1. This would essentially eliminate ballot access for all parties, large and small.

2. What was the reason for this?

3. Voters in Oregon will now have to rely on only those candidates who can afford to overcome the information deficit imposed by stripping candidates of whatever information party labels provide. For many voters the party label is all the information they require. Instead, the ballot becomes a game of blindfolded voters playing pin the tail on the donkey, the elephant, or whatever. I wonder if these non-partisan candidates can be punished for expressing opinions on federal partisan candidates in order to “clue in” voters.

   A related situation now obtains in Oklahoma, except here the “veil of ignorance” is compulsory only for “Independent” voters and candidates. Independent is defined as anyone Democrat or Republican. Although party label may confer very little information to the voter, it seems that is all the information which some voters need for a ballot decision.

   On May 23, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled against the LPO in the case Clingman v Beaver on a narrow issue of whether the LPO could invite voters registered in other political parties to participate in a Libertarian primary election (when, and if, such an election was held). Previously, SCOTUS had ruled (in a case brought by the Republican Party) that parties may invite ‘independent’ voters to participate in their primary elections. Oklahoma law is now in conformity with that ruling. If the OKLP is not on the ballot in 2006, and if the OKLP does not have the opportunity to invite Independent voters to participate in the primary because more than one person files for a OKLP nomination, then Independents will NOT be afforded the opportunity to vote in any party primary. It appears very unlikely that either the Dems or Reps in Oklahoma would invite Independents into their primaries, although they now can.

   The state of the law in Oklahoma now appears to foreclose my opportunity to seek the nomination of the OKLP in 2006. The only alternative open is to campaign under the official label of ‘Independent’ as mandated by the State of Oklahoma. Independent does not convey any information which could aid a voter in determining my personal political philosophy so that the voter could cast an informed vote for me. In short, state law requires me to face the voters as a bald-faced generic ‘Independent’. Deprived of the opportunity to identify my general political orientation to the voters as ‘Libertarian’, the voter (all things being equal) has no alternative than to fall back on their own impressions, biases, and prejudices to ‘put a face’ on the name appearing on the ballot. Faced with a confusing situation on the election (if they have no other information) a voter may well decided to vote for anyone NOT named “Robinson” if for no other reason they once had an unpleasant encounter with a person named “Robinson”.

   Of course, all candidates may face voters with such default biases, but partisan labels provide the voter with mitigating information to overcome such bias. Any information a voter has about the meaning of Republican, Democrat, Green, or Libertarian confers some specific content to assist them in making a decision about those candidates. An ‘Independent’ candidate has an additional information burden to carry to differentiate themselves from partisans. This is not an inherently unjust situation, since a candidate may want to identify with any political party at all. However, it is unjust to such a genuinely ‘non-partisan’ to have declared partisans lumped together on the ballot with them; so it also unjust to those partisans as well. One partial remedy for both genuinely ‘non-partisan’ and partisan candiates forced into the role of Independents, is to spend to overcome the misidentification penalty imposed by the state on both classes of candidates. The effect of State action is to place a blindfold on voters which both classes of candidates must labor to remove just to pull even with the identification provided to “recognized” political parties. e.e, Democrats and Republicans. I think I’ll try to sue.

4. Here is my testimony against HB 2614, which was disregarded.

   TESTIMONY OF DANIEL MEEK
   ON HB 2614
   before the House Committee on Elections and Rules

   May 5, 2005
   Daniel Meek
   10949 S.W. 4th Avenue
   Portland, OR 97219
   503-293-9021 voice
   503-293-9099 fax
   dan@meek.net

   HB 2614 would utterly destroy the opportunity for anyone to run for public office, other than a candidate nominated by a major or minor political party qualified for ballot access. Its obvious intent is to eviscerate both processes by which independent candidates can now qualify for the ballot–by nominating petition and by assembly of electors.

   HB 2614 would disqualify the vast majority of Oregon voters from participating in any way in nominating an independent candidate. It bans from that process all voters registered in any major party or in any minor party. It appears to allow minor party registrants participate but actually does not. They can participate only if the minor party has not nominated a candidate for the office as of 100 days before the election, but the deadline for submitting nominating petitions is 70 days before the election, so this allows a maximum of only 30 days to gather the needed signatures.

   Also, disqualifying all registrants of major parties (and in most cases those of minor parties as well), HB 2614 would massively disrupt both the signature gathering process and the assembly of electors process. Every signature gathering campaign would have to depend upon voters registered as independents, who are generally the least interested in politics. Such a campaign could never obtain the signatures of minor party registrants, except during the last 30-day period.

   The bill would also destroy the opportunity for conducting any viable assembly of electors. Because the signatures at such assemblies by all major party registrants and often also minor party registrants would be stricken, it will be impossible to know when sufficient qualified electors have assembled. It will also be impossible to know whether anyone attending an assembly is disqualfied because the person has attended some other assembly. Similarly, gathering signatures on nominating petitions will be made far more difficult, because the circulator must determine not only whether the signor is a registered voter but must also determine her party, whether or not her minor party has nominated a candidate, and somehow whether she has attended any assembly of electors regarding that office or has signed a nominating petition for another candidate for that office.

   HB 2614 simply seeks to protect the candidates of major parties and minor parties by destroying the opportunity for competition from independent candidates.

5. I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

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