Maine Bill to Ease Definition of a Qualified Party Has Hearing

Posted on by March 15, 2023
2

On March 15, the Maine Veterans & Legal Affairs Committees of each house held a joint hearing on LD 769. It eases the definition of a qualified party, from a group that has 10,000 registered members, to 5,000. The bill is bi-partisan; it has four Republican and three Democratic sponsors, including the House Republican leader.

The bill restores rationality to the definition of a party. Current law says a new party must have 5,000 registered members, and can be on the ballot for two elections with that level of membership. But afterwards it must have 10,000 registered members. However, because a U.S. District Court last year held that Maine cannot erase the registered members of a party just because it goes off the ballot, under existing law an old party that falls off the ballot for having fewer than 10,000 registered members can instantly spring back into qualified status as a new party, assuming it still has at least 5,000 members. Thanks to Pat Ford for this news.

The sponsors are Senator Eric Brady, and Representatives Amy Roeder, John Andrews, David Boyer, Billy Faulkingham, Laura Supica, and Bruce White.

Minnesota Bill Stiffening Definition of “Party” Advances

Posted on by March 14, 2023
6

On March 14, the Minnesota Senate State and Local Government Committee passed SF 1827, which raises the vote test for party status from 5% to 10%. Many witnesses testified against it, including Jesse Ventura. The vote was 8-4.

One minor party leader, Oliver Steinberg, testified in favor of the bill. He had been a founder of the Grassroots Party. He said his party, which is no longer on the ballot, was invaded by insincere candidates running in its primary. But, if the law had allowed the party to nominate by convention, that problem could have been solved. I was a witness and I pointed this out, but no legislator reacted to that information.

UPDATE: here is a news story about the hearing.

Texas Libertarian Party Case Against Filing Fee Requirement is Alive

Posted on by March 14, 2023
4

In 2019, the Texas Libertarian Party and others filed a general attack on Texas ballot access laws in federal court, Miller v Hughs. In 2022, that case lost in U.S. District Court, except the judge ruled the state must permit electronic signatures.

But, in 2021, the Texas Libertarian Party filed a second case, which only attacks the law that requires anyone seeking the nomination of a party that uses conventions to pay a filing fee. That case, Bilyeu v Esparza, w.d., 1:21cv-1089, is alive and undergoing discovery. That means the Libertarians can take the deposition of state officials, in order to obtain evidence that will help the case. Discovery must be completed by April 7, 2023.

Both cases have the same judge, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman. It appears that when he ruled in the Miller case, he wasn’t specifically upholding the filing fee law, and the issue is unresolved and will be settled in the Bilyeu case.

Minnesota Democratic Party Files Misleading Letter in Support of Raising the Vote Test for Party Qualification

Posted on by March 14, 2023
2

On February 23, Ken Martin wrote a letter in support of SF 1827, the bill that raises the definition of a qualified party from 5% to 10%. Martin is the chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

The letter says that 19 states have two categories of political party, and says that the threshold for major party status ought to be high. What the letter does not say is that in Minnesota, the “minor party” category confers absolutely no ballot access. A Minnesota “minor party”, in state law, is not on the ballot and all its nominees must petition as though the group had no status whatsoever.

The letter then goes on to compare Minnesota with other states, in a deceptive manner. There are 17 states with two tiers of qualified party, but both tiers are on the ballot. The upper tier nominates by primary; the lower tier nominates by convention. But both types of party are freed from having to petition for their nominees (except in New Mexico). For example, in Texas, a party with 20% of the vote must nominate by primary; parties that poll 2% nominate by convention but are on the ballot. The letter asserts that Texas has a 20% vote test, but the Texas 20% does not relate to ballot access, but simply to the detail of how a party nominates. The letter also asserts that Colorado has a 20% vote test, but, again, as in Texas, that is just the threshold for a mandatory primary as opposed to nomination by convention. It doesn’t relate to ballot access. Here is the letter.

On March 10, David Hamm, the state chair of the Republican Party wrote a letter in support of the bill, although it does not make misleading factual statements about ballot access.

Georgia Files Brief in Defense of Letting Individuals Give More Money to Major Party Nominees Than to Minor Party Nominees

Posted on by March 14, 2023
6

On March 10, the Georgia government filed its brief in Graham v Carr in the Eleventh Circuit, case 22-13396. The issue is the Georgia law that lets individuals give more campaign contributions to Republican and Democratic nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, than to Libertarian nominees for those offices. The state brief says the Libertarian Party and its nominee for Lieutenant Governor lack standing.