Text of Senator Nelson’s Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Direct Presidential Election

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) recently introduced SJR 39, which would provide for the direct election of the president. The wording is now available. It reads, “Sec. 1. The President and Vice President shall be jointly elected by the direct vote of the qualified electors of the several States and territories and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States. The electors in each State, territory, and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the legislative body where they reside.

Section 2. Congress may determine the time, place and manner of holding the election, the entitlement to inclusion on the ballot, and the manner in which the results of the election shall be ascertained and declared.”

If this amendment were passed, the ballot access laws for president would be in the hands of Congress. The United States and Switzerland are now the only nations in the world in which the election laws for national elections are not written by the national government.

Congress has written a ballot access for presidential elections once. Congress had to write such a law for the District of Columbia, after the 23rd Amendment was passed giving D.C. its own presidential electors. The original law, passed in 1961, provided for a petition of 5% of the number of registered voters in the District. No one even tried to use it until 1972, when both the Socialist Workers Party, and the Communist Party, tried to use it to get on the D.C. ballot for president. The petition that year required 13,319 signatures. Both parties submitted more signatures than the minimum, but the D.C. Board of Elections rejected both petitions for not having enough valid signatures. Both parties sued, arguing that they did have enough signatures. Neither party won its lawsuit. However, this prompted the Board to ask Congress to lower the requirement, to avoid the hassle. Congress obliged, lowering it to 1% of the number of registered voters in 1973. That law still stands. Nowadays the D.C. City Council has the authority to pass its own election laws, subject to veto by Congress.

The Nelson Amendment would grant U.S. citizens a vote for president, if they live in Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, most residents of American Samoa are not U.S. citizens, just U.S. nationals. Thanks to Thomas Jones.

Irish Vote on Lisbon Treaty Energizes Senator Gravel's Democracy Foundation

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel has been working for a national initiative process for the United States for many years. See www.nationalinitiative.us for more about this project. Gravel’s recent campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination helped publicize his goal, at least among Libertarians and others who followed the party’s presidential contest this year.

Gravel’s Democracy Foundation is newly energized by the recent important Irish vote on whether Ireland should approve the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty would bring the European Union somewhat closer to being a national entity. It establishes the first constitution for the European Union. It makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on the member states (with exceptions for Britain and Poland), and establishs the post of President of the European Council, with a term of 2.5 years. The President would be chosen by the Council.

The Treaty was set to go into effect on January 1, 2009, if all 27 member nations approved it. Of the 27 nations in the European Union, only Ireland put the treaty to a popular vote. That vote, held on June 12, resulted in a “yes” vote of 752,451, and a “no” vote of 852,415. The turnout was 53%. Some of the Irish opposition came from a feeling that the proposed Constitution is not democratic enough. The consequences of the Irish referendum are momentous. Although European Union leaders are now thinking of going ahead without Ireland, the Treaty has only been ratified so far by 18 nations, and its progress has certainly been cramped by the vote. Some Europeans are arguing that the Treaty should be put to a popular vote in all EU nations, and furthermore that the voters should be able to accept or reject separate sections.

When the United States considered a Constitution in the 1780’s, each state elected delegates to a ratifying convention in that particular state. Thus the preamble to the Constitution, which starts “We the People”, is a meaningful statement, not empty rhetoric.

For more about the Lisbon Treaty, see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.

Irish Vote on Lisbon Treaty Energizes Senator Gravel’s Democracy Foundation

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel has been working for a national initiative process for the United States for many years. See www.nationalinitiative.us for more about this project. Gravel’s recent campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination helped publicize his goal, at least among Libertarians and others who followed the party’s presidential contest this year.

Gravel’s Democracy Foundation is newly energized by the recent important Irish vote on whether Ireland should approve the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty would bring the European Union somewhat closer to being a national entity. It establishes the first constitution for the European Union. It makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on the member states (with exceptions for Britain and Poland), and establishs the post of President of the European Council, with a term of 2.5 years. The President would be chosen by the Council.

The Treaty was set to go into effect on January 1, 2009, if all 27 member nations approved it. Of the 27 nations in the European Union, only Ireland put the treaty to a popular vote. That vote, held on June 12, resulted in a “yes” vote of 752,451, and a “no” vote of 852,415. The turnout was 53%. Some of the Irish opposition came from a feeling that the proposed Constitution is not democratic enough. The consequences of the Irish referendum are momentous. Although European Union leaders are now thinking of going ahead without Ireland, the Treaty has only been ratified so far by 18 nations, and its progress has certainly been cramped by the vote. Some Europeans are arguing that the Treaty should be put to a popular vote in all EU nations, and furthermore that the voters should be able to accept or reject separate sections.

When the United States considered a Constitution in the 1780’s, each state elected delegates to a ratifying convention in that particular state. Thus the preamble to the Constitution, which starts “We the People”, is a meaningful statement, not empty rhetoric.

For more about the Lisbon Treaty, see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.

Independent Candidate for Pennsylvania Legislature Files Ballot Access Lawsuit

On June 2, an independent candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate filed a lawsuit in federal court, challenging several aspects of Pennsylvania ballot access procedures. The candidate, Dennis Baylor, is representing himself, but the complaint is very well-drafted. The election code does not actually require petition signers to be registered voters, but merely “qualified electors”. The term “qualified electors” has long been defined in Pennsylvania to mean people who are eligible to register (whether they are actually registered or not). The Baylor complaint asks that state officials be required to live up to this definition. It also complains that independent and minor party candidates who complete their petitions early have no means to establish that they are now ballot-qualified. Current practice sets the petitions aside until after the August 1 deadline, which leaves candidates who petition for the general election in limbo, sometimes for months. The case is Baylor v Cortes, cv-08-1060, Middle District.

A more far-reaching federal lawsuit against some other Pennsylvania ballot access practices should be filed soon, by several minor parties. It will challenge Pennsylvania’s practice of putting candidates in jeopardy for tens of thousands of dollars, should their petitions not have enough valid signatures. It will challenge the failure of some Pennsylvania counties to count write-ins votes. Finally, it will attack the state’s insistence that petition forms must say that the signers are “nominating” the candidates listed on the petition form, when actually those candidates have been nominated by their own political parties, at party conventions.