On March 6, the Oklahoma Libertarian Party filed the notice of intent to try to qualify for the 2016 ballot. Oklahoma election law requires newly-qualifying parties to notify the state when they start. The petition is due March 1, 2016. Oklahoma requires groups to finish the petition within one year, but the group sets its own one-year petitioning period.
No party has successfully petitioned in Oklahoma since 2000, when the Libertarian and Reform Parties qualified.
I still wish the Libertarian Party would try to see if they could get the Courts to accept Filing Fees in lieu of Petitions.
I don’t know the deadlines when major parties have to qualify, but why don’t some Libertarians – at least those who plan to be candidates for local offices, do all the paperwork, and appear at the Election Official’s office with filing fee and paperwork in hand, and see if they would accept it. If they don’t or won’t, then file a suit asking why the major parties can pay a filing fee for their candidates, but 3rd parties and Independents have to present Petitions with signatures. It’s time we get a n answer from the Courts on this hypocrisy.
Richard, do you know where this tactic has already been tried? If so, what happened?
That’s what the Socialist Workers Party argued in 1970 in Jenness v Fortson, the Georgia ballot access case. Democrats and Republicans didn’t need any petition to get on a primary ballot. The Socialist Workers Party said, therefore, it is unconstitutional for them to be required to collect the signatures of 5% of the registered voters. The US Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument. The decision says the members of the Socialist Workers Party should consider running in major party primaries. The decision is loaded with factual errors. The decision has only one sentence justifying the law, that the law is needed to prevent “confusion, deception, and frustration of the electoral process.” The point about deception was based on Chief Justice Warren Berger’s confusion about a 1930 US Senate election in Nebraska. Berger thought that when George Norris was running for re-election, his opponents found another person named George Norris and put him on the ballot as an independent. The truth is that this dirty trick involved running a 2nd George Norris in the Republican primary. So because Chief Justice Berger didn’t remember things correctly, the “deception” argument was added into the rationale for severe ballot access laws. The “confusion” is based on the idea that too many candidates on the ballot is confusing, but of course nothing was said about voter confusion in primaries, where no petitions were required. The “frustration” means that a third party or independent might get votes that would otherwise go to the major party candidate and the winner’s identity might be altered, but the answer to that is ranked choice voting or approval voting.
They still did not try to pay a filing fee? This is what I am talking about. Do all the paperwork, but then have the filing fee ready, and offer it. Then if they refuse, go to Court and ask the Court why 3rd parties and Independents cannot pay a filing fee in lieu of signatures. Was that tactic ever tried anywhere?
All elected offices in Oklahoma, except President, have a fee in lieu of a petition. There is no fee for forming a new party. That is petition only.
As for your tactic, that would be very interesting thing to try for President. I doubt it would be resolved in time to get a candidate on the ballot, but it would be interesting.
That said, the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma and Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform support a fee in lieu of a petition for the office of President. We also support reducing the petitioning requirement for President and for full party access.