On June 19, New York city Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that he is changing his registration from “Republican” to “independent.” See here for the story.
Reply
The Green Party is holding a national conference in Reading, Pensylvania, on July 14. Ralph Nader will be one of the speakers. He reportedly will talk about the decision of the Pennsylvania State Courts to require candidates in 2004 and 2006 to pay between $80,000 and $90,000 in costs for having tried to get on the ballot and being challenged and then removed. The 2004 candidate who was victimized was Nader himself; the 2006 candidate was Carl Romanelli, Green Party nominee for U.S. Senator. Romanelli’s appeal on the matter of costs is now pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On June 15, a U.S. District Court Magistrate upheld Oregon’s law that makes it illegal for a primary voter to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The case is called Wasson v Bradbury, no. 06-6205-TC. Some federal cases are assigned to Magistrates because judges have too many cases to handle them all.
It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “primary screen-out” laws, in 1974. However, the Texas law upheld in 1974 covered both petitions for minor and new parties, as well as independent candidates. The Oregon primary screen-out law only covers independent candidates. In other words, Oregon in 2004 required a minor party to collect 18,000 signatures from the ranks of all registered voters; but required an independent candidate to collect 18,000 signatures only from people who are registered yet who didn’t vote in the primary. Therefore, the 2005 law made it far more difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot, than an entire new party to get on the ballot.
The amicus brief filed by COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) pointed out all the court precedents that say states can’t make it more difficult for an independent candidate to get on, than an entire new party. The magistrate completely ignored this point in his decision.
The magistrate said the purpose of the screen-out is to prevent “spoiler” candidates from getting on the ballot. The magistrate’s point is nonsense. The primary screen-out makes it very difficult for any independent candidate to get on the ballot, whether he or she is perceived as a “spoiler” or not. Whether someone is perceived to be a “spoiler” candidate is a matter of partisan politics. The Constitution does not permit any state to choose whether or not to let a candidate on the ballot based on his or her political views, and how they compare with the political views of the major party nominees. And since a “spoiler” is generally considered to be someone who has at least a fair amount of voter appeal (compared to an independent candidate who is not considered a “spoiler”), the magistrate really seems to be saying that the state has more interest in keeping candidates with substantial support off the ballot, than it has an in keeping a candidate with little or no support off the ballot. This is backwards.
On June 15, a U.S. District Court Magistrate upheld Oregon’s law that makes it illegal for a primary voter to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The case is called Wasson v Bradbury, no. 06-6205-TC. Some federal cases are assigned to Magistrates because judges have too many cases to handle them all.
It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “primary screen-out” laws, in 1974. However, the Texas law upheld in 1974 covered both petitions for minor and new parties, as well as independent candidates. The Oregon primary screen-out law only covers independent candidates. In other words, Oregon in 2004 required a minor party to collect 18,000 signatures from the ranks of all registered voters; but required an independent candidate to collect 18,000 signatures only from people who are registered yet who didn’t vote in the primary. Therefore, the 2005 law made it far more difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot, than an entire new party to get on the ballot.
The amicus brief filed by COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) pointed out all the court precedents that say states can’t make it more difficult for an independent candidate to get on, than an entire new party. The magistrate completely ignored this point in his decision.
The magistrate said the purpose of the screen-out is to prevent “spoiler” candidates from getting on the ballot. The magistrate’s point is nonsense. The primary screen-out makes it very difficult for any independent candidate to get on the ballot, whether he or she is perceived as a “spoiler” or not. Whether someone is perceived to be a “spoiler” candidate is a matter of partisan politics. The Constitution does not permit any state to choose whether or not to let a candidate on the ballot based on his or her political views, and how they compare with the political views of the major party nominees. And since a “spoiler” is generally considered to be someone who has at least a fair amount of voter appeal (compared to an independent candidate who is not considered a “spoiler”), the magistrate really seems to be saying that the state has more interest in keeping candidates with substantial support off the ballot, than it has an in keeping a candidate with little or no support off the ballot. This is backwards.
An omnibus election law bill is currently pending in the extended session of the Illinois legislature. It is HB 1752. It makes ballot access improvements for independent candidates, as mandated by the 7th circuit last year. It makes many other election law changes.
Recently, the bill was amended to also change primary ballot access requirements. Current law requires candidates running in a primary to submit a petition signed by one-half of 1% of that party’s last general election vote. The amendment to HB 1752 provides that in the case of candidates running in a primary for county office in DuPage County, they need petitions signed by 1.5% of that party’s vote in the last general election. The amendment is by Senator Dan Cronin. It is not known why anyone in the Illinois legislature thinks that primary ballot access in just one particular county should be 3 times more difficult than it is in all other counties. Cronin is a Republican from DuPage County. DuPage is a populous county near Cook County.
HB 1752 must pass by June 22 or it will fail. It is expected that the bill will pass.