On January 3, 2007, New York State Senator John Defrancisco (R-Staten Island) introduced S29, which cuts the number of signatures in half, for all types of ballot access petitions. So far the bill has not made any headway, but the New York legislature meets almost all year long. The statewide petition would drop from 15,000 to 7,500 signatures. Thanks to M Carling for this news.
On April 12, a 7-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 that a group of voters may proceed with a lawsuit, challenging the use of Electronic Vote-Counting machines that leave no paper trail. Banfield v Cortes, 442 MD 2006.
The majority opinion is 26 pages long, and depends partly on the Pennsylvania Constitutional provision (Art. I, sec. 5) that “elections are free and equal.” The opinion quoted from a 1992 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that says, “When every voter has the same right as any other voter; when each voter under the law has the right to cast his ballot and have it honestly counted”, only then is the State Constitution satisfied. The decision then says, “Because Electors have a right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to have their votes honestly counted and because Electors have no way of knowing whether the votes will be honestly counted by DREs that are not reliable or secure, Electors have pled an injury.”
The majority also depended on sec. 1105-A of the Election code, which says an electronic voting system shall “provide for a permanent physical record of each vote cast.” That law was added in 1980, before the newest technology had been invented.
The 3-judge dissent says, “The statute does not say ‘paper’; it says ‘physical record.’
By chance, 5 of the 7 judges on the panel are women. All of the dissenters were women. The judges in the majority are Doris Smith-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini, Rochelle Friedman, and Robert Simpson; the dissenters are Bonnie Leadbetter, Renee Cohn Jubelirer, and Mary Hannah Leavitt. The state may appeal to the State Supreme Court.
The voters of Georgia’s 10th congressional district will choose a new member of the House on June 19. Anyone who pays a filing fee of $4,950 will appear on the June 19 ballot, with a party label of his or her choice (Georgia doesn’t have registration by party). The dates for filing the declaration of candidacy and paying the fee are between April 24 and noon on April 26. No petition is needed, since this is a special election.
One Libertarian, Dr. Jim Sendelbach, has already announced that he will run. His participation will be historic. This will be the first time since 1942 that a candidate will have appeared on the Georgia ballot for U.S. House, with a party label other than “Democratic” or “Republican”. In regularly-scheduled elections, Georgia not only requires the same large filing fee; Georgia also requires a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters in the district is required. No third party candidate has ever complied with that law, which was passed in 1943. An independent last complied with it in 1964.
On April 12, two members of Unity08’s Rules Committee participated in an on-line question and answer session. The transcript is already posted by an independent web site, Political State Report, and can be seen here, along with remarks by the people who posted it. The transcript should soon be on Unity08’s web page as well.
Ballot Access News has just faxed a letter to Missouri Representative Theodore Hoskins, sponsor of HB894, which would require all minor party and independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy in March of election years. The text of the letter follows:
Dear Rep. Hoskins, Concerning HB 894, I have the greatest respect for you and for anyone who tries to treat all candidates equally. I understand that you introduced HB 894 because you believe in equal treatment, and I also believe in equal treatment.
But there is another consideration, and that is a free election requires flexibility. Specifically, it isn’t a free election if all avenues to the general election ballot are closed off as early as 8 months before an election.
In 1988, the U.S. State Dept. criticized Armenia for passing an election law that required all candidates to qualify six months before their election. In Great Britain, even though parties choose their party leaders years before any particular House of Commons election, the deadline for candidates for House of Commons to get on the ballot is only 12 days before the election.
Often events occur during an election year, which lead people to want to enter a race late. This is why we have procedures for independent candidates and new parties, and current Missouri law properly lets them enter the race in late July.
Congress passed the terrible Kansas-Nebraska Act in May 1854. This opened up Kansas and Nebraska Territories to slavery. In response, on July 6, 1854, the Republican Party was formed, to fight that law. The Republican Party won more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in fall 1854 than any other party.
If there had been a law back then saying no one could enter the race after March, the success of the Republican Party would have been impossible in 1854. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 US 780 (1983), that the Constitution requires a route onto the ballot later than March 20, at least for president. A US District Court in Missouri held your state’s old April petition deadline unconstitutional in McCarthy v Kirkpatrick, 420 F Supp 366 (1976). I know that’s different than a Declaration of Candidacy deadline, but see Cromer v State, 917 F 2d 819 (4th cir. 1991), disallowing a South Carolina law requiring an independent candidate to file a Declaration of Candidacy in February.
The Missouri Democratic and Republican Parties are free to give themselves more time to enter your state’s primary, if they feel disadvantaged by their March deadline. Their deadline could easily be moved to May with no harm to election administration. Sincerely yours, Richard Winger, editor, Ballot Access News.
