Jim Eckstrom, a columnist for the Bradford Era (a newspaper in northwest Pennsylvania) here criticizes the Democratic Party for its many attempts over the years to keep minor party and independent candidates off the ballot.
18
On June 19, attorneys for Indiana state government filed this brief in Indiana Green Party v Sullivan, s.d., 1:22cv-518. This is the case that challenges the number of signatures needed for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, for statewide office. No statewide petition has succeeded in Indiana in over twenty years.
An Arizona state trial court will hear Arizona Democratic Party v No Labels on Tuesday, July 11, at 9:15 a.m. in Phoenix. This is the case in which the Democratic Party is trying to remove the No Labels Party from the ballot. The issue is whether the ten affidavits from people who represent the party should have been submitted only after the petition was completed or not. The Democratic Party argues that the affidavits were handed in too soon. The Secretary of State and No Labels argue that there is nothing wrong with submitting the affidavits before the petition was complete.
In the past, the ten affidavits, representing the leadership of the group that hopes to qualify, have always been accepted as early as the group wished. Precedents include several petitions filed by the Green Party, as well as the precedent set by Americans Elect in 2011, and by the Reform Party in 1996 and 2000.
On June 20, the Vermont Senate sent HB 429 back to committee, which effectively kills it, because the session is almost over. HB 429 would have made it impossible for someone who lost a primary to then run in the general election as an independent, or the nominee of another party.
I read this Ned Foley’s June 18, 2023 blog post on electionlawblog.org:
https://www.electionlawblog.org/?p=136930
Two comments:
I did not know about Jack Santucci’s recently published book “More Parties or No Parties” until I read this blog post. I knew Jack some years ago when he was either an intern or employee of FairVote (I was Treasurer of FairVote at the time), and I thought very highly of him. I have ordered the book and will read it. I am interested in seeing this “across-the-board dissatisfaction” claim fleshed out. I suspect that this dissatisfaction is only with the mentioned “parties and interest group coalitions,” and not with voters.
Regarding the claim of lack of voter education, I do not know what Arlington County, Virginia has done in this regard, but, during my nearly 25 year tenure as FairVote Treasurer, I recall Philip Macklin.
Dr. Macklin, who passed at the age of 82 in 2008, was a Physics professor at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He was also a strong advocate of electoral reform, specifically Multiwinner RCV, also known as Single Transferable Vote. Before many people over the years, Dr. Macklin played what I think was a FairVote-produced video explaining the Multiwinner RCV vote counting process. My recollection is it was about 12 minutes long.
Dr. Macklin said of all the people who saw the video at his presentations, only one person claimed that she did not understand the counting process after seeing it.
My own experience in speaking on this subject and playing that video was the same.