Texas Legislative Committee Hears Testimony on Bill Abolishing Straight-Ticket Device

Posted on by March 17, 2015
Reply

On March 16, the Texas House Elections Committee heard testimony about HB 1288, which would abolish the straight-ticket device.  See this story, which ways that Democratic and Republican Party officials testified against the bill.  The fact that the bill has had a hearing this early in the session suggests it has a reasonable chance of passing.

The same hearing took testimony on HB 464, which would force minor party nominees to pay a filing fee.  Current law requires candidates who run in primaries to pay a filing fee.  The rationale for the Texas filing fee was originally that the money should be used to pay for some of the costs of holding the primary, but the U.S. Supreme Court has said the only reason that filing fees can exist is to keep ballots from being too crowded.  Therefore, the purpose of the filing fee now is to keep primary ballots from being too crowded.  Smaller qualified parties nominate by convention in Texas, at their own expense, so there is no obvious reason to require their candidates to pay filing fees.  The newspaper story linked above doesn’t describe the testimony on HB 464.  If anyone can report on that, please comment.

Nevada Bill to Move Primary for All Offices to January, and Include a Presidential Primary

Posted on by March 16, 2015
Reply

Two Nevada Republican Assemblymembers have introduced AB 302, which moves the primary from June to January.  It also would establish a presidential primary in Nevada, on the same January date.  Currently Nevada has a caucus to choose delegates to major party national conventions, not a presidential primary.

Nevada already was permitted by the Democratic and Republican Party rules to hold a caucus in February.  Nevada is one of four states that have the right to hold early processes.  But this Nevada bill, if enacted, would violate national party rules.  Josh Putnam at this link explains the various ramifications if this bill passes.

The bill would not change the petition deadlines for newly-qualifying parties or independent candidates.

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.