Good South Dakota Election Law Ruling

Posted on by March 6, 2008
Reply

On March 6, South Dakota Supervisor of Elections Kea Warne ruled that any adult may circulate a petition to qualify a new party in South Dakota. In 2007, the legislature had passed a bill saying only South Dakota residents may circulate a petition for initiatives and only South Dakota residents may circulate a petition to place a candidate on a ballot. However, the new party petition is a separate animal, since it doesn’t name any particular candidate and is for the purpose of recognizing the party.

This ruling will help the Libertarian Party, which has been struggling with its petition in that state. The deadline is March 25. The petition requires 8,389 valid signatures. On March 6, Daniel Imperato made a donation of $2,000 toward the costs of the South Dakota Libertarian petition drive.

Arizona Libertarian Private Presidential Primary

Posted on by March 6, 2008
Reply

The Arizona Libertarian Party was entitled to its own government-financed presidential primary last month. But the party, as it had done once before, asked the state government not to hold a presidential primary for itself. Instead, the party planned its own on-line presidential primary. The party sent out a press release, accurately saying that its decision was saving Arizona taxpayers approximately $1,000,000.

Since the party’s primary was simultaneous with the government-funded major party presidential primaries, i.e., February 5, one would have expected the party to have announced the results long before now. It turns out that the party promoted its own presidential primary very badly, and fewer than 70 voters participated. The party has been embarassed by the tiny turnout and that is the reason it still hasn’t posted the results.

Utah Bill to Impose Filing Fees on Write-in Candidates Fails to Pass

Posted on by March 6, 2008
Reply

The Utah legislature adjourned for the year on the evening of February 5. SB 126 failed to pass the House. It had passed the Senate unanimously in January 2008.

The bill would have forced declared write-in candidates to pay the same filing fee that ballot-listed candidates must pay (only “paupers” are exempt). Utah filing fees are high. For U.S. Senate, for example, they are approximately $1,200.

The probable reason for the bill’s failure to pass, was that I e-mailed all the Utah House members that similar filing fees for write-in candidates had been declared unconstitutional in federal court in Maryland and West Virginia, and by state court in California. Also the Utah ACLU helped circulate this information.

The basis for these court decisions is the principle that the only permissible reason for filing fees is to keep ballots from being too crowded. Normally, governments cannot require either voters or candidates to pay money, in order to vote or to run for office. Despite this general rule, filing fees are permitted (for those who can afford them) because they are needed for the compelling reason of keeping ballots uncluttered. But fees on write-ins obviously don’t relate to that purpose.