Here is a link to the article in today’s Detroit News, although it is behind a paywall. But, the following is a synopsis of the article.
It is asserted that, over the past five to seven years, there has been an uptick in petition fraud in Michigan. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is calling for a “review and modernization of ballot access laws” in Michigan. She says the same petitioning “bad actors” are hired repeatedly in Michigan. She wants harsher penalties for petition fraud. Benson questions whether paper petition signatures are the best way to qualify for the ballot. Many local candidates in Michigan pay a fee to get on the ballot, and maybe that should be the policy for higher level races. She has talked with the Chair of the Michigan Senate Elections Committee about a “wholesale rewrite” of Michigan’s ballot access laws. Could AI help the signature validation process, or could it be used fraudulently? A signature forgery scandal knocked five Republican Governer candidates off the primary ballot in 2022. Eight US House candidates and several judicial candidates were struck from the 2024 primary ballot due to insufficient valid signatures. One GOP US House candidate who was knocked off the ballot says the rules are applied unevenly.
My commentary: The article was short on a lot of specifics (not the fault of its author), but, as I have written on this blog before, the problem in Michigan is that signature requirements are too damn high. This forgery problem is, in my opinion, a self-inflicted wound by the State of Michigan that would largely end if there were lower, more reasonable petition requirements. To require a major party candidate for statewide office to collect 15,000 valid signatures to get on a primary ballot is absurd. It’s only 12,000 signatures for an Independent candidate, but it used to be 30,000 signatures, until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the number reduced in its Graveline v. Benson decision. No petitioning requirement for candidates or political parties should ever be more than 0.1% of the number of registered voters eligible to vote for that office. That is a sufficient barrier to so-called “ballot crowding.” If Michigan instituted that law, or reasonable fees that the non-wealthy could pay to get on the ballot, it would largely do away with candidate and political party signature fraud in that state.
In addition to fees, and lower signature requirements, the state law should authorize qualified parties also to make nominations in accordance with their own bylaws by conventions or caucuses of enrolled party members or voters.
WZ- 3RDS DO NOMINATE BY CAUCUSES/CONVENTIONS IN MICH
$100 FEE FOR MAJOR PARTY HACKS FOR STATE SEN AND STATE REP IN PRIMARIES
—
ONE VOTER FORMS FOR BALLOT ACCESS FOR CANDS AND BALLOT QUESTIONS
Your one form idea is fucking retarded. More trees killed and more fraud.
This explains why Thomas W Jones is running under the Retard Party banner.
HOW MANY ONE SIGNER CHECKS / NOTARY FORMS / ETC. STILL AROUND ???
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/09/us/tren-de-aragua-venezuela-gang/index.html
HOW MANY WORLD CLASS GANGSTERS INVADING THE USA — ALONG WITH SMUGGLED BANANAS FROM BANANA REPUBLIKS ???
HOW MANY TRUMP ATTACK ADS WILL HAVE DEAD AMERICANS DUE TO INVADERS ???
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news
BENSON — POSSIBLE MEDIA STUFF ABOUT NOM PETS ???
They have one signer forms in New Hampshire for nominations. This works great there because the petitions have to be certified by each town.
Massachusetts also requires nomination certification by each town, but all the long petition blanks printed up have numerous lines for signatures. As a result, petitioners will often turn in dozens of forms to each town with only one or two voter signatures on each one, wasting a huge amount of paper.
“Many local candidates in Michigan pay a fee to get on the ballot, and maybe that should be the policy for higher level races. […] If Michigan instituted that law, or reasonable fees that the non-wealthy could pay to get on the ballot”
It isn’t about the amount, it’s about the principle. Pay-to-play is not a good way to filter out “serious candidates”TM. I’m all in favor of paying all officials minimum wage, or even paying them nothing at all. But paying for ballot access? That’s not just undemocratic, it’s also simply a bad idea.
“One GOP US House candidate who was knocked off the ballot says the rules are applied unevenly.”
Yeah, I’m not surprised. I am 100% confident without looking her up that Jocelyn Benson is a far-left Democrat.
She’s a communist.
Thanks Bill.
@Walter
OK, and parties would qualify by registration?
@Nuña
A service fee of $10 or $20 should be OK, right? A $500 “overcrowding prevention fee” is extortion.
Why do signature requirements exist? They don’t measure support. Signing a petition form is not support. Getting paid to collect signatures is not support. What does meeting the requirement actually demonstrate?
Make the supporter put in the effort to demonstrate their support. Go to Town Hall or County Hall and nominate someone. Or nominate by phone or mail. Or register with a party and participate in their caucus.
BALLOT ACCESS FEE = MIN NOM PET SIGS AMOUNT X $ AMOUNT —
FIXED ABOUT 10 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
You want people to pay to eat pets? Why should people eat pets to begin with? What the fuck is wrong with you?
NOOO LIMIT ON MORON COMMENTS BY BAN TROLL MORONS —
ESP THE BAN TROLL MORON-IN-CHIEF — BATMIC — OF MANY FAKE NAMES
@Adam Cerini
But why would you have to pay even just $10 or $20 dollars to buy your way onto the ballot? What is the service that you are paying a service fee for? I’m not saying such a small amount would be restrictive/prohibitive, but it just fundamentally doesn’t make sense to have to purchase ballot access. Even if it’s cheap, that’s still pay-to-play politics.
I agree with you that collecting a certain number of signatures also doesn’t prove one has sufficient support for their platform, but at least it is an indication that enough people were willing to support ones candidacy. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think most people sign petitions not because they intend to vote for you, but because they want to see more options appear on the ballot. Whereas forking over even a negligible amount of cash, does not demonstrate that anyone besides yourself wants to even see your name on the ballot.
Your suggestions for putting in effort to nominate a candidate of your choice make more sense. But let me just float the question of why have any ballot access restrictions/limitations at all? (I’m not saying I support this, I’m just asking the question.)
What is the real issue with “overcrowding” the ballot? The paper is too expensive? Surely that’s a perfect example of what we pay outrageous taxes for.
So what then? To prevent confusion and choice paralysis? I know ballot “overcrowding” led Californians to elect recognizable-name actor Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor, but not many Americans are as retarded as 20th and 21st century Californians. Most of us can deal with having options. Hell, what’s next? Limiting the number of menu items that restaurants and fast-food joints can offer? Restricting the inventory of supermarkets to only several big-name brands? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Standing vote count solves this problem.