Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has written a bill (introduced as SB 5604 and HB 1534) that requires minor party and independent candidates to show popular support three ways before they can qualify for the general election.

First, each candidate needs a petition. Statewide candidates would need 1,000 signatures; US House candidates 500; legislative and county candidates would need 100.

Second, each candidate must pay a filing fee of 1% of the annual salary of the office.

Third, and most strangely, each candidate then goes on the primary ballot (except for presidential candidates) and must poll a minimum number of votes in the primary, in order to be placed on the general election. The minimum number of primary votes equals the number of signatures each had to get.

What is peculiar is that Washington now has separate primary ballots for each major party. It isn’t clear what primary ballot the minor party and independent candidates would appear on, and who would vote on such ballots.

The bill has an obvious drafting error. Whereas on page 14 it says the minor party and independent candidates need a certain minimum number of primary votes, on page 2 it says they don’t appear on the primary ballot.

On January 25, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ordered Carl Romanelli to pay $80,408 within 30 days. Since Romanelli has very few assets, the order also makes Romanelli’s attorney, Larry Otter, equally liable for the money.

Carl Romanelli was the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate last year from Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, petitions are assumed to be valid, unless someone challenges them. Democrats challenged Romanelli’s petition. The Pennsylvania challenge procedure is handled by courts, not elections administrators, so Romanelli is being billed $48,285 in fees for Democratic Party attorneys, $25,481 in court costs, $5,141 in copying and stenography fees and $1,500 for handwriting experts. Romanelli had submitted 95,000 signatures to meet a requirement of 67,070, but only 58,000 of those signatures were considered valid. He will appeal this decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He also has an appeal pending in the U.S. Supreme Court over the procedures used for checking signatures in the challenge process.

On February 16, the U.S. Supreme Court conference will consider whether to take any of these election law cases: (1) Lopez Torres v N.Y. State Board of Elections; (2) Romanelli v Election Board; (3) Protect Marriage Illinois v Orr.

The New York case was won in the court below; the other two cases were lost in the courts below. Lopez Torres concerns ballot access onto a primary ballot. The Romanelli case challenges Pennsylvania’s procedures for rejecting signatures on petitions. Protect Marriage challenges Illinois procedures for rejecting signatures on initiative petitions.