The Washington State House Government Committee holds a hearing on HB 1534 on February 7, at 6 p.m. This is the bill to improve ballot access for minor parties and independent candidates. It would permit an unqualified party to petition for a place on the ballot (with 1,000 signatures) before it has chosen its nominees. Once on the ballot, it would then nominate by convention.
It would also ease petition requirements for independent candidates, and let independent candidates choose a partisan label (that could not mimic the name of a qualified party) which would be printed on the November ballot.
One minor party activist, who is with the Progressive Party, is not satisfied with these improvements, and is threatening to testify against the bill. Since the committee members had previously said that they will not pass this bill unless all minor party witnesses are in favor of it, the bill is in danger unless this person is mollified. The dissatisfied Progressive Party activist wants the bill to allow for qualification of parties on a district-by-district basis. There is little practical advantage to making that change, since the bill’s draft would allow a party that doesn’t wish to qualify statewide to still appear on the November ballot, under the procedures for partisan labels for independent candidates.
How can I become involved in helping spread the word about ballot access reform?
I have voted Republican for years, but have become very dissatisfied with the turn the party has taken. I don’t think I’m going to like the limited choices I’ll have to select from in November. I know that it’s probably too late to do anything about it now, but I would love to have more choices.
I think a lot of Americans are starting to feel the same way.
What an idiot. He should take whatever the state legislature is willing to give.
Yes, that would be real unfortunate.
WA’s ballot access laws have gotten more difficult from even 10 years ago (?), when I think just 100 (200?) signatures got you on the state ballot and 25 got you on the state leg. district ballots. Those were good times for us voters.
Mr Rankin,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8386.html
My friend. This may help the crow go down a little bit better.
http://www.cajuncookingrecipes.com/wildgamerecipes/black_bird_pie.htm
The U. S. Supreme Court will be ruling on Washington state’s voter-passed “top two” system any time now. Suppose the court says that candidates cannot have a party label next to their names on the “top two” ballot without the party’s approval. Would it then be fair for independents to be able to have partisan labels next to their names on the ballot?
Does anyone think that this guy is a “plant” by either or both of the Dems/Reps in order to kill this bill?
Angela, I’m curious. What State do you live in? It’s been my experience that many voters do have several choices for President besides the Dem/Rep candidates but don’t educate themselves as to who is running. Then, when voting day comes, they step into the booth and say “Who are these people? I never heard of them!”. I remember when I ran for the New York State Assembly there was an article in the paper where a man said he was tired of the same people being put before the voters by the Dems/Reps. So when the reporter asked him about me, as I was running on a third party line, he says “Who’s he? I never heard of him!”. This taught me that many voters say they want change, but when presented with a choice, they choose for the same rather than take a chance on an unknown.
Anyway, about July or August of next year, I suggest you look on the website of your Elections Board. They will list who is running in your State for President. Know your choices before you see them for the first time in the booth. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with another personal observation of mine. Yes, the laws are restrictive in many States in order to get on the ballot. But the worst part is the voters themselves, because they just can’t seem to bring themselves to vote for a third party. Maybe it’s because they think a candidate from a third party must be inferior, or that he can’t win so they don’t want to throw their vote away. (For a good treatise on why to vote third party, go to my website http://www.nysthirdparty.com, and scroll down to the position paper section.) So, instead of trying to get ballot access made easier, it would be just as good, if not better, to try and convince people to take a chance on the third party candidates.
Does anyone think that this guy is a “plant†by either or both of the Dems/Reps in order to kill this bill?
If you’re referring to me, I’m not anybody’s “plant.”
The Supreme Court will likely rule on the “top two” before final action is taken on the Washington state bill.
Not you. The Progressive Party activist mentioned in the story.
What is your source of information on HB 1534? I read the bill, and the substitute that was adopted, and listed to audio of the two House committee meetings and it doesn’t appear to match your description.
The basic idea is that a candidate can petition to be on the general election ballot (1000 for statewide race; 250 for US Representative; 100 for other – legislature or county office). The petition includes a designation of party or that the candidate is independent.
Only one candidate per party per office is allowed. In case of conflict, the two candidates both run as independents unless there is a resolution through mutual agreement or other means, including the courts. The foremost criteria would give preference to the candidate associated with a party that has the same leadership or succession of leadership that backed candidates in the past. So it appears that a party could get together and designate their favored candidates, but they could still have to petition as individual candidates.
This would appear to resolve the political association issues with the Top 2 primary for minor parties at least. If the SCOTUS comes out with a narrowly-drawn decision that a Top 2 primary is OK, just that the Washington state version is poorly implemented, then HB 1534 could be converted into a fixup of the Top 2 primary.
At the House committee hearing on January 23rd, two Libertarian Party and one Progressive Party members testified.
The Libertarians were concerned with the May filing deadline and suggested it be made the same as that for President/VP (August); and that there was no qualification on a party-wide basis (they estimated 58,000 signatures to qualify candidates for every statewide, federal, legislative, and county office).
They also requested a method that a party could qualify for major party status other than electoral support in the general election (In Washington, a party is required to have 5% support for a statewide candidate. The Libertarian Party had major party status from 2000 until they lost it in 2004 when their top candidate received 4.4% of the vote.)
They were also concerned with a provision that would require a primary plurality winner would also need a level of support similar to the petition requirement for a minor party candidate (1000 for a statewide race, 500 for US representative, and 100 for other). This provision didn’t make sense until they mentioned that the Libertarian Party had major party status for the 2002 and 2004 elections, and few voters would vote in the Libertarian section of a pick-a-party primary ballot, especially if there were not any contested races for nomination.
The Progressive Party representative was completely behind the bill with no specific concerns other than it be passed in time for implementation this election year. It was noted by the committee chairman that this would require very quick passage and an emergency clause.
The committee agreed to work with the parties and the Secretary of State to produce a version of the bill that would resolve the issues raised by the Libertarians.
The committee meeting last night (February 7) was an executive session in which the committee formally approved the substitute amendment, and then voted to forward the bill to the full House with a do-pass recommendation. There was no public testimony.
So unless there is an agreement for a floor substitute, it doesn’t appear that there is a provision for party-wide qualification. Given the time constraints for implementation this election year, it of course quite possible that a decision was made to get the bill out of committee, and then fix it up in the House or in Senate committee.
Richard Shepard re-wrote the bill and sent me the text. The idea is that the author would accept Richard Shepard’s text if all the witnesses also agreed with it. I am on vacation in southern California and unable to learn what happened at this hearing, but I will be home in 3 days.
The February 7th committee meeting was styled as an executive session, so given open meeting and notice requirements, it doesn’t appear that there was intent to hold testimony. The original committee substitute is shown on the legislature web site as being before the House Rules committee.
This could all well be procedural. It might have taken more time to present a new substitute before the committee and hold new hearings, than to go forward and get something passed in time for this year’s elections.
And it could be pretty much a waste of time depending on how the SCOTUS rules.