In Georgia, 77% of State Legislative Races Have Only One Candidate on the Ballot

Posted on by October 21, 2012
10

This year, in Georgia, 77% of the state legislative races have only one candidate on the ballot. Even for Georgia, which almost always has one-candidate elections in over half the state legislative races, this is shocking.

Georgia requires a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters to place anyone on the ballot for state legislature (or for U.S. House, or for local partisan office), except that the nominees of parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election for President or Governor need not petition. Georgia also requires a filing fee of 3% of the office’s annual salary, even for candidates who are required to petition. This fee is the second highest filing fee in the nation for non-presidential office.

Legislation to ameliorate these ballot access laws has been repeatedly defeated in the Georgia legislature during the last 40 years. A measure to reduce the petition was defeated in 2012. It would have reduced the petition to 5% of the last presidential vote.

That a fairly populous state like Georgia can hold one-candidate elections in over three-fourths of the legislative districts is, sadly, an indictment of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has repeatedly refused to hear challenges to these laws. It is also an indictment of civic leadership in the state, and, ultimately, an indictment of the people of Georgia, for seeming not to notice or care that their own right to vote for such an important office as state legislator is so curtailed.

Rare Opportunity for an Independent Candidate to Win a County Office in Indiana

Posted on by October 20, 2012
Reply

There are few states that have been less supportive of independent candidates than Indiana. Indiana has had government-printed ballots since 1889, and no independent since 1889 has ever been elected to the state legislature. No independent candidate has ever even appeared on the ballot for Governor or U.S. Senator. Indiana has always had a straight-ticket device, which injures independent candidates. Also, Indiana has always had very strong political parties. Because Indiana has never had registration by party, there is no data on how many voters would register “independent” if voters registered by party in Indiana.

However, it is likely that an independent candidate will be elected next month to be LaGrange County Coroner, a partisan post. LaGrange County is predominantly Republican. However, the current Coroner, a Republican, is term-limited. No one ran in the Republican primary to replace him this year, but the Republican Party nominated someone by party meeting after the primary was over. However, the party’s paperwork was insufficient, and the Republican nominee was kept off the November ballot.

The Deputy Coroner, Jeff Helmuth, submitted petitions to be an independent candidate, but most observers assumed the Democratic nominee for Coroner, Bob Reichard, would defeat Helmuth. However, Reichard died suddenly on October 15 while visiting the Philippines. The Democratic Party has the legal right to place a new nominee on the ballot, but if the party does that before November 1, the county would reprint ballots at a cost to taxpayers of $20,000. LaGrange County is a small-population county and the Democratic Party does not want to cause the county that expense. Therefore, the party will probably leave Reichard’s name on the ballot. Straight-ticket votes for the Democratic Party will count toward the candidate that the Democratic Party chooses to replace Reichard, if the party waits until November to name a new candidate. But non-straight-ticket votes for Reichard don’t count for this purpose. So, chances are, the independent candidate will win the election.

Now Is the Time to Ask Legislators to Introduce Election Law Improvement Bills

Posted on by October 20, 2012
3

Many states badly need ballot access improvements. Many state legislatures have extremely early deadlines for new bills to be introduced. For example, Indiana legislators who wish to introduce bills in the 2013 session of the legislature must introduce them no later than December 2012. Also most states limit the number of bills that any one legislator may introduce, and so many legislators are already planning which bills they will introduce next year. It is common for constituents to ask for a bill early in an odd year, and be told, “Sorry, I already committed to other bills, and I can’t introduce a bill on your subject.”

Also, October is a time when most state legislators are running for re-election, so they tend to be out and about on the campaign trail, and are receptive to requests from constituents.

In certain states, ballot access laws have been held unconstitutional and it should be especially easy to find sponsors, because the legislature has an obligation to write new laws to replace the old void ones. This is true right now in California, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont. Also the South Carolina legislature will surely be ready to amend the ballot access laws, given the large number of Republicans and Democrats who were kept off primary and general election ballots this year due to unclear laws.

Libertarian Party Pennsylvania Victory has National Implications

Posted on by October 20, 2012
Reply

Here is the September 20, 2012 decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in the case over whether the Libertarian Party statewide petition is valid. The case name is In Re: Nomination Papers of Margaret K. Robertson for President, no. 507 MD 2012 (the case has that name because Margaret Robertson was the stand-in presidential candidate).

This decision was of course very helpful to the Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania, but it will be helpful in future petition drives all across the United States. The decision interprets federal law to mean that, at least in federal elections, states must accept signatures as valid if the signer had moved, and signed with the new address, but still hadn’t re-registered and is still listed on the voter registration rolls at the old address. The federal law is 42 U.S.C. 1973. That is part of the 1993 federal law nicknamed the “motor voter” law, but formally known as the National Voter Registration Act.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Court decision will apparently not be reported. It can still be cited as a precedent, and the information in the decision of course can still be used. However, if the decision were reported, it would be easier for attorneys in other, future lawsuits to refer to it. “Reported” means that the decision has been sent in to the private company that prints copies of important decisions in books that are found in law libraries. Pennsylvania state court decisions that are reported are found in the Atlantic Reporter.