West Virginia Senator Robbie Morris (R-Randolph) and Representative Joe Funkhouser (R-Charles Town) have introduced SB 851 and HB 5217. The identical bills would require declared write-in candidates to pay filing fees.
West Virginia in the past also required write-in candidates to pay filing fees, but in 2000 a U.S. District Court struck down the West Virginia filing fees for write-in candidates. Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp.2d 587. The state did not appeal and repealed the law. The rationale for the court decision is that the purpose of filing fees is to keep ballots from being too crowded, but write-in candidates’ names are not printed on ballots.
In October of 2000, the late Brenda Donnellan, a founder of the West Virginia Constitution Party, was instrumental in getting an injunction filed to END the requirement of filing fees for write-ins in West Virginia. Refer to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ba0eadd7b0493478ebd4
“The Court therefore DECLARED unconstitutional West Virginia Code ยง 3-6-4a, which requires a write-in candidate to pay a filing fee as a condition for certification as an official write-in candidate. As a result, the court GRANTED plaintiffs motion for declaratory judgment and issued a PERMANENT INJUNCTION enjoining the defendant from refusing to certify plaintiffs, Phillips and Frazier, as official write-in candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States…”
Texas required an application for write-in candidacy so that election officials would not have to tabulate extraneous markings on the ballot. If someone voted for “Mickey Mouse”, an election judge could not be certain that there was not a Mr. Mouse who was eligible, nor that even though he only received one vote in that precinct, that he didn’t receive most of the votes statewide. I suspect some election judges were pragmatic and simply reported markings for “Mickey Mouse” as an undervote. But others might have reported it, and radio stations or newspapers would report the “funny” votes the next day.
When the certification was added, provision was made to provide a list of certified write-in candidates to the election judge, so they would know who to tabulate write-in votes for, and who to ignore. But there were concerns about voters. At first they said anyone who wanted to vote for a write-in could just ask the election judge. Eventually, they said that the list of certified write-in candidates be displayed in each voting booth. Texas requires that to the extent practicable, that the environment for mail ballots be the same as for in-person voting. Implicitly, a list of write-in candidates must be included in the voting packet sent to mail voters – and this has been made explicit in current law. A write-in candidate is every bit as legitimate as an on-ballot candidate. They must be eligible for the office, and their candidacy may be challenged. Texas omits the write-in space for offices which have no write-in candidates. Because printed materials must be prepared in advance, the filing deadline for write-in candidates is in late August.
After the certification law was passed, some jokesters filed for every office, and there might be dozens on the ballot. The simple solution would likely have been to limit write-in candidates to one office, just as they are limited to one on-ballot office. Instead they required a filing fee to be paid. The filing fee is the same as for a primary candidate for the same office, paid to the state or county election officials (primary candidates pay their fee to party officials).
Because elections have a considerable expense for write-in candidates in Texas, the concerns expressed in the West Virginia and Maryland cases do not apply. The proposed West Virginia law would require posting of write-in candidates at each polling place, but that is not the same as every voting booth.
When Republicans wanted to keep Libertarians off the ballot, they tried to impose a filing fee. But the filing fees of primary candidates pays for the primary. None of it goes for the general election. Convention-nominating parties pay for their own nominating events. Ballot crowding is not an issue since only one candidate may be nominated for each office. So instead, the filing fee would go for “election integrity”. It was not explained why Democrats and Republicans were not required to pay such a fee. At the time, Libertarians were eligible to hold a state-subsidized primary. The bill got a $10 million dollar fiscal note attached and the bill died.
When the filing fee was imposed in 2019, they cribbed the filing fee provisions applicable to write-in candidates. I doubt that Drew Springer is smart enough to write a bill, so someone had to hand it him. Libertarians pay their filing fee to the state or county government general funds so the money will be used to fund some boondoggle. The filing fee must be paid at the same time that a candidate file with party officials. Even David Crockett, William B. Travis, Steven F. Austin, or Sam Houston could not be at two places at once.
When Texas had a poll tax, voters could not participate in a convention if they had not paid the tax, nor could candidates seek nomination. Candidates seeking nomination at a Libertarian convention would be expected to speak before the convention and to respond to questions. In effect the filing fee is a poll tax to be paid to the state before someone could speak. The ability to participate in informal matters such as the platform are not comparable.
The ability to read or write should have nothing to do with voting.
@Stan,
Voters with a disability may have assistance when voting.
That will take a lot of assistance as illiterates quickly become the overwhelming majority. Before the end of this century, the proportion of the population learning the ABCs will be about the same as those learning Klingon.