Ballot Access

Independent candidates were dealt a blow in their efforts to get relief from Alabama's oppressive ballot access laws. The Associated Press has posted a report on its news wire saying that on June 29 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against independent candidates in their challenge to Alabama's ballot access laws.

 

The court offered the standard language from such cases:

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 3-0 ruling saying the state's ballot access laws are reasonable and do not violate the constitutional rights of independent candidates.

The court also threw in the tired language that the independent candidates needed to show "a significant modicum of support" before having their names printed on the ballot.

 

All this kind of ruling does is preserve the entrenched position of the major parties' (read: Democratic and Republican) candidates.

 

Ballot access laws were always intended to serve a gatekeeper role and keep challengers off the ballot. Every incumbent official wants to limit the number of opponents he or she has to fend off.  However, defenders of ballot access laws have argued that these requirements also serve important administrative purposes:  limiting the number of names on the ballot so that the number of names on does not overwhelm a voting machine's physical capacity to display those names.  Also, ballot access requirements work to ensure that ballots aren't cluttered with frivolous candidacies.

 

Ever since Alabama has moved away from the old lever voting machines, there really hasn't been a reason to worry about the number of names on the ballot. Paper ballots have always been able to accomodate a larger number of names and optical scan paper ballots are no different.  Even touch-screen voting devices are able to handle more candidates per office.

 

I agree that we need some kind of ballot access requirement to ensure that our ballots are not filled with a multitude of names of people who aren't all that serious about running for office.  Obviously, there is a need to prevent an excessively long ballot ( e.g., costs of printing, voter fatigue from going through a lot of names). If the gate to the ballot was wide open (i.e., no ballot access requirement, all comers can participate), there's no telling how many names would end up on the ballot. If you look at the write-in votes tabulated in the last general election in Alabama, you'll see a lot of names, which shows that some voters are not shy about making a frivolous point with their ballot.

 

There is, however, ground that can be found between the oppressive requirements in our current law and leaving the gates wide open. Unfortunately, the people elected under the system as it currently stands are quite naturally happy with the current system and do not want it to change - unless they can find a way to make it even harder to get on the ballot.

 

The court argues that independent candidates must show a "modicum of support" to get on the ballot. What this really means is that the ballot will be on the trailing edge of changes in our politics and political culture.  By preventing a diversity of views to be reflected on the ballot, ballot access laws serve to preserve the political status quo - a duopoly between Republicans and Democrats. 

 

Alabama's ballot access laws should not be used to preserve the political positions of the two major political parties, especially at a time when political beliefs within the culture are shifting and neither party provides 100% effective representation.