Ballot Access Visited Again
Representate Cam Ward continues to discuss ballot access over at Doc's Political Parlor in the comments to this entry. Despite the many words he has spoken on this topic, Ward has yet to offer any idea about what he would consider a fair ballot access law, other than to say he wants to "strike a balance between a ballot that is too restrictive and one that is the size of a phone book". I am amused when folks like Ward talk about preventing a "phone book"-size ballot in Alabama. Exaggeration on his part aside, Alabama could easily loosen up the ballot access law without fear of a extremely lengthy ballot.
But speaking of too many names on a ballot, I wonder what Ward thinks about the Republican and Democratic Parties being able to hold their election for their state and county executive committees on the primary ballot. Just looking at the Secretary of State's ballot certification for the 2004 Republican (see pages 7-10) and Democratic (see pages 13-20) primaries, the parties were able to add a slew of candidates to the ballot. I doubt that more lax ballot access laws would lead to anything as out of hand as allowing the political parties to place this large number candidates for party offices on the ballot. (As an aside, just remember that this is basically a taxpayer-funded subsidy for choosing internal political party offices. It's not like the primary election for regular offices where there is a public interest in the state and counties paying for and conducting the election.)
And how about the number of candidates the two parties place on the primary ballot in a presidential year to decide who will get to their big shindigs - their national nominating conventions? In 2004, the Republicans had 4 pages of convention delegate nominees; the Democrats had 9 pages. (Again, this a taxpayer-funded subsidy - this time to figure out who can go to a big party somewhere and have a good time drinking, waving the American flag, and demonizing the other party.)
Since I have pointed out that Ward has not offered up any solution to the ballot access issue, let me throw out some ideas.
If the Legislature doesn't want to reduce the number of signatures required on a petition, why not set a fee that minor parties or independent candidates can pay for ballot access? If the idea is to prevent frivolous candidacies and ballot crowding, a fee can be set high enough that people won't waste their money on a bogus candidacy; however, it could be low enough to not be an undue burden on the parties or candidates.
Further, the statewide ballot access requirement for a independent should be lower than the statewide ballot access requirement for a minor party. Currently, they must get the same number of signatures. However, when an independent gets ballot access, that access places only one more name on the ballot. When a minor party gets statewide ballot access, it can nominate candidates for all offices on the ballot - federal (not presidential) to state to county. Where is the equity in that? Why place the burden carried by a whole political party on a single individual who wants to run for office?
There's another serious issue about the ballot access laws that gets little, if any exposure in the media. An independent candidate who wins election to office does not get automatic ballot access in the next election. He or she must petition for ballot access again. The "20%" rule applies only to the political parties. This is no hypothetical concern. Independent William Hightower won election to a Pike County district court judgeship in 2006. In 2004, Ashley McKathan was elected to a circuit court judgeship as an independent.
Even if the Legislature chooses to not ease up the number of signatures required to get a name on the ballot in the first place, it should pass a law that permits an incumbent who was elected as an independent to have automatic ballot access to run for re-election.
6 comments:
To answer your question or at least attempt to, I think the first thing I would like to see changed is the signature requirement. I think a bill could be passed that does reduce the number of signatures required. That would be the first step I would take in trying to ease ballot restrictions. While I don't think that completely solves the problem by any means I do think that is a good first step and moves us in the right direction.
With all due respect to Rep. Ward, the major parties simply don't want to give up their stranglehold on power. They don't want voters to have a choice, but they don't mind forcing taxpayers to fund primaries for the two parties. I get a kick out of politicians who say they oppose increased ballot access because they don't want to "confuse" voters. It's a gentle way of saying that voters are too dumb to pick from a list.
I agree with you, Brian.
They are afraid of two things:
1) Independent and minor party candidates can spread their message and gain a following if they are able to be on the ballot and compete in the election.
2) In the meantime, Republicans and Democrats are not afraid of the independent and minor party candidates winning. They are afraid of the Nader Effect - an independent or minor party candidate peeling off enough votes to effect the race between the other two.
Republicans and Democrats will say that elections should be about who we support, not who we are against. But I say that elections should reflect people's preferences among the choices on the ballot. Those choices should not be arbitrarily limited because of the interests of the major parties.
Cam Ward, I notice that you didn't comment on the impact of placing the nominees for party delegates and nominees county/state executive committees on our ballot.
Are you shy about going on the record about that?
The first major flaw I saw with your arguement was the paying money to get on the ballot. The biggest complaint people had about current ballot access laws was that they are a form of poll tax. You are suggesting a flat out poll tax. Come on.
And this concern that an incumbent would not get back on the ballot. That 20% does concern the minor parties too. It is a law that you are required to get 20% of the vote in at least one race to retain ballot access. That is why there was a big deal about Libertarians needing to get 20% to stay on the statewide ballot. So if a candidate wins they would reamin on the ballot because they would have a majority and that would be more than 20% of the vote. So there goes your arguements.
In the words of my friend Apu at the Kwik-E Mart....Thank you come again.
William,
You are right that the 20% threshold applies to minor party candidates. If a minor party obtains 20% of the vote cast in a particular political jurisdiction (statewide, countywide, senate district, house district, etc.), the party maintains ballot access in that jurisdiction.
The 20% threshold does not apply to independent candidates though, which was the point I raised in my posting.
Offering independent candidates the option of paying a qualifying fee in lieu of filing a petition is not a poll tax or does it work like a poll tax. If it is a poll tax, then the two major parties have been charging a poll tax for years.
If you want to run with the Democrats or the Republicans, you must pay the qualifying fee. There is no option to get around it.
So as Fez says on "That 70s Show", "Good day sir. I said good day!"
Post a Comment