On February 21, the Kansas House tentatively passed HB 2516, the bill to increase the statewide independent petition from 5,000 signatures to 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, about 21,000 signatures. It will get a final vote in the House on Thursday, February 22.
See this story. The bill’s author, Representative Paul Waggoner (R-Hutchinson) seems to think the best argument for this bill is rooted in the history of Kansas gubernatorial elections. What he doesn’t say is that Kansas required 2,500 signatures for statewide independent candidates in the years 1897 through 1991, and 5,000 signatures since then. Kansas elected its Governor every two years until 1974, and starting with 1974, the terms were four years.
Thus, Kansas has had 51 gubernatorial elections since petitions were first required. Out of those 51 elections, never has more than a single independent candidate been on the ballot for Governor. And in 42 of those elections, there were no independent candidates on the ballot for Governor. The years with one gubernatorial candidate on the ballot were 1914, 1924, 1932, 1938, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1990, and 2022.
The purpose of ballot access barriers is to keep the ballot from being too crowded. Obviously the old requirements have easily accomplished that goal.
The bill takes effect for this election, so independent candidates who are already petitioning now for president will have a strong due process lawsuit if the bill passes. In 1990, when the legislature increased the requirement from 2,500 to 5,000, the Secretary of State ruled that he would only require 2,500 for 1990, because he felt it wasn’t fair to increase the petition requirement in the middle of petitioning season. He made that decision on August 29. There are court precedents from other states that it violates due process to increase the ballot access barriers in the middle of petitioning season, and one of them, Hudler v Austin, was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976.
The purpose of ballot access barriers is to keep challengers out.
Jim Riley,
Cynical, but, I think, accurate take. The official reasons are preventing “ballot crowding” and “voter confusion,” and to keep elections from being “spoiled,” as I’m 100% confident you know. The first problem, at least, is addressed by getting rid of ballots and moving to in person voting.
DUE PROCESS PERVERSION LIKE 1 AMDT PERVERSION FOR BALLOT ACCESS.
SCOTUS SUMMARY AFFIRMS MEAN ZERO AFTER GAY MARRIAGE CASE.
Expect more and more of this sort of thing at an accelerating pace going forward.
An article from Kansas Historical Society says on J. R. Brinkley: “Conducting a vigorous write in campaign for governor of Kansas in 1930, Brinkley garnered nearly 30 percent of the vote.”
Write-in campaign? HB2516 certainly wouldn’t stop a write-in campaign.
Good point. There will have to be a companion bill banning write in votes, if that hasn’t already passed since then.
Another argument is presented:
A crowded race (three’s a crowd) can result in no candidate winning a majority of the votes.
Which candidates enjoy a majority of support? You can’t tell when no one gets a majority of votes. Oh no!
If you could vote for the candidates (plural) you support, it’s a lot more likely that someone will win a majority. A runoff election is another option.
HB 2516 won’t stop strong independent candidates or strong write-in candidates. It doesn’t solve the problem. Rep. Mason is incorrect. Again.
Why do any of them have to have majority support? What if none of them do? Is a second place vote really an indication that this candidate is just as or nearly as good as the first place, or perhaps marginally less terrible than third place?
Or maybe these candidates aren’t ranked. That presents yet other difficulties, and so on.
Any such schemes make voting more complicated, and thus more susceptible to fraud and actual confusion. There is too much of those as it is.
DEMOCRACY = MAJORITY RULE
MONARCHY/OLIGARCHY = MINORITY RULE
BY DEFINITION.
—
DIRECT OR INDIRECT VERSIONS OF D AND M/O.
Oh my gosh, you are so confused. We don’t like Democrats or Missouri.
I have a better proposal: have a modified top 2 electoral system.
It would work like this: all qualified candidates would compete in june or july in the first round. Voters would get a 2-columned ballot with all the candidates and a none of the above option. They can vote for 2 candidates. The top 2 qualify for the second round in november.
No. That’s not better.
@AC,
John Romulus Brinkley was an interesting person. If Wikipedia is to be believed he may be posting on BAN.
He might have won the 1930 election except that the AG ruled that only votes for “J.R. Brinkley” would count. He received 185,000 votes with an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 for other spellings.
The Man always wins.
I may have named myself in his honor, but I forget. I’m going back to sleep now.
AC/JR
APPROVAL VOTING —
VOTE YES/NO ON EACH CANDIDATE — NO = DEFAULT
CONDORCET WITH APPV TIEBREAKER = RCV DONE RIGHT.
Sounds ok as long as there’s only one candidate and not approving gets you a date with Commander Biden.