South Dakota Legislature Passes Bill Making Ballot Access Worse

Posted on by March 16, 2015
3

On March 13, the South Dakota legislature passed SB 69, which makes ballot access worse for both newly-qualifying parties and independent candidates.  The bill was amended on the House floor to soften some of the harm, and the Senate accepted the House amendments.

The bill moves the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties from the last Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March.  The original bill had moved that deadline into February, so the final  version still makes the deadline more restrictive, but not as bad as the earlier version.  For 2016, the deadline would move from March 29 to March 1.

The bill still says that no one can sign an independent candidate petition if the potential signer is a registered member of a qualified party.  Current law lets any registered voter sign an independent candidate’s petition.

The bill no longer makes the petition for a member of a small ballot-qualified party to get on the primary ballot any worse than it already is.  Current law says a member of a new party needs 250 signatures of party members to get on the primary ballot for statewide office, which is a large problem if the party only has 500 registered members, or even if it has 2,000 members, because they are scattered all over the state.  The bill says a candidate of a new party now has a choice of obtaining 250 signatures of party members, or he or she can also obtain signatures of independent voters, but if that alternative is used, the requirement rises to 1% of the number of independent voters, which would be over 1,000 signatures of independent voters and/or party members.

Another provision of the bill raises the number of signatures for members of large parties to get on the primary ballot.   Existing law requires primary petitions from 1% of a party’s previous gubernatorial general election vote (if the party is not a new party), but the bill changes that to 1% of the number of registrants in that party.  That change has a worse impact on Democrats than on Republicans.  Many politically active people in South Dakota are working to persuade the Governor to veto the bill.

California Bill to Require Certain Write-in Candidates to Pay a Filing Fee

Posted on by March 16, 2015
4

California Assemblymember Frank Bigelow has introduced AB 372, to require write-in candidates to pay a filing fee if they are running for a partisan office and place first or second in the June primary.  The bill is probably prompted by the fact that in 2014, Bigelow was the only name on the primary ballot for Assembly, 5th district.  But a Libertarian, Patrick D. Hogan, filed as a write-in in the June primary, and came in second, since there were only two people eligible to receive votes, Bigelow and Hogan.  In November, Hogan was the only Libertarian on the California ballot for a partisan race and he got 25.75% of the vote.

The California filing fee is 2% of the office’s annual salary for statewide office, and 1% of the office’s annual salary for district office.  If the bill had been in effect in 2014, Hogan would not have been on the November ballot unless he paid almost $1,000 to election officials.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court issued an order, letting Socialist Labor Party candidate Herb Steiner file as a declared write-in candidate for U.S. House without paying any filing fee.  That decision is not published but can be found in the minutes of the California Supreme Court in volume 62, page 533.  Also in 1974 the same court issued a full opinion in Knoll v Davidson, 12 C. 3d 335, saying that the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates, not just indigent candidates, must be given a way onto the ballot without paying a filing fee.

In 1989, the Fourth Circuit struck down a Maryland law requiring declared write-in candidates to pay a filing fee, Dixon v Maryland State Adm. Bd. of Election Laws, 878 F 2d 776.  In 2000 a U.S. District Court struck down a West Virginia law requiring write-in candidates to pay a filing fee, Phillips v Hechler, 120 F Supp 2d 587 (s.d.).  The basis for these decisions is that filing fees are unconstitutional unless they are needed for the purpose of keeping ballots uncrowded, yet a write-in candidate’s name doesn’t appear on the ballot so it doesn’t cause a cluttered ballot.  Applying this principle to the California general election, clearly no filing fee is needed, because California general election ballots for partisan office other than president cannot include more than two names on the ballot, so obviously there is no fear of a cluttered ballot.

California requires write-in candidates for partisan office other than president to collect 40 signatures (if they are running for district office) or 65 signatures (if they are running for statewide office).  AB 372 will be heard on April 15.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules that Petitions Are Not Valid if they Don’t Have Enough Valid Signatures

Posted on by March 18, 2015
2

On March 16, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled that candidate petitions are not valid unless they have the statutorily required number of valid signatures.  Jackson-Hicks v The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL 118929.  This may seem to be obvious, but the lower state court had ruled last month that if a petition has almost enough valid signatures, it is in substantial compliance with the law.

As a result of the decision, the incumbent Mayor, Alvin L. Parks, Jr., will be removed from the ballot.  The election is April 7 and some absentee votes have already been cast.  Fortunately for Parks, the Illinois deadline for filing as a write-in candidate is only one week before the election, so he still has time to file as a declared write-in candidate.  However, if the ballots (which have already been printed) are not reprinted, anyone who votes for him by placing an “X” in the square next to his name (as printed on the ballot) will have cast an invalid ballot.  See this story.  Thanks to Ken Bush for the link.

UPDATE:  this March 18 story says all the ballots will be reprinted, and Mayor Parks will run as a write-in candidate.

U.S. District Court Upholds Ohio Ballot Access Law on Some Points; Other Issues Still Unresolved

Posted on by March 17, 2015
6

On March 16, a U.S. District Court upheld Ohio’s ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties relative to the claims made by the Ohio Green Party.  The law was passed in 2013 and did not change the 1% (of the last vote cast) petition to get on the ballot, except that it improved the deadline, and added a distribution requirement, and required additional small petitions for convention nominees.  The 2013 law provides that newly-qualifying parties nominate by convention instead of by primary.  Here is the opinion.

Currently the Green Party is the only ballot-qualified party in Ohio other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.  Any other parties will need 30,560 signatures by July 6, 2016.

This decision doesn’t discuss the Libertarian Party’s main argument, which is that the new law violates the Ohio State Constitution.  Normally federal courts can’t decide whether a state law violates a state constitutional provision, but there are exceptions.  The Ohio State Constitution appears to mandate that all parties nominate by primary, and yet the new law says new parties nominate by convention.  A decision addressing the Libertarian Party’s points is likely soon.

Maryland Ballot Access Bill Hearing Goes Well

Posted on by March 16, 2015
Reply

The Maryland House Ways & Means Committee heard HB 626 on February 25.  This is the bill to ease the law on how a party remains on the ballot.  Current law says a party continues to be ballot-qualified if it has registration of 1% of the entire state electorate, which is over 40,000 registered members.  The bill would lower that to exactly 10,000 registered members.

All the committee members who said anything about the bill seemed supportive.  Three individuals testified in favor, and no one testified against.  The Committee may vote on the bill on Tuesday, March 17.