to list, and the candidate need not file. For these states, the term "no filing" is in the "Filing Opens" column. For these states, the "Deadline" column has the date by which the state officials or party leaders must release the candidate list. Many states have more than a single method.

State	Alternative #1	Alternative #2	Election Code
Alabama	500 signatures and fee set by party	– –	17-13-102 & party rules
Arizona	500 signatures of party members	already on ballot in two other states	16-242
Arkansas	Fee set by party	– –	7-7-301(a) & party rules
California	on one other state’s primary ballot	qualified for primary season matching funds	Elec. code 6340
Colorado	$500	5,000 signatures	1-4-1204
Connecticut	discussed in the news media	Petition of 1% of registered party members	9-465, 9-469
Delaware	eligible for primary matching funds	500 signatures of party members	Title 15, 3184
D.C.	lesser of 1,000 sigs or 1% pty members	– –	1-1001.05(b)(1)
Florida	state party chooses	– –	103.101
Georgia	state party chooses	– –	21-2-193
Hawaii	100 signatures	– –	SB 1005
Illinois	3,000 signatures	– –	10 ILCS 5/7-11
Indiana	4,500 signatures (500 in each C.D.)	– –	3-8-3-2
Kansas	Fee of $10,000	5,000 signatures of party members	HB 2053
Kentucky	fee of $1,000	5,000 signatures of party members	118.591
Louisiana	fee of $750	6,000 signatures of party members	Tit. 18, 1280.22
Maine	2,000 signatures	– –	LD 1626
Maryland	Discussed in the news media	3,200 signatures of party members	Art. 33, 8-502(c)(2)
Mass.	Discussed in the news media	2,500 signatures of party members or indps	Ch. 53, sec. 70E
Michigan	Discussed in the news media	state party chooses any additional names	Chap. 168.614a
Minnesota	state party chooses	– –	207A.13
Mississippi	discussed in the news media	500 signatures	23-15-1089
Montana	primary matching funds + fee of $1,740	500 signatures + fee of 1% of US Sen salary	13-10-404,13-10-202
Nebraska	discussed in the news media	300 signatures of party members	32-614
New Hamp.	fee of $1,000	If indigent, 100 signatures	Tit. 53, 655:48
New Jersey	1,000 signatures of party members	– –	19:25-3
New Mex.	discussed in the news media	petition of 2% of last pres. vote	1-15A-5, 1-15A-6
New York	discussed in the news media	qualified for primary season matching funds	Ch. 17, 2-122b
No. Car.	discussed in the news media	– –	163A-1253
Ohio	raise $5,000 from each of 20 states	1,000 signatures	3513.12,3513.121
Oklahoma	fee of $2,500	6,000 signatures	Tit. 26, 20-102
Oregon	discussed in the news media	5,000 signatures of party members	Tit. 23, 249.078
Pennsyl.	2,000 signatures of party members	– –	Tit. 25, 249.078
Puerto Rico	chosen by party & submit delegates	– –	Art. 8.021
Rhode Is.	1,000 signatures	– –	17-12.1-4
So. Caro.	fee (amount to be set by party)	– –	7-11-20 & party rules
So. Dakota	state party decides	petition of 1% of party’s last gub. vote	12-6-7
Tennessee	discussed in the news media	2,500 signatures	2-5-205(a)(1)
Texas	fee of $5,000	5,000 signatures	party rules
Utah	state party chooses + $500	– –	20A-9-803
Vermont	1,000 signatures plus $2,000	If indigent, fee is $300	Tit. 17, sec. 2702
Virginia	5,000 signatures	– –	24.2-545
Wash.	state party decides	1,000 signatures	29.19.030
West Va.	fee of $2,500	– –	3-5-8
Wisconsin	discussed in the news media	8,000 signatures	Tit. 2, sec. 8.12(1)(c)

States that don’t have government-administered presidential primaries in 2016 are Alaska, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, and Wyoming. In New York, the rules shown are from the past, but the legislature might change them.

Some of these rules may change in the next few months.

The rules are the same for Democratic presidential primaries, except that in New York, Democrats need a petition of 5,000 signatures. The amount of the filing fees sometimes differs between Democratic and Republican primaries.

In 2020, the most crowded presidential primary ballot was the New Hampshire Democratic primary, with 33 candidates.

The Forward Party is now a qualified party in Florida, entitled to its own primary. Florida is the only state in which the Forward Party is on the ballot for 2024, so far.

Two Keystone Party candidates in 2022 were petitioning to get on the ballot, but were blocked from a public park in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. They sued in federal court. The county settled the case by paying them $91,000. Almost 90 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public parks must be open to First Amendment activity. Gaughen v Dauphin County, m.d., 1:23cv-77. The Keystone Party only exists in Pennsylvania and is a split-off from the Libertarian Party.

On April 17, four groups filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to hear the New York ballot access case filed by the Libertarian and Green Parties. The groups are the Forward Party, Open Primaries, the Rainey Center, and COFOE. The brief points out that the Court has never had a case on how a party retains its qualified status. The New York law passed in 2020 required a party to run a presidential nominee in order to remain on the ballot. The brief points out that many significant parties in U.S. history did not run presidential candidates. Examples are the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, the Progressive Party of Wisconsin of the 1934-1944 era, and the Progressive Party that exists today in Vermont.

The Democratic Party will hold its presidential convention in Chicago, August 19-22, 2024. This is the first time the Democrats have met in Chicago since 1996.

No Labels will hold its national convention in Dallas on April 14, 2024. That convention will decide whether to run anyone for president, and if so, will choose the candidate.

The American Solidarity Party will meet in Plano, Texas, June 30-July 2, 2023. Its presidential nominee will have been chosen by an on-line presidential primary just prior to the national meeting.

The Labor Party, which has been on the ballot in South Carolina since 1996, has changed its name to the South Carolina Workers’ Party. South Carolina lets qualified parties change their name.

Gallup Polls has been asking respondents for decades whether they self-identify as Republicans, Democrats, or something else. The March 2023 poll shows ‘other" at 49%; Democrats at 25%; Republicans 25%. This is the lowest percentage in the history of the poll for the two major parties combined.

On February 5, 2023, Alice Kelsey died at the age of 89. She had been the Treasurer of the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) from the early 1990’s until about five years ago. She had also been the Socialist Party representative to the COFOE board.