On September 25, Ohio State Senator Bill Seitz testified in favor of his SB 193, which deals with the definition of “political party” and the deadline for a newly-qualifying party to submit its signatures. Opponents of the bill were not given a chance to testify, but they will be permitted to testify at a future hearing.
Senator Seitz’ written testimony is here. The fourth paragraph compares the Ohio petition requirement for newly-qualifying parties with the petition requirements in other states. The testimony says that Ohio’s 1% of the last vote cast is equal to or less than the laws of 25 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Senator Seitz is incorrect about petition requirements in eight states: Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. A party may place a statewide candidate on the ballot with the party label in Maine with 4,000 signatures, which is only .5% of the last Maine presidential vote; it may do so in Massachusetts with 10,000 signatures, which is only .3% of the last presidential vote; it may do so in Michigan with 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, which is easier than the Ohio provision because Ohio uses 1% of the last presidential vote for midterm election years, and presidential election years typically have 30% to 40% higher turnout than in midterm years; a party may place a statewide nominee with the party label on the ballot in Minnesota with 2,000 signatures, which is only .1% of the last presidential vote; a party may qualify in Nebraska with a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, not 1% of the much higher presidential vote; it may place its statewide nominees on the New Hampshire ballot with the party label with 3,000 signatures, which is .4% of the last presidential vote; it may place its nominees on the Pennsylvania ballot with a petition signed by 2% of the winner’s vote in the odd-year statewide partisan judicial election, which typically requires 20,000 signatures, which is only .4% of the last presidential vote; it may place its statewide nominees on the Rhode Island ballot with the party label with a petition of 1,000 signatures, which is only .2% of the last presidential vote.
The fifth paragraph of the testimony discusses vote tests for a party to remain on the ballot. Surprisingly, the testimony says the bill’s 3% vote test for the office at the top of the ballot in the previous election (president in presidential years, and governor in midterm years) “is more generous to minor parties than current law because it may be met either at the most recent presidential election or at the most recent gubernatorial election”. However, the bill plainly does not do that. Here is the text of the bill. Note sections 3501.01 and 3517.01. It is encouraging that Senator Seitz apparently wants to make the vote test apply only once every four years, but if that is his intent, the bill must be amended.
Setting aside the question of how often the vote test must be met, the fifth paragraph also is wrong when it says the retention requirements of six of the states he lists are equal to or more difficult than the Ohio bill’s 3%. Arizona permits a party to remain ballot-qualified if it has registration of two-thirds of 1%. Maine permits a party to remain ballot-qualified if it has registration of 10,000 voters who actually go to the polls and vote, which, in practice, requires a party to have approximately 13,000 registrants, which is 1.6% of the last presidential vote. Massachusetts requires a party to poll 3% for any statewide office, which is considerably easier than requiring it to poll 3% for President and/or Governor. Montana requires a party to poll 5% of the winning candidate’s vote for any statewide office, which works out to approximately 3% of the total vote and is far easier than the Ohio provision because it must only be met every four years, when there are seven or eight offices on the ballot. Nebraska’s vote test is 5% but it need only be met every four years and can be satisfied by any statewide nominee. Vermont has no vote test for a party to remain ballot-qualified, as long as it continues to have town committees in any ten towns.