Minnesota State Senator Jim Carlson (D-Eagan) has introduced SF 1827, which changes the definition of a qualified party. The current definition is a group that polled at least 5% for any statewide office at either of the last two elections. The bill doubles that to 10%.
Senator Carlson is chair of the Senate Elections Committee.
2023 is turning out to be a very bad year for ballot access in state legislatures. There are bills to make it more severe in Connecticut (a bill for a top-two system), Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire (bills to move the non-presidential primary indirectly make the petition deadlines worse), and New Mexico. There are fears of a bad bill coming in Texas. Bills to make ballot access more difficult have already been defeated this year in Colorado and Wyoming.
The Minnesota definition of a qualified party is already too severe. To illustrate that, note that the Libertarian Party has been ballot-qualified in 43 states, but it has never been qualified in Minnesota. The other such states are Georgia for district office, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The definition of “qualified” is that the party has the same ease of placing nominees on the general election ballot that the Democratic and Republican Parties enjoy. Thanks to Edward T. J. Brown for the news about Minnesota.
Was the previously set standard of 5% in response to the Independence Party and try to eliminate them?
No, the 5% was set in 1913. That same year, the legislature created the party petition, also 5%. It is so difficult, it has never been used by a statewide party, although it might have been used inside particular counties to form a county party.
The legislature was good to the Independence Party. In 2001 the legislature amended the 5% vote test to say it only needs to be met every other election. The Independent Party asked for that bill because it was looking ahead to 2004, when the only statewide office was going to be president, and so it was afraid it would fall off the ballot in 2004.
And in MN Independent candidates can choose a brief minor party designation to be labeled on the ballot.
What was the ballot access law prior to 1913?
UNEQUAL FOR MINOR PARTIES IN ALL STATES SINCE DAY 1 OF GOVT OFFICIAL BALLOTS ???
DID ANY D/R GANG STATE TRY TO HAVE UNEQUAL BALLOT ACCESS FOR THE R/D GANG ???
Much better to have uniform standard for ballot access everywhere: a party must have a precinct captain who lives in that precinct, shows up to vote and marshal that party’s forces on election evening, and flies the party’s banner to represent that party in the precinct between elections.
The Minnesota ballot law was passed in 1889, and said it was a group that had polled 1%. Then, in 1899, the legislature passed a bill for party primaries and said any party that had polled 10% could have its own primary. In 1902 the State Supreme Court ruled that the 1899 law had repealed the old good 1% vote test, so then the vote test was 10%. In 1905 the State Code Revision Commission, which had legislative authority to alter the law, said any party that had been on the ballot in every election for the preceding 10 years was a qualified party. In 1913 the legislature lowered the 10% vote test to 5%.
Some states are actually more difficult to place candidates on the ballot if you get recognized party status.
Only Maine and Massachusetts.
Richard, what about Indiana? Democrats and Republicans have mandatory petitions for primaries, whereas the Libertarian Party can nominate via convention.
I think Michigan has something similar.
North Dakota primary rule…
I’m glad that Richard now agrees with something I pointed out here first, that the overall trend has reversed and ballot access is now on average getting harder.