Here is the article of which I speak from KSL-TV.
It was pretty much a big nothingburger (and I am not intending to throw shade on the author), until I read the following sentence:
“It [a report] also suggests the Legislature should consider making public the lists of people who sign candidate petitions.”
As many of you know, I have been involved in petitioning since 1988, which in most quarters qualifies as a long time. I think if people were to know that they would go on a public list if they signed any sort of petition, it would very likely hurt the signature acceptance percentage rate for petitioners. I think this is a potentially devastating idea for any sort of petitioning.
Letting candidates get on the ballot with optional fees would save everyone the risk of signing petitions whose signatories might become publicly known.
Supporters showing up in person on election night = qualifying.
And, come to think of it, maybe signature signers aren’t publicly revealed now, but who can say that the names and addresses don’t show up on lists that are sold to telemarketers?
Signing petitions should be public, like voting.
secret petition signers
same as secret votes
ALSO – 1 VOTER NOM/ISSUE PETITIONS
Walter, it would be believable.
Also Walter, what do you think about the system used in the UK for MP candidates?
AZ is wrong on every point.
“Signing petitions should be public, like voting.”
Ballots should be completely anonymous. Petition signatures and party registrations cannot be completely secret, because they need to be verifiable, but they still need to be as closely a guarded secret as possible.
“maybe signature signers aren’t publicly revealed now, but who can say that the names and addresses don’t show up on lists that are sold to telemarketers?”
With nothing but a name, one can tell what someone’s current party registration is and their registration history going back for decades. And given a voting address, one can find out exactly how many people at that address are registered to vote, what party they are registered with (if any), and their registration histories going back decades.
That is how bad the current extremely dangerous lack of privacy is. So there is no doubt in my mind that if someone really wants to know who signed a particular petition, then they can figure that out if they can be bothered to do so.
In Texas, an application for candidacy is a public record upon filing, and an accompanying petition is considered part of the application.
A party chair is only required to examine an application for facial compliance (e.g., perhaps counting the number of signatures). Without the ability to examine a petition, most challenged petitions would go unchallenged, and a party chair might be willing to deny a petition by an unwanted challenger.
A better procedure would be to have supporters appear at courthouses, their identity verified, and counted.
“A better procedure would be to have supporters appear at courthouses, their identity verified, and counted.”
This would still be a significant privacy risk. And unless you also significantly lower the required number of petition signatures, would additionally be a very effective way of killing off petition success.
“Also Walter, what do you think about the system used in the UK for MP candidates?”
Isn’t that where a candidate makes a deposit to get on the ballot, but forfeits it if he doesn’t get a certain number of votes? That’s a pretty good idea; better than what we have here now.
There should be no ballots
Standing count only!
@Nuña,
How is support for a candidate for public office a private matter?
If all candidates had to demonstrate the same support they would likely lower the requirements. I have suggested 1/20 of 1% might be reasonable.
For president in Texas that would be 5658 (perhaps a bit more to account for undervotes and overvotes).
For governor 4052, 107 or so for Congress, 131 for state senator, 28 for state representative.
In Zambia where this system is used, the candidates use these appearances as campaign rallies.
Put me in the standing count only faction. That’s clearly the best method to decide elections.
To be clear, the “horrible idea” came from the report by the Utah Legislative Auditor General. The “ho-hum article” just mentioned what the Auditor General had recommended.
I’m with Johnny on this!