Fifth Circuit Will Hear Texas Ballot Access Case on August 5

On August 5, the Fifth Circuit will hear Miller v Doe, 23-50537, the case over Texas ballot access laws for independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties.  The lower court had upheld all those laws except it had struck down the ban on electronic signatures.  Both sides are appealing.


Comments

Fifth Circuit Will Hear Texas Ballot Access Case on August 5 — 18 Comments

  1. @Bob,

    Kerri Lake qualified for the primary ballot with all electronic signatures.

  2. What kind of electronic signatures are we talking about: actual signatures recorded electronically (e.g. made with a stylus on a touchscreen or made with pen and paper but then digitalized) or digital signatures (e.g. public-key cryptography or blockchain)?

  3. @Nuña,

    No one least of all, Judge Robert Pitman, knows what is meant by electronic signatures.

    The case was about ordinary barriers to Ballot Access in Texas, such as large numbers of signatures, an early filing date, short period for collection, and the primary screen-out. They also brought up the issue of electronic signatures.

    The court’s opinion was that SCOTUS precedent is that the flimsiest of post hoc rationalizations related to “modicum of support”, “voter confusion” or “ballot crowding” justify any barriers in law.

    But the court ruled that because the primary-nominating parties may use electronic means as part of their nomination process, that petitioning should be electronic as well. In Texas, primaries are conducted by the political parties, and administered at the county level (by county parties). Candidates for statewide office and multi-county districts file with the state party chair. The statewide chairs must then transmit these candidacies to the up to 254 county parties so the candidates names may be placed on the county ballots. In days gone by (before 2013), the certifications were “in writing” and “delivered” to the county parties.

    Since 2013, the candidates are posted on the SOS website. The SOS provides internet access, and gives a password to party chairs so that they can enter the data. The state party chair then “notifies” the county chairs to get the candidate information from the SOS web site. The bozo judge thinks this is the equivalent to “petitioning”. It would be straightforward to let the convention-nominating parties use the same method to communicate candidacies.

    The judge asked the plaintiffs and the SOS what electronic petitioning is. The SOS said it would be using a stylus. The judge said that it had to be “electronic” and told the SOS to provide for the methodology. The legislature could provide legislation, and let the SOS fill in the implementation details. But the SOS could not do this without legislative direction.

  4. @Jim Riley
    Interesting, thank you. Based on that, I am inclined to agree with Bob that it is at least prone to making large-scale fraud cost less time and effort. Regardless, the same standards should obviously apply to primary- and convention-nominating parties.

  5. Fraud is awesome, fraud is good. Not everyone does it, but all leftists should.

  6. @Nuña,

    Arizona statute requires that interaction between citizens (and perhaps other persons as well) and the government be conducted electronically. For example, you can renew a drivers license or vehicle registration online. This requirement has been extended to petition signing. A voter logs into the E-QUAL website, and is presented a list of candidate petitions that they are qualified to sign (e.g., party, district, office).

    Kari Lake has apparently qualified her Senate candidacy entirely on-line.

    If a candidate submits paper petitions, the SOS is going to have to transcribe it, and authenticate the signatures.

    It appears that the SOS is willing to extend use of E-QUAL to counties and cities.

  7. @Jim Riley
    “If a candidate submits paper petitions, the SOS is going to have to transcribe it”
    That’s inane.

    Arizona saw relatively large amounts of voter fraud last election *cough* Maricopa *cough* and I think I can see why.

    Even renewing ones driver’s license and vehicle registration online seems a bit iffy to me, although I might be willing to let that slide for people with limited mobility living many hours away from the nearest DMV. Ironically, it is especially elderly and disabled people who have to renew their driver’s license in person anyway, because they are required to pass tests to prove they are still capable of driving safely.
    Then again, driver’s licenses and vehicle registration are inherently statist tools of oppression which should not exist at all, so the point is somewhat moot.

    Not to imply anything either for or against Kari Lake in particular, but I think she should have her candidacy disqualified, as should every other candidate that wouldn’t have qualified without online “signatures”. And for that matter, everyone already in office who could not have been elected because they wouldn’t have qualified, should be removed from office. And if that means every elected official, even better. The more the merrier.

    I’m sure this opinion will make me very popular with both sides of the uniparty’s aisle. LOL.

  8. @Nuña,

    How are you going to check a petition for duplicate signatures without entering them into a database. Do you think they will have some clerk trundle over to the filing cabinet to check the signature and paper voting rolls.

    When Kinky Friedman and Carole of the Many Names Ran for governor many years ago, they had to cross-check the two petitions because voters are only permitted to sign one. Friedman campaign submitted a few dozen boxes brought in on a hand truck. 50,000 signatures only requires 5,000 sheets of paper or 10 reams of paper. Maybe double that for extra signatures and paper being less compact when loose, etc. But the Friedman campaign said that they could have just handed the SOS a disc with the entire petition on it, since there quality control had already transcribed the paper petition.

    The Strayhorn petition came in dozens of boxes. They claimed more raw signatures than the Friedman petition, but when they were actually validated they had fewer valid signatures.

    Maybe Texas is more technologically advanced than whatever State you reside in, but online renewal of drivers licenses and registrations is routine. If you do have to go to the DMV in person, you have to go online and make a reservation.

    I think Kari Lake may have submitted paper petitions as well. I saw a picture with her holding a carton under one arm, but it was certainly not full. But the petition report online clearly shows that 0 paper signatures.

  9. Same way you check for duplicates on one petition. Scientific random sample, extrapolated error rates, etc.

  10. @FP,

    I don’t think you understand how difficult it is too detect duplicates with a sample.

  11. Yes, I do. That’s why each one that’s found costs the proponents a lot more than 2 signatures.

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.