Seventeen Democrats will appear on the March 2020 Texas Democratic presidential primary: Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Rocky De La Fuente III (son), John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, Robby Wells, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang. Thanks to Jim Riley for this list.
More giant tables needed for Prez primaries [hopefully for the LAST TIME] —
— HOW get names on ballots
— DEADLINE dates.
—
NO primaries
ONE Election Day
NOM PETS ONLY for ballot access
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Jim Riley-
Is there a link where all the candidate filings received by the SoS are posted?
Thanks
@eeyn,
https://candidate.texas-election.com/Elections/getQualifiedCandidatesInfo.do
In Texas, primaries are conducted by the political parties, and candidates file with either the state chair or county chair (for offices contested entirely in a single county). You will notice that the Republican and Democratic primaries are independent elections.
Prior to 2014, the state party chair would send lists of candidates to the county chairs so that they might prepare the ballot in their county. Since 2014, the party chairs enter candidate information on the SOS website (they have a portal; the SOS is hosting the website, providing technical support).
When the listings are complete, the state chair informs the county chairs to go get the candidates from the SOS website.
There can be a delay in reporting candidates. The party chairs have to review the application, and then enter the information. For example, when Richard Winger reported the 7 Republican candidates, only five were listed on the SOS website.
Note also the website has a status indicator (see pull-down list of status). So Kamala Harris is listed as withdrawn. She had filed on the first day of filing, November 9, and was listed on the SOS website. She formally withdrew and her status has been updated.
Jim
Thanks for the information. I’m in TX and was an LP county chair, so I knew about the general process. I was curious how many LP *statewide* candidates bit the bullet and paid the new filing fee by December 9. I figured since under the new procedure they have to pay the state, the SoS would have the information and hopefully post it.
@eeyn,
As you may know the party chairs are state actors in their conduct of nominations. That is why they are required to provide notice of convention locations. Any filings are public records.
Under current statute (the SOS purported regulation with respect to TEC 141.041 are contrary to the statute), the convention parties are required to file with the SOS within 10 days of the filing deadline a list of applicants for consideration for nomination by convention. See TEC 181.032).
I think at one time this mainly got stuck in a filing cabinet, but could be used as a gotcha in case another party wanted to challenge a nomination. There was an amendment in 2009 which required a filing date to be included on the list. The reason for this was that the Texas Ethics Commission was using this to determine when a person became a candidate. As you know, in Texas, a (non-federal) candidate must appoint a campaign treasurer prior to becoming a candidate. This is true even if the candidate has not accepted any money or spent any money and does not intend to. There must also be a campaign account separate from any personal accounts. While Texas does not have campaign contribution limits, it does have campaign reporting requirements.
TEC 181.032 was further amended in 2019 to require the list to be in a form prescribed by the SOS. I think the intent was to permit the SOS to easily display convention party candidates as it does primary convention candidates. I’m not totally sure since the House author and Senate sponsor of HB 2628 were totally clueless.
In any event a lack of display of convention candidates on the SOS website is a equal protection violation. The SOS must be neutral among the various forms of nomination.
If the SOS’ interpretation of TEC 141.041 were correct, then presumably the SOS and county judges would be required to file list of applicants under terms of TEC 181.032(b). Or maybe the SOS will claim that they did not receive an application, but a copy of the application and a check. They could claim that the party chair should reject the application because a copy was not sent to the SOS.
This is looking more and more like the jury scam.
Of course one expects they’re going to interpret the rules as heads-we-win-tails-you-lose.
As you say, that new regulation requiring a filing fee up front just to be considered at the convention appears to be a misinterpretation of state law. However, I see that Kerry McKennon’s FB page has a picture of him submitting his $5K and application in person at the SoS office. One assumes that’s a precaution in case the regulation is upheld anyway; what I was curious about is whether anyone else did the same or if they’re all depending on the lawsuit going our way.
I’m scared a judge will rule in favor of the state and we’ll end up few or no congressional candidates, and especially judicial candidates. As you know the judicial candidates are how we normally maintain ballot access.
@eeyn,
TEC 141.041(f) provides that the SOS shall adopt rules as necessary to implement this section.
There is no evidence that the SOS adopted any rules. Discovery on this point could be interesting.
TEC 141.041 took effect on September 1. There is no filing period for applicants for nomination by convention. Some candidates may have filed before that date. Retroactive fees are a definite due process problem. The legislature could have added an urgency clause.
TEC 141.041 states that a “candidate who is nominated by convention “shall pay a filing fee “to be placed on the general election ballot”. Application is a necessary condition for nomination, it is not sufficient.
The applicant might die;
The applicant might be declared ineligible;
The applicant might withdraw;
The nominating convention might not be held (nominations for districts within a single county are made at the county convention TEC 181.061(c), while applications are made with the state chair TEC 181.032(a)(1). What if the county chair fails to organize a county convention?
The nominating convention might choose not to nominate for that office;
The nominating convention might choose another applicant. The Libertarian Party had contested nominations in 2018 for US senator and governor;
The party might fail to qualify for the general election ballot. This happened to the Green Party in 2018. They definitely had applicants for nomination. I don’t know whether the state convention was held, but they did not file a qualification petition. The state convention occurs prior to the petition deadline.
@eeyn,
Any filing for a public office is a public record. I doubt that the SOS or county judges can charge for that information.
Jim, I appreciate the detailed response, and agree that the arguments against what the SoS is trying to do are very strong. But being right is only weakly correlated with winning in Texas courts.
On a related issue: the law explicitly states that candidates get their filing fee refunded if they are become ineligible. If they don’t get the nomination at the convention they should get their money back, right?
@eeyn,
TEC 141.038 provides for a refund of a filing fee in connection with a candidate’s application for a place on a ballot. It provides that a claim for a refund be presented to the authority with whom an application was made. TEC 181.031 provides that a candidate apply for consideration for nomination with a party chair (state or county based on office).
The SOS interpretation of 141.041 has the candidate sending a copy of his application along with a check to the (SOS or county judge depending on the office).
Is a copy of an application an application? Is an application without the requisite fee or petition an application? See TEC 141.032(c). How late may a challenge to an application be filed under TEC 141.034(a)?
September of 2020? TEC 141.034 was amended in 2017 to limit late challenges to candidates seeking primary nomination. An 8 or 9 month difference for petitions filed at the same time must surely be an equal protection violation.
TEC 141.041 does not say anything about an application. Perhaps TEC 141.038 does not apply? The SOS has apparently not adopted rules implementing 141.041, or if she has they are contrary to the text of 141.041, contrary to the apparent legislative intent and rife with due process and equal protection violations.
Though an application filed under TEC 181.031 must comply with 141.031, there is no requirement that the application include a filing fee or petition.
Compare and contrast with TEC 172.021, the equivalent to TEC 181.031 for primary nomination, where the filing fee or in lieu of petition is the most significant part of the application.
In a partisan primary, party-affiliated voters choose among candidates who offered their name for consideration (e.g. had their name placed on the ballot, Texas does not permit write-ins in primaries). In a partisan convention, party affiliated-delegates choose among candidates who offered their name for consideration. The delegates are selected by voters who eschew voting in a primary.
Texas might be able to assess a fee in association with 181.032, if the fee was paid to the party, and used to defray expenses of conducting nomination activities. A party might prorate the fee based on actual expenses, or draw down state funding.
This could even be extended to independent candidates where the state would pay circulators for collection of signatures.
The SOS maladministration of 141.041 is faulty in other ways. The scheme of bifurcated filing requires a candidate to file with two different authorities, who might be located in different cities. The current Libertarian chair resides in Jacksonville, the current Green party chairs reside in Houston. An application by mail is considered to have been filed when received. An applicant might be required to travel between their home, the city of the state chair and Austin. The USPS is not reliable.
Primary candidates for districts within a single county (e.g. 68% of House districts) file with their county chair. Convention candidates file with the state chair. Primary candidates have convenient filing, the filing fee is paid to the county party and help pay for the primary which is conducted by the county party. The county chair is paid for administering the primary. Most of the poll workers are party faithful. It is in effect a patronage job. It would be unsurprising if many of them didn’t turn around and contribute their earnings to the party. Even rent for polling places and voting machines stays in the community. The party benefits from the publicity of the primary.
Under the SOS interpretation of 141.041, a convention candidate would have to file with both the state chair and the SOS, possibly in two cities several hundred miles distant. The filing fee would not be used for the benefit of the party, not used for election expenses, and would likely be spent outside the county.
The reason for December filing is that primary ballots have to be printed and sent overseas by mid-January. Texas probably adds a little bit of extra time because election officials always do, and because they may be short-staffed over the holidays. They need the money in order to buy ink and paper. This is of course not true for convention nominating parties, and the ballots for the general election don’t have to be prepared for another nine months.
It is unknown how the party and state authorities will coordinate their receipt of the applications. Will the SOS and county judges make a determination of eligibility? Will the county judges be obligated by TEC 181.032(b) to file a list of applicants with the SOS, even though there is no such requirement for independent candidates who filed their declaration of candidacy with the county judge?
Or will the county judge call over to the county chair and tell them that the check has cleared? What happens if filing is extended? There is no requirement in statute for state officials to be informed.
A political party does not have to inform the SOS until January 2 that they will be nominating by convention (TEC 181.0041). They don’t have to send a list of candidates to the SOS until December 19 (TEC 181.032), and yet candidates have to send their check to the SOS by December 9 (141.041 SOS malinterpretation). How does the SOS know who to contact.
Note a county party organized under TEC Chapter 182 does not have to inform the county that they are making nominations until they send the certified nominees to the county clerk after the county convention in March.
@eeyn,
An independent candidate for the Texas House of Representatives requires 500 signatures (TEC 142.007). Under the SOS interpretation of 141.041 a candidate seeking convention nomination for the House must collect 500 signatures (TEC 172.025) (in three low turnout districts, the number is slightly less), unless they want to purchase ballot access.
The convention candidate would have to file by December 9, the independent candidate by June 25, 199 days (almost 7 months) later.
In both cases the reward for the effort would be placement on the general election ballot another 131 days later. Both the independent and partisan candidates would have to take official action 330 days before the general election.
This disparate treatment of independent and partisan candidates, identical signature requirements, 199 days apart clearly violates equal protection.
Had the SOS actually read the text of TEC 141.041, then the additional qualification burden on convention nominees would be imposed after nomination in March or April. There still would be an equal protection violation with respect to primary candidates.
A statute that provided that all candidates on the general election ballot pay a filing fee might be legal. The nominee of a party, whether by primary or convention could file an application, along with a certification of nomination. It would be even better if the filing fees were used for election expenses, and the deadline was in September, with perhaps an earlier deadline for petitions.
The number of signatures required is the same (500) for district offices whether for 1st and 14th courts of appeal, with 1,759,076 votes for governor in 2018, or a county with 25,000 votes (Angelina, Bowie, Bastrop, Hood, Potter). The percentage of signers is betwen 0.028% (28/1000 of 1%) and 2%.
The petition requirement for county office (county judge, county sheriff, county clerk) is the same for independent and convention-nominated candidates in 45 counties, but with a seven month difference in the filing deadline.
For small districts, those with fewer than 1000 votes for governor, the petition requirement is actually lower for independent candidates. This is true for 37 counties, and for county commissioner precincts in around 107 counties.
This illustrates how arbitrary and capricious the petition requirement.