Free and Fair Elections Are Impossible with an Unfree and Unfair Ballot Access Regime

As you may have heard, only two candidates for the Republican presidential election have qualified to appear on Virginia's primary ballot: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman did not even attempt to gather the over 10,000 valid signatures that would have assured their place on the ballot.  Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich did, but failed to obtain enough valid signatures before the petition deadline.  Needless to say, this is not sitting well with the Gingrich and Perry campaigns and, predictably, they have now become supporters of choice and competition.  From Angel Clark at the Examiner:

I doubt Newt Gingrich even realizes what he said here! He's upset as he is not going to be on the primary ballot in Virginia.

We're getting an amazing number of people who … believe Virginians ought to have the right to choose and shouldn't be restricted to two people."

Oh, of course! He wants people to vote for him, to choose him as one of the only two people they are supposed to get to choose from for President of the United States of America (using his two-party system), but when he is not one of the two people, it's not fair. The system has failed.

 "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates."

I doubt Newt Gingrich even realizes what he said here! He's upset as he is not going to be on the primary ballot in Virginia.

 We're getting an amazing number of people who … believe Virginians ought to have the right to choose and shouldn't be restricted to two people."

Oh, of course! He wants people to vote for him, to choose him as one of the only two people they are supposed to get to choose from for President of the United States of America (using his two-party system), but when he is not one of the two people, it's not fair. The system has failed.

 "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates,"

Interesting... I guess what he should be saying is any top contender who plays by the rules of the Republicans vs. Democrats...

Gingrich and Perry's failure to achieve ballot access has brought renewed attention to the biased and discriminatory ballot access regime that has been instituted by the dictatorship of the Republican and Democratic parties over the last century.  Indiana's News Sentinel takes the opportunity to call for ballot access reform.  Excerpt:

Virginia voters will not have the seven candidatures now running but only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul to choose from.  And Virginia isn't even listed among the five worst states for access. But Indiana is, along with Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina. The troubles of Perry and Gingrich in Virginia should be a strong incentive for the Hoosier political establishment to start making access a little easier here. They won't, sadly, but they should be.

The candidates have a point when they complain about Virginia's rules (and Perry is also suing). Like the rules in most states, Virginia's requirements may make it tough on Republicans and Democrats, but their main purpose is to keep the third-party and independent riffraff away. The state requires that people carrying petitions for the candidates must be registered Virginia voters or those eligible (by residence and age) to be registered Virginia voters. That means Perry, for example, had to recruit local talent instead of bringing his Texas team in. It's little wonder that only 6,000 of the 11,900 petition signatures he submitted were ruled valid.

Perry claims in his suit that the requirement violates his First Amendment rights because it puts a too-heavy burden on his ability to engage in political speech. That's a valid constitutional issue, and past decisions by the Supreme Court and other courts indicate that a ruling on the point could go either way. Perry certainly has the moral high ground. States should encourage participation in the political process, not make it more difficult and expensive.

Indiana's requirements are so tough for independent and third-party candidates that Libertarians are usually the only ones able to collect enough signatures. Even Ralph Nader didn't get on our ballot in 2008. To make it, a candidate must collect signatures from 2 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent secretary of state election. Considering recent voting numbers, that means getting about 34,000 signatures, compared with the mere 4,500 required for Democrats and Republicans.

Indiana's primary is so late in the election year that voters usually have little reason to participate; the presidential candidate has already been chosen before our May date. Keeping our ballot-access requirements so high further dampens voter enthusiasm, and that's not good for the process or the electorate. 

As the News Sentinel points out, these draconian ballot access restrictions were primarily instituted to prevent third party and independent from competing on a level playing field with the ruling parties.  At Free Virginia, Marc Montoni, the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virgina, argues that this is a teachable moment for Republicans:

Last Friday afternoon, December 23, 2011, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were notified that they had not turned in enough valid signatures to qualify their names for Virginia's Republican primary ballot . . .  Gentlemen, welcome to the world where adherents of the Libertarian Party, the Greens, or the Constitution Party live: where their exhausting effort and huge expense meets bureaucracy, unending paperwork and needless legal hurdles -- before we are even allowed our place at the starting line.

Virginia’s primary petition requirements were copied from the laws originally written to keep independents and third parties off the ballot. For a century, Democrats and Republicans colluded to establish and tighten ballot-access standards so much that voter choice has become practically nonexistent. This makes it difficult for us in the alternative & independent candidate sector to feel much sympathy for the ‘major’ candidates when their own laws snare them. One would hope that the Republicans would take this as an educational opportunity . . . 

Petitioning laws were originally built -- the strictest of them by majority-Democratic legislatures between 1910 and 1970 -- to shut out third parties like the Libertarian Party. The laws did the job, too -- in some states, third parties have not been allowed on the ballot for over half a century, and counting.

Petitioning requirements force new, upstart third parties to exhaust themselves asking several hundred thousand voters to help them qualify for the ballot. Unless those new parties have the money and activist backing of the wealthy and political elite already, just getting on the ballot so they can then present their ideas to voters is an expensive, time-consuming task.

Republicans should be wary of restrictive ballot access . . . Nor should the Democrats, in their glee about the Republicans' difficulties, forget how restrictive ballot laws sometimes snare them as well . . .

Democrats and Republicans alike have forgotten that elections are for voters. When voters can't vote for the candidate they wish to vote for, they are being hurt and our political discussion is being disrupted.

Perhaps the Republicans who now control the state legislature should take this as a message that Virginia's restrictive ballot-access laws are overdue for some overhaul.

The Libertarian Party’s position is that primaries are essentially state subsidies for political parties. Therefore, the only real reform needed to the “primary process” is to eliminate government-run primaries altogether, and allow political party members to determine who they wish to represent them during the general election – at their own expense.

Failing that, then reform can be easily accomplished by simply reducing the petition requirement . . . I have personally collected thousands of petition signatures for dozens of candidates at different levels. Anyone who thinks requiring thousands of signatures to get on the ballot is compatible with a free society needs to research the history and justifications for these oppressive laws a bit more.

Forcing alternative candidates -- who haven't been given the chance to appear in the modern "public square" that is the media -- to utterly exhaust themselves collecting signatures is a reprehensible practice in a “free” society.

Governments should not have any ability to control ballots at all. Open ballots not printed or controlled by government gave us men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Compare them -- even with all of their faults -- to the modern crop of corruptocrats. 

Montoni closes with a plan to reform ballot access law in Virginia:

Making Virginia’s Ballot Laws Better

Reform of Virginia’s ballot access laws should begin with the following:

1. Reduce signature requirements for all offices and all candidates -- Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or independent -- by 90 % (rounding to next 10). A statewide candidate petition (Governor, president, etc) would then require 1,000 signatures; a candidate for congress would need to collect 150, a state delegate candidate, 20.
2. Introduce a full-party access petition, 10,000 signatures to place a new party on the general election ballot for two statewide cycles.
3. Eliminate the witnessing requirement for petition signatures.
4. Eliminate the residency requirement for petitioners.
5. Eliminate petition sheets, and move to a postcard petition -- where individual voters would fill out a post card stating they wish a candidate (or party) to be placed on the ballot.
6. Get with the last decade and allow petitions to be ‘signed’ by voters online.

People Before Parties: Politics and Electoral Reform Group Releases Recommendations for Electoral Reform at #OWS

Two weeks ago, I relayed a number of recommendations for electoral reform being considered by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street in NYC, in which I have been active.  This past Sunday, the group came to full consensus on the proposal, which has now been posted in full on the group forum at NYCGA.net.  That document is published here in its entirety.  Please distribute widely.


People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service.  They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people.  Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government.  Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.

The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States.  No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.

Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.

A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed.  Americans are not apathetic.  They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.

In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.

We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.

We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their own voters.  A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission.  Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  It is time to expand the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government.  Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies.  It can be implemented again.

• Expansion of franchise.  Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed.  Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment.  Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms.  The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.

• Ballot access reform.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A public election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses or conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.

• Vote counting.  Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.  Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.

• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.  Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.

We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions.  The document was produced through a collaborative writing process.  It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.

Seeking Input for Electoral Reform Wish List: What Say You?

Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in downtown Manhattan on September 17th, I have noted on a number of occasions that there is an inspiring amount of independent and third party activity and organizing taking place at the demonstrations.  Members of the Green, Libertarian, Socialist and Reform parties, among others, have been involved in the movement from the very beginning, in addition to legions of Independents. 

Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses.  There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform.  There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state.  Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.

Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks.  The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal.  Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their voters.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  Expansion of the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. There are alternatives.

• Expansion of franchise. Those who are denied of the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Term limits should be imposed by law or by the people at the ballot box.

• Ballot access reform. All should be equal before the law regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A publicly funded election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses and conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda.

• Vote counting. The reintroduction of hand counted, paper ballots, or the introduction of significant controls to protect against the rigging of electronic voting machines, which are produced, operated and serviced by corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.

• Weekend or holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Campaign finance. Publicly funded election campaigns, or matching fund systems that allow candidates who refuse to accept corporate donations to compete on a level playing field with candidates who are heavily financed by corporate interests.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an IRV runoff between the top four candidates from the primary. Countless other possibilities.

(Note: the proposal is a living document, and any of the above could and probably will be changed by the group at some point.)  I'm relaying this excerpt because many readers here at Politea have thought long and hard about a lot of these issues, and could provide some interesting suggestions that could be taken up by the group.  So what say you, folks?  What do you think of the recommendations as they stand?  Should any be amended? or dropped? or edited?  Are there any important potential reforms that are missing from the list?

On the Necessity of a State-Level Electoral Reform Movement

From Miles Townes at The Violence of Nations:

The problem is that our electoral system is biased towards a two-party system. Plurality voting and single-member districts are as much of a guarantee of bipolarity as you’ll get from an electoral system . . .  a national-level fix to national institutions would be rather difficult. However, one of the quirks of our system is that lots of responsibility for national-level institutions is left to the States.  In particular, the Constitution in Article 1, sect. 4 says this: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” . . .

The principle goal of a state-centric reform movement would be to lower the bar for political parties to enter races. We like to vilify political parties, but they are absolutely necessary to a functioning democracy. No voter has the time or intellect to learn enough about the set of candidates they are expected to vote for each election season; parties provide a handy identifier, greatly reducing the cognitive burden on the voter. The real problem is that we have only two parties, and those parties are extremely broad . . .

A state-level electoral reform movement – focusing only on making the machinery more representative, more democratic (little ‘d’) – would not only appeal to the existing third-parties, but would not necessarily require reform-minded members of the other two parties to abandon their tribal loyalties. Nor should these reforms be limited to Federal offices; they could apply all the way down to city dogcatcher. At its best, such a movement would be a genuinely trans-partisan, Americans-united-together effort to make our government work better.

Read the whole thing.  

The Quiet Americans Elect

There is one word that seems to pop up in virtually every discussion of the new political organization Americans Elect, which is seeking to obtain ballot access for an alternative to the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties in the 2012 presidential election.  That word is 'quiet'.  Nearly two months ago, I wrote at CAIVN:

In recent months, Americans Elect has quietly begun an ambitious campaign to gain ballot access in all 50 states ahead of next year’s presidential election.  The party has already submitted petitions in Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, and Florida, according to reports at Ballot Access News. [Emphasis added.]

Over the weekend a pair of new articles on the group appeared in the New York Times and The Daily Beast.  From Thomas Friedman:

Thanks to a quiet political start-up that is now ready to show its hand, a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention, is going to emerge in 2012.  [Emphasis added.]

From John Avlon:

Imagine what our election system might look like if it were designed today . . . That’s the idealist vision driving a new group, Americans Elect, which has quietly collected enough signatures to secure a 2012 ballot line in eight states, including Arizona, Michigan, and Missouri. They will soon submit an unprecedented 1.6 million signatures in California. [Emphasis added.]

From Micah Sifry at Tech President:

Since last year, Americans Elect, a non-profit 501c4 organization led by investor and activist Peter Ackerman, has been quietly laying the foundation for a 2012 Internet-based political convention to pick a "centrist" ticket that will, if all goes to plan, get on all fifty state ballots and compete in a serious way with Barack Obama and whomever the GOP nominates next year.  [Emphasis added.]

This quietude has apparently been facilitated in no small part by columnists like Avlon and Friedman who have been closely following the group's progress for months, but have uttered few words in public about it, in respect for its media strategy, which Sifry confirms.  Sifry writes: "Until now, I've honored their request to abide by a press embargo and not write about Americans Elect until it was ready to go public."  Critics of the secretive organization, on the other hand, are less prone to play along with its media strategy.  From yesterday's column at CAIVN:

While commentators for mainstream, corporate news outlets such as Friedman and Avlon have been quietly following the development of this organization for months, with both coincidentally releasing their positive assessments of the group in recent days, others have been investigating it openly and with a critical eye.  Chief among them is Jim Cook of Irregular Times.

After analyzing an incomplete list of donors to Americans Elect that was recently published by its campaign contribution collector, Cook concludes that the group has already violated its pledge to avoid accepting any “special interest money.” One donor, Jim Holbrooke, for instance, is the CEO of a marketing firm and the chairman of the Promotion Marketing Association, which is dedicated to pursuing the interests of the promotion marketing industry, reports Cook.

In a separate analysis, Cook takes a close look at American Elect’s corporate bylaws, which are not made freely available by the organization, but have been published by states where it has already qualified for ballot access.  He finds that they do not provide for a grassroots political structure, but rather a four-tiered “political caste system” that runs from the board of directors, to officers and employees, and finally to members and delegates.  One provision in the bylaws indicates that “the Board of Directors may act in a manner that overrules any other provision of the bylaws,” writes Cook, essentially providing them with the power to effectively overrule any act by the organization’s actual delegates.

Read the rest.  For another critical view, and a more detailed look at the structure and organization of Americans Elect, be sure to read Sifry's article in its entirety.  He writes:

Unfortunately, I have severe doubts about the prospects of Americans Elect being that party. Why? First, because it isn't being transparent about its funding. Second, because control of the party isn't genuinely vested in its members. Third, because it's not being truthful with the public about its political agenda. Instead, I think Americans Elect could actually be a devilishly brilliant leveraged buyout of our broken electoral system that could have the perverse effect of reinforcing the same brain-dead politics we already have.

PA: Movement Builds to Reform Ballot Access Law and the Primary System

Since the state's primary elections in May, in which 80% of voters opted not to exercise the franchise, calls to open the primary process continue to mount in Pennsylvania.  One state rep, Democrat Eugene DePasquale, has proposed a package of reforms aimed at increasing voter turnout and leveling the political playing field for Independent and third party candidates.  From Politics PA:

Though Depasquale stated he has not yet faced opposition from any single group,“the current two-party structure is against the reforms." The big message that DePasquale wanted to express is that regardless of party or affiliation “the ‘minor candidates’ should be part of the debate.”

Independents are joining third parties in pressing Pennsylvania’s closed primary system. On the forefront of this growing movement is State Rep. Eugene DePasquale’s introduction of of a four-bill reform package, known as the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA).

According to the news release the first bill would allow voters registered as independents to cast ballots in Pennsylvania’s primary elections. The second bill would require corporations to obtain shareholder approval before contributing an annual aggregate sum exceeding $10,000.

The third piece of legislation allows all voters to cast ballots up to 15 days in advance of Election Day in both the primary and general elections. The fourth and final bill in the package would make general election competition among all parties a reality by equalizing the ability of Independent and third-party candidates to run for public office in Pennsylvania.

In the press release, DePasquale notes the discriminatory character of Pennsylvania's ballot access regime:

"The Voters' Choice Act would give greater freedom of choice to our voters by making it much less difficult for independent and third-party candidates to get on the November ballot," DePasquale said. "The VCA would change the way a third party is legally defined and remove the too-high barrier of third parties, giving general election voters more choice and strengthening competition."

Independents need to gather ten times more signatures than their Republican and Democratic counterparts to obtain ballot access.  In 2010, Democratic and Republican party activists succeeded in purging every single third party and independent candidate for statewide office from the ballot by vowing to challenge their ballot access petitions in court, and threatening them with hefty legal fees.   

The Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition – which includes the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, the America First Party, the Reform Party, the Prohibition Party, the Unified Independent Party, the New American Independent Party and the 2004 Ralph Nader campaign – is a strong supporter of the measures introduced by DePasquale, as is Independent Pennsylvanians.

AZ: Democratic Party's Ballot Purge Provides Opening for Tucson Greens

When Democrats and Republicans seek to dissuade others from engaging in third party and independent political activism, one of their primary arguments is that third party and independent campaigns for office are a fool's errand because it is so difficult for them to achieve ballot access.  Let's put aside the fact that such ballot access hurdles are erected by Democratic and Republican lawmakers themselves in order to cement their hold on power at all levels of government.  Even despite the fact that third party and independent candidates face biased and discriminatory rules and regulations when they seek to run for office – for example, having to collect anywhere from two to ten times more petition signatures than their Democratic and Republican counterparts –, these candidates often still fight their way onto the ballot, and they do so by gathering many more signatures than are required by law.  Why?  Because their petitions are challenged by professional partisans in the major parties, often on the basis of the most absurd technicalities.  Taken to its logical extreme, the ideal outcome of such a process is an election in which there is only one candidate on the ballot or perhaps even none at all.  However, sometimes it can also inadvertently provide a strategic opening for opponents of the two-party state. 

The Tucson mayoral race provides us with an interesting case in point.  As it now stands, only two candidates are assured ballot access: a Green and a Democrat.  There would have been at least four, but in recent weeks the Democratic party successfully purged an Independent and a Republican party candidate from the ballot by petition signature challenges.  From the Arizona Daily Star:

Democratic attorney Jonathan Rothschild may be the only major-party candidate left standing in the mayoral race after today.  Superior Court Judge Paul Tang bounced independent Pat Darcy from the ballot Monday after the Pima County Recorder's Office found he came up 106 signatures short on nominating petitions.

A short time later, Republican Shaun McClusky attempted to withdraw his nominating petitions before facing his own court challenge this afternoon, where Democrats will argue he didn't obtain a sufficient number of signatures to get on the ballot . . . 

Darcy offered no court defense of his petitions, beyond noting there is a built-in disadvantage for independent candidates, who need far more signatures than party candidates. As an independent, Darcy needed 2,596 valid signatures. Republicans, meanwhile, needed 1,060 and Democrats needed 1,642.  [Emphasis added.]

He said he was dismayed the Democratic Party challenged him at all. "What are they afraid of?" he asked, saying that if the tables were reversed, he would have welcomed a contest rather than try to kick all of the challengers out of the race. "You want to compete. You don't want it just given to you," he said, adding it is a drain on the courts, as well as the city and county staffs.

City Clerk Roger Randolph acknowledged in court that the number of challenges this year is unprecedented, saying the last challenge in a city race came in 1999.

The Arizona Green Party attained ballot access in 2010 and, under a new law, are assured access through 2012.  Currently, there are two Green candidates vying for the party's nomination in the race, both of whom apparently survived the Democratic party's push to purge the ballot of all competition.  From Ross at Green Party Watch:

That Green will either be Mary DeCamp, a City Council candidate in the past, or Dave Croteau, a past mayoral candidate.  There will be a primary to determine who will be on the ballot for the general election.  Another candidate who was running for the Green nomination dropped out of the race in order to support and work on sustainability issues with the now-former Republican candidate.

Though the Republicans could still nominate a write-in candidate, the Green party has an excellent opportunity to gain attention from the media and wider recognition in the state, especially given the fact that they will be holding a contested primary.  If they can successfully capitalize on the marginalization of the GOP, the Greens may even be able to score a major upset.  Greens across the country should be paying close attention to this race, and lend their support in whatever way possible.

Ballot Access Law and the Media Circus

At World Wide Hippies, Phil Polizatto reflects on the absurdity of our ballot access laws, and argues that they provide an explanation for why "so many wannabes go to extraordinary lengths to attract media attention."  Excerpt:

It’s difficult enough to get on a ballot as a Democrat or Republican, but try to run as an Independent or a third party and it is nigh on to impossible, hindered by 50 different state laws, financial requirements, and the number of signatures of registered voters required on a petition for nomination. I feel better only by the fact that most of the public and much of the media do not understand the ballot access laws either.

The many hours I have spent researching just a few states’ requirements has almost turned my mind into a petrified forest. There is no way that I could detail the restrictive ballot access in each of the 50 states without writing a reference book. Before I become brain dead, therefore, allow me to speak in generalities.

Though Florida, of all states, requires no filing fee (a very recent change in policy,) most of the others do. If you happen to be able to run as a Democrat or a Republican, the filing fees required to be on every state’s general ballot will average out to approximately $8100. In addition to the filing fees, a candidate must submit a petition signed by registered voters. Here comes the incomprehensible part: if you are an “important” Democratic candidate, you will need to submit 26,000 signatures nationwide. If an “important” Republican, he or she needs 54,750. I cannot explain this discrepancy.

“Unimportant” Democrats need more than 112,000 signatures, while “unimportant” Republicans must submit 141,000. And guess who decides who is “important” or “unimportant?” Television newsmen and major newspaper reporters decide who someone worth covering is: the more coverage, the more important. If you can attract the right kind of attention and enough of it, then that candidate has a much easier time getting on the ballot. In fact, some states waive the petition signatures altogether if the would-be candidate is deemed “important” enough.

Is it no wonder then that so many wannabes go to extraordinary lengths to attract media attention? We see, read, and hear the gimmicks they use every day. Saying outrageous and outright lies about an issue or opponent, taking a bus tour of historic monuments, jamming with a rock band, making a huge deal about something you don’t even really believe in as long as it will endear you to the crowd of the moment… any gimmick will do as long as it will attract the attention of the media and lots of it.

For independents and third party nominees, the laws are more severe than for candidates running as Democrats or Republicans . . . 

Read the whole thing.  Polizatto apparently started researching the various laws while considering an independent campaign for president himself.  The article goes on to provide a short history of how and why ballot access laws were tightened time and again over the course of the twentieth century.

Are Voter Initiatives and Ballot Propositions Coming to New York?

From Ballot Access News:

On June 7, the New York State Senate passed S709, which proposes a change to the New York State Constitution. It would create the initiative process in New York, for statewide laws, and also for local government. The vote was 47-15. All of the “no” votes were Democrats.

Now the bill goes to the Assembly. If it passes there, because it is a proposed constitutional change, it must pass both houses of the legislature again in 2013. Then the voters would decide in November 2014 whether to pass the idea.

The statewide initiative is a gateway for virtually any election law reform that has popular support. If New York state had the initiative process, the voters could probably qualify a proposed initiative for redistricting reform, or ballot access reform, or reform of the restrictive laws that don’t permit voters to switch parties before a primary unless they make the switch during the year before the election.  It will be interesting to see if Independent Voting, formerly known as the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, and before that the New Alliance Party, will support S709. That group is very well organized in New York city. Virtually all the “no” votes in the Senate were New York city Senators. The bill would require a statewide initiative to obtain a number of signatures equal to 5% of the last vote for Governor. Currently that number is 232,709. 

Voter initiatives and ballot propositions are a double-edged sword.  On the one hand, they allow voters to implement reforms that lawmakers are unwilling or hesitant to support out of narrow self-interest or political cowardice, ex. independent redistricting reform or rational reform of drug laws.  On the other hand, however, the initiative process can be hijacked against the public interest since all it requires is that one have enough money to gather signatures and wage an aggressive media advertising campaign in favor of a given measure.  For a critical view on the initiative process, see the lengthy essay on the historical use and abuse of voter initiatives and ballot propositions in California from the April edition of the Economist – for a  thumbnail sketch, see this CAIVN article from a few weeks ago.

Despite the potential risks, shouldn't we support any measure which puts more power in the hands of citizens and voters over and against professional politicians and entrenched party interests?

Americans Elect Quietly Working Toward Ballot Access in All 50 States

Has anyone out there been following developments surrounding Americans Elect?  I summarize some recent news on the group in this week's column for CAIVN:

In May, Ballot Access News reported that the new political organization Americans Elect had already collected over 500,000 signatures in its California ballot access petition drive.  From Richard Winger:

This already sets a new record for the largest number of signatures ever collected in one state to place a new party on the ballot. The previous highs had been set by the American Independent Party in Ohio in 1968, which collected 451,000 signatures; and the Independent Progressive Party in California in 1947-1948, which collected 464,000.

To gain ballot access by petition in California, parties must gather over 1,000,000 valid signatures – the exact number being equal to 10% of the total vote in the previous gubernatorial election. Alternately, a new party can qualify if its total registration exceeds 1% of the previous gubernatorial election.  Why then would Americans Elect seek 1 million signatures rather than 100,000 members? As the party’s national field director, Kellen Arno, explains in an interview on the group’s website, Americans Elect is apparently not interested in membership per se:

“One of the core beliefs of Americans Elect is welcoming Americans from all political parties and ideologies. Because we are not a traditional third party or political part of any sort, we don’t want to ask people to leave their parties. Instead, we believe that the more people who are able to participate in Americans Elect, from as diverse backgrounds as possible, ultimately makes our democracy and our country stronger,” says Arno. 

In recent months, Americans Elect has quietly begun an ambitious campaign to gain ballot access in all 50 states ahead of next year’s presidential election.  The party has already submitted petitions in Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, and Florida, according to reports at Ballot Access News.

However, relatively little seems to be known about the group, and it has received very little news coverage, despite the fact that it appears to have a significant amount of money at its disposal.  "Americans Elect, which became a 501(c) 4 corporation in September, can be as secretive as it wishes. As a 501(c) 4 it is not required to report who its contributors are,” wrote Greg Lucas for Capitol Weekly back in April.  A Google News search for “Americans Elect,” returns just three references to the organization and two of these are from Ballot Access News.

Until it was converted into a 501(c) 4, Americans Elect was registered as a 527 organization.  According to Open Secrets, there were two primary contributors to that incarnation of the group: Peter Ackerman and Arno Political Consultants.  Ackerman was previously active in the failed Unity ‘08 effort to field a bipartisan presidential ticket in the 2008 election.

Though Americans Elect is seeking ballot access in all 50 states as a political party, it does not conceive itself as a party, at least in the traditional sense.  Rather, it stresses how new technologies can transform the political process in the United States.  “Americans Elect will hold a secure vote in the first-ever online presidential nominating convention. Every registered voter—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—may be a Delegate and help nominate a presidential ticket that bridges the vital center of our national politics,” says the group on its “About” page.

Though the group has received relatively little media attention to date, some expect its campaign to kick into high gear over the summer.  “There is a vacuum of traditional political news during the summer months . . . This summer, I expect the big political drama to be the emergence of Americans Elect,” writes Jim Cook at Irregular Times.

For more on the group, check out their website, but be sure to peruse the ongoing, critical coverage of the organization at Irregular Times.

Third Party Petition Circulator Harrassed, Pepper Sprayed and Arrested Outside Maryland Public Library

From this week's column at CAIVN:

A little-noticed incident in Ellicott City, Maryland highlights the institutional hurdles and biases against minor political parties, the harassment of citizens engaged in constitutionally protected activities by public employees, the hostility on the part of the police toward those who record their interactions with the public, and the inaccuracies common in mainstream media reporting.

On December 18th, a professional petition circulator by the name of Andy Jacobs was collecting signatures for the ballot access drives of the state’s Libertarian and Green parties outside a public library in Ellicott City, Maryland . . .

Number of States with a Ballot-Qualified Third Party at 100 Year High

In addition to the many other historic records set by the third party and independent political movements this year, the number of states with a ballot-qualified third party is at a nearly 100-year high.  From Ballot Access News:

In the aftermath of the November 2010 election, 35 states plus the District of Columbia have at least one ballot-qualified party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.  This is the highest such number, immediately after a midterm election, for any election since 1918.

The 15 states without a ballot-qualified party (statewide), other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, are:  Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.  New Mexico is ambiguous; it has two parties that are ballot-qualified for President in 2012 but they cannot run nominees for office other than President without submitting petitions for them.  Connecticut is also somewhat ambiguous, because qualified status is determined office-by-office, but there are four minor parties that are now qualified for at least some statewide offices.

Election Highlights

For now, an overview of some significant results from the 2010 elections:

• Rhode Island has elected its first Independent governor, Lincoln Chafee! 
• In Maine's gubernatorial race, Independent candidate Eliot Cutler's last minute surge was not enough to overcome the gap between himself and the Republican front-runner.  Cutler lost by under two percentage points, garnering 36.7% to Paul LePage's 38.2%. 
• In New York, the Green Party's candidate for governor, Howie Hawkins, received enough votes to ensure ballot access for the party for the next four years. On the Libertarian Party line, Warren Redlich appears to have come up about 5,000 votes short of the 50,000 vote threshold. 
• In Colorado, Tom Tancredo demonstrated that it is indeed possible to run a viable, high-profile candidacy for governor under the banner of a third party, in this case, the Constitution Party. 
• Ballot Access News reports that the elections have resulted in some parties gaining qualified status, and others losing it, in states across the country. 

PA: Duopolist Double Standard, Democratic-Republican Hypocrisy Fuels Outrage

A letter to the editor of the Centre Daily Times:

I am outraged about the Sept. 9 Associated Press article “Nominating papers rules under review.”

Why should independent and third-party nominees have to follow rules that aren’t applicable to Democrats and Republicans? Bravo to the federal judge who ruled against the requirement that only residents can circulate petitions for candidates in their legislative districts in Pennsylvania.

As it is, the two-party system already plays dirty tricks to prevent other candidates from running for office. For example, other voices for change must gather an enormous number of signatures (about 20,000 versus 2,000 for major-party candidates), and usually need to double that number because the other two parties will use every legal trick to invalidate the signatures.

Mel Packer, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, withdrew from the race last month, shortly after filing petitions with more than 20,000 signatures, because he didn’t have enough surplus signatures to survive a Democratic challenge.

In Arizona, Republicans are funding 11 “sham candidates” they recruited on the Green Party ticket, even though officials in the state Green Party have condemned this cynical ploy. This effort is designed to confuse the electorate and siphon votes from Democrats.

A couple of years ago, Republicans made relatively large contributions to a legitimate Green candidate running for statewide office in Pennsylvania.

In America, we are supposed to have the right to free speech and free association. It should sadden everyone that the two major parties seem to disagree in order to tighten their hold on the reins of power.

Douglas M. Mason State College

Richard Winger on C-Span's Washington Journal

Last week, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News was interviewed on C-Span's morning program, Washington Journal. Richard made his best case for ballot access reform in the face of Democratic-Republican opposition to voter choice and political competition. From C-Span's description of the segment:

Richard Winger, publisher of the Ballot Access News in San Francisco, shares his thoughts on the role that the Independent Party plays in politics. Mr. Winger has followed the growth that third parties have rated in national and local politics, specifically looking at their ability to appear on ballots.

The interview is about 40 minutes long and covers a lot of ground.

PA: Calls Mount for Free and Equal Elections in the Keystone State

The purge of third party and independent candidates from the Pennsylvania ballot that took place earlier this month seems to be leading to greater calls for reform in the Keystone State. The undemocratic and anti-republican effort led by Democratic and Republican party activists resulted in the expulsion of all third party and independent candidates for statewide office from the ballot. Numerous media outlets have come out in support of third party and independent political activists who have called for reform of Pennsylvania's ballot access laws. The double standard could not be more clear. The Philadelphia Bulletin writes:

The state required third party candidates for statewide office to obtain more than 19,000 signatures to get on the ballot, while Republican and Democrat candidates had to collect only 2,000 signatures.

Early last week, political activists joined a pair of Libertarian Party candidates recently booted from November’s statewide election ballot to bring attention to what they say are Pennsylvania’s unfair ballot access laws.

The article goes on to report on a bill that woud reform the reigning Democratic-Republican ballot access regime:

A state Senator has introduced a bill he believes will fix the problem. The Voters’ Choice Act would standardize all ballot access requirements regardless of party affiliation.

“We need equal and fair access to the ballot,” said state Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, the lead sponsor of the bill. “If I could get it to the floor, who could vote against it?”

Who could vote against it? I could wager a few guesses. At the top of the list you'd likely find the majority of Democratic and Republican lawmakers, precisely those individuals who benefit most from robbing voters of choice on the ballot and eliminating political competition. Nonetheless, there are reports that the bill is gaining traction among individuals within both ruling parties. Though its lead sponsor is a Republican State Senator, word has it that the bill may soon get a boost from the Democratic Party's State Committee. From Ballot Access News:

According to John A. Murphy, a Nader supporter and a vigorous and passionate fighter for ballot access reform in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party’s State Committee has decided to support SB 252, the ballot access reform bill. Murphy’s source is a close friend who is on that Committee. The Committee will meet on September 24-25 and is expected to endorse the bill. Ballot access activists are welcome to attend the meeting.

SB 252 is based on Delaware’s law. It says that a group that has registration membership of at least one-twentieth of 1% is considered a qualified minor party, and is entitled to nominate by convention. If the bill were law currently, the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties would be ballot-qualified. The bill also substantially lowers the number of signatures needed for independent candidates.

That would be a welcome step in the right direction.

Candidates Resort to Increasingly Drastic Measures in Fight for Open Debates

There are a variety of means by which the Democratic and Republican parties ensure the reproduction of their joint misrule despite the fact that dwindling numbers of Americans are willing to support them in their efforts. Double standards governing access to the ballot for Democrats and Republicans, on the one hand, and everyone else on the other, are aimed at limiting voter choice in local, state and federal elections. Petition challenges and ballot purges are a matter of course when those double standards are overcome. But third party and independent candidates who successfully navigate even that ordeal then face the challenge of breaking through the establishmentarian filters of the corporate media, polling organizations and debate organizers.

Absurdly, debate organizers will justify the exclusion of third party and independent candidates on the basis of the assertion that they have not demonstrated significant support in public opinion surveys. But polling organizations often exclude those candidates from their surveys on the basis of the claim that they are not covered in the mainstream media, while the mainstream media who ignore those candidates justify their exclusion by arguing that they have no support in the polls. Though some have achieved major successes in forcing inclusive debates this year, many third party and independent candidates for office are resorting to increasingly drastic measures in their fight to be included in forums and debates:

• In April an Independent candidate for governor of Vermont was arrested for disorderly conduct for disrupting a debate from which he had been excluded.

• In June, Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Florida, Alex Snitker, crashed an event from which he had been excluded by the Florida Press Association.

• Earlier this month, supporters of Arkansas Senate candidates John Gray of the Green Party and Independent Trevor Drown protested outside an event organized by a taxpayer funded organization which refused to allow them to participate.

• This week, the Socialist and Constitution Party candidates for US Senate in Ohio launched a petition drive to ensure that debates and forums will be open and inclusive.

• Finally, the Democratic and Libertarian candidates for US House in CA-52 recently ended a hunger strike aiming to pressure the incumbent Republican to agree to debate his rivals face to face.

It is not difficult to discern the reasons why Democrats and Republicans, with the help of their allies in the corporate media and polling organizations, would seek to avoid defending their positions in a public debate with their third party and independent rivals. It would be all too clear that there are superior alternatives to the reproduction of Democratic-Republican misrule.

CT: Independent Candidate For Congress Files Complaint Against Sec. of State for Misuse of Public Funds for Political Ends

As you might recall, earlier this month Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz began an aggressive propaganda campaign instructing voters to register with the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of the state's August 10th primary elections. Byscewicz launched the effort at a press conference flanked by leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties and political establishment. In response to this partisan political push, Daniel Reale, an independent libertarian candidate for Congress in the state's 2nd CD, has now lodged a formal complaint against Byscewiz with the Office of State Ethics, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Federal Election Commission.

The complaint, a copy of which was sent to Poli-Tea, charges Bysiewicz with using state funds and resources to boost enrollment in two specific parties, misusing public funds to influence the outcome of federal and other elections, misusing the official seal of the Secretary of State's office for this purpose, and substantially complicating the ballot access petition efforts of third party and independent candidates for office in the state. Contacted via email, Mr. Reale says his ultimate goal is to "make sure the Secretary of State stops using public money and resources for political ends." (Read the full interview with Mr. Reale at Third Party and Independent Daily.) Asked what prompted him to lodge the complaint, he writes:

I'm opposed to the Secretary of State misusing her seal and public money in order to work on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats. Contrary to popular belief, the Secretary of State's office is not a political action committee. At the very least, the whole exercise is a political contribution to both major parties.

Reale said the Secretary of State's propaganda campaign was unexpected only in its brazenness:

Bysiewicz has been crossing into a legal gray area for years, using her office in ethically questionable ways to say the least. While I found this to be morally objectionable, these were the sort of things you couldn't legally hang your hat on. But I didn't expect something this egregious in terms of ethics, elections, misapplication of public resources and political action committee violations - all in the same package.

Confronted with criticism of her "Affiliate and Participate" campaign, as it's called, Bysiewicz has previously denied charges that she is engaged in a recruitment drive for the Democratic and Republican parties, inducing voters to favor them over minor parties and independents. Jon Kantrowitz at My Left Nutmeg quotes Bysiewicz stating:

Let me be clear: I am not trying to recruit new voters for the Republicans or Democrats or favor them over the minor parties. . . . the sole purpose of the Affiliate and Participate campaign is to educate the nearly 840,000 unaffiliated voters that if they want to vote in the August 10th primary, they must enroll with a major party.

Kantrowitz responds:

Susan is making a distinction between urging people to register for a political party, so that they can vote in that party's primary, and urging them to vote for a political party. In my humble opinion this is a distinction without a difference. I have no problem with informing people that they have the option, it's the urging to which I have an objection.

Bysiewicz claims that her propaganda campaign is purely educational in nature. However, the effort is clearly intended to lead voters into registering Democrat or Republican to shore up the registration rolls of the legacy parties, and provide them with the cover of popular political support (only 36% of the state's voters are registered Democrats, only 20% are registered Republicans). In a word: it is a broad attack against political independence. Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is no friend to the almost 1,000,000 unaffiliated and minor party voters in the Constitution State. Earlier this month, Bysiewicz issued a statement (July 13th) on a US Appeals Court Ruling on the Connecticut Clean Elections Law, saying: "The court rightly rejected the argument by US District Court Judge Stephen Underhill that this was somehow unfair to minor parties."

Among advocates of independent and third party politics, on the other hand, that very same decision was widely seen as a direct attack against independent voters and minor parties. Mike DeRosa is a litigant in the Green Party vs. Garfield lawsuit and a candidate for secretary of the state on the Green Party line. In an op-ed on the ruling for The Day, DeRosa argues that "silencing the minor parties won't fix major party corruption." He writes:

When the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently reversed federal Judge Stefan Underhill's decision, a reversal that will allow minor parties to have to meet a more difficult standard to gain public campaign finance funding, it proved to be a major disappointment for both the Green and Libertarian parties in Connecticut. The real losers in this decision, however, are the state's independent voters and taxpayers.

This decision props up a discriminatory state-sponsored subsidy program that increases the free-speech opportunities of the most popular political parties, while simultaneously reducing the free speech rights of smaller political parties.

In his response to the ruling at Ballot Access News, Richard Winger wrote:

the decision says . . . that the Connecticut law would be constitutional even if there were no means for a candidate to get public funding, unless that candidate were the nominee of a party that had performed well in the previous election. But, a new party could not possibly have performed well in the previous election, nor could an independent candidate have done so if the candidate were running as an independent for that office for the first time. The decision cannot even acknowledge that the law does discriminate in favor of the two old major parties. Every time it uses the word “discrimination” or “discriminate”, the decision puts the word in quotes.

Democratic Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz demonstrates a clear pattern of hostility toward independents, unaffiliated voters and minor parties. How could she not? She does not recognize political independence as a legitimate form of political practice. Her presupposition is effectively that if you are not participating in the Democratic or Republican primary then you are not participating in the political process ("affiliate and participate"). If Connecticut's Secretary of State were actually interested in educating rather than propagandizing voters, she might also inform them that unless they sign the petitions of third party and independent candidates, the only choice they will have on their November ballots will be the illusion of choice between a Democrat and a Republican, if there is even more than one candidate on the ballot. According to her office, 54 out of 187 election contests for the state's general assembly will go uncontested, as will a number of other races. That is just under 29%, almost 1 in 3 (see the press release from June 28 (.pdf)). The high number of uncontested elections in the state has been one of Daniel Reale's major points of criticism of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Asked how he intends to follow up on his complaint against Bysiewicz, Reale says:

Considering that this was also set up as a tort letter, the Secretary of State has 60 days to respond or repair. This will inform me of what actions need to be taken on the civil end. On the prosecution side, there will be a criminal complaint filed. If the state or the feds do it, great. If not, that's where I come in.

Hopefully, he will be joined by others in his campaign to stop the Connecticut Secretary of State from misusing public money and resources for political ends. Read the full interview and exchange with Daniel Reale at Third Party and Independent Daily.

Illinois' Third Party and Independent Gubernatorial Candidates on Ballot Access and Electoral Reform

As I mentioned last week, I've been planning on writing up a substantive post on the most recent IL gubernatorial debate organized by Free and Equal. The debate was hosted at Chicago State University and moderated by Free and Equal Founder and Chair Christina Tobin, who is also the Libertarian Party candidate for California Secretary of State. All seven gubernatorial candidates were invited to the forum, but the Republican and Democrat declined to attend. On hand were: William “Dock” Walls III (Independent), Michael White (Constitution Party), Rich Whitney (Green Party), Scott Lee Cohen (Independent) and Lex Green (Libertarian Party). The candidates discussed and debated their proposals for dealing with the state's deficit, the necessity of ballot access and electoral reform, education, issues relating to minorities and single parents, their specific differences with one another and the major party candidates, the state's pension system, the possibility of founding a state bank, and gun violence, among other things. They covered a lot of ground.

The Free and Equal blog has already done an extensive round-up of mainstream media coverage of the event, and so, rather than write yet another overview of the debate, I've instead decided to post a transcript of the candidates' discussion of ballot access and electoral reform. The following is more or less a word for word transcription of the discussion, though there are probably a few errors here and there. I've emphasized points I found especially interesting in bold.

Christina Tobin (moderator): 45 independent and alternative party candidates just filed to run for office in IL. 42 of them are facing petition challenges. Many of them will be removed from the ballot even though it means incumbents will be running unopposed. What proposals do you have to improve democracy in IL?

Lex Green (Libertarian Party): Almost all of us here have been affected by these challenges. We need to implement new election law that is simply equal across the board. I have a perspective on this that has been ignored by some people. Our primary system is paid for by the taxpayers essentially to subsidize the Democratic and Republican parties and the Green Party now. Yet, at the same time, I was nominated at a convention that we paid for, the Libertarian Party paid for themselves. We're looking at a model that puts all election law, and laws affecting how Democrats and Republicans conduct their affairs, into state law, that is hardly a general purpose that is beneficial to the people of IL.

I do not have a specific proposal, but I would like to see a system where parties have their own conventions where they pay for their own selection process. Assuming this is politically undoable in the short term, we need to go to a fee based entry into the ballot. I don't have specifics, but, for example, 5000 dollars to get on the ballot, which is much cheaper than most parties and independent candidates have to pay for the process of balloting. That would make it even across the board, and I would also support a fee or signature option, 5000 dollars and 5000 signatures as long as its equal for all candidates.

Michael White (Constitution Party): I think we need to start with the Board of Elections and the statutes. The standards for the established parties and the standards for anyone else new on the scene are entirely different. 25000 signatures in 90 days for the rest of us, 5000 signatures in 90 days for Democrats and Republicans. New people coming into the political system are going to have a very hard time getting 25000 signatures. For new people coming into politics that is going to be very hard to accomplish, but that is what we need, new people coming into politics.

If you look at the primary, and as a voter I am upset, look at the primary, look at all the people who are eligible to vote, [but] the people who picked [Democrat] Quinn and [Republican] Brady only comes to about an 8% vote in [these] primaries, choosing who we're going to vote for. 8% of the people are telling us who to vote for! Like Lex said, they [the parties] might as well pick the people and save the state some money. If we do go on a fee based system, another bonus, the state is in financial problems, we have money coming into the state there. But if we don't change the Board of Elections to actually do the job and stop asking parties and people to go check through these petitions to determine what's good, it's a very ridiculous system. If I would have turned in 1 signature and no one questioned my petition, I wouldn't be having any problems at all, I would be on the ballot. Because even though the statute says you have to do these things, the only person checking it are those in the parties or individual citizens who determine to buy that petition and question it. We have to have the Board of Elections actually do work, count signatures, if that's what they want to do and do the work, and not put it back to the people of IL and the parties to go verify this information.

William "Dock" Walls (Independent): The laws of our Board of Election often serve as incumbency protection principles. They protect the people who are already in power. They make it almost impossible for you to get on the ballot as an independent. In fact, there's never been an independent candidate on the ballot here in IL for governor, as a pure independent. There have been alternative party candidates, but never a true independent. And that saps the possibility that everybody hopes for when they wake up in the morning. You want somebody fresh, you want somebody new, you want somebody who's out here fighting for you and fighting for the issues that are important to you and the communities that you serve and the interests that you represent. That doesn't happen in IL.

In other places like California for example, they require that you pay 2% of what the salary is of the position that you're seeking. So for example, for governor you come in and you pay 3,492 dollars and that puts you on the ballot. And then they also allow you to do a combination of fee and signature requirements. So it serves the purpose. They will tell you that the purpose is to keep "frivilous" candidates off of the ballot. And we understand that that's necessary, because otherwise you'd have a ballot that's as long as a baby's dream, but in fact there are better ways to do it than they do it here in IL, because if you're challenged, you go into an environment that is tilted against you, where you are now burdened with proving that all of these signatures that you submitted are legitimate and real. And that's done at a great expense to the tax payers. This process costs millions and millions and millions of dollars of tax payers' money at a time when we can't afford to spend it. So it's time to seriously educate the public and get people to understand that this principle isn't working for you, its working against you. And it only benefits those people who've been in power for way too long.

Scott Lee Cohen (Independent): I know the disparity better than anybody between the Democrat and Republican signature requirements. They're required to have 5000. As an independent, I was required to have 25,000! I was blessed to be able to turn in 133000, but the point is, as governor I would fight for legislation for the following. Number one is to have an open primary. Right now you go and you have to declare Democrat or Republican. Let's do away with that, let the people have their privacy, and go in and vote for whoever you want. Second, I would lower the threshold of third party and independent candidates so that its equal to the Democrats and the Republicans.

Or as it was said earlier, come up with a fee-based system based on what the salary of the position you're running for is. In other words, if I'm running for governor, and I'm going to get paid 150,000 dollars a year, then I would have to pay 10% or 15% of that as a fee to be put on the ballot. It could be either/or, but that is a phenomenal system. And again, as governor I will fight for equality. I've always been a believer that people deserve choice. You shouldn't be forced into a two-party system voting for Democrat or Republican and I will make it my mission to make this as open and equal and fair as possible.

Rich Whitney (Green): I think it's no secret how you address the problem. IL has one of the most repressive and restrictive ballot access laws in the United States, as everyone here at this table knows form first hand experience. We've heard about the 25,000 signature requirement. It's absurd. We need to reduce the ballot access requirements to something much more reasonable. I would suggest something on the order of maybe 3000 for a statewide race, 500 for a state rep or state senate race, and keep it much more reasonable and much more attainable. One thing we don't suffer from in our political system is too many choices. Certainly not here in IL. We have too few. As a matter of fact, we have the obscene spectacle of many places where incumbents are running unopposed. It's absolutely ridiculous. How is that in any way a democratic republic? How is that giving voters real choices? We need to reverse that.

We also need to reverse the change to the law that occurred just last year, that the Democrats and Republicans ganged up and pushed through, which changed the slating requirement. We called it in the Green Party, we called it the Protect Incumbents Act of 2009. Because what it did is, instead of, after the primary if you wanted to slate a candidate you had your committee get together and they could slate the candidate, and that way you'd have more competitive elections. Well they changed that so that in order to slate a candidate, now you not only have to have your committee meet and slate a candidate you also have to get the same number of signatures that you would have to get to run in the primary anyway, and you have to get it in 45 days instead of 90 days. The Democrats and Republicans ganged up and pushed that through. It was aimed at the Green Party after we won established party status in 2006, but it hurts all of us, it hurts all of the other parties, it hurts all of you as voters. So that's one thing I would do is fight to repeal that pernicious law as well as lower the ballot access requirements.

The Growing Independent Majority and the Necessity of Ballot Access and Electoral Reform

Some excerpts from my latest column at CAIVN:

A new poll by the Washington Post and ABC News finds that Democrats and Republicans barely constitute a majority when one tallies their percentages together: less than a third identify as Democrats (31%), less than a quarter call themselves Republicans (24%), and a whopping 40% describe themselves as Independents.

This raises a basic question. If so many people are unwilling to identify with the Democratic and Republican parties, and prefer to describe themselves as Independents, why do they continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans rather than Independents or third party alternatives?

There are two conventional answers to this question: 1) these voters are not “really” Independent; rather, they “lean” toward one major party or the other but refuse to identify with the label; 2) the hurdles encountered by third party and Independent candidates are simply too great to be overcome. Clearly, however, these two issues are interrelated. Given the systemic bias in favor of the Democratic and Republican parties, voters do not really have any choice but to vote Democrat or Republican when it comes time to cast their ballots, if they vote at all . . .

Overcoming the systemic bias in favor of the legacy parties is one of the greatest and most pressing political issues facing the people of the United States. . . . This November, California voters have the opportunity to elect an outspoken electoral reformer for Secretary of State, Libertarian Party candidate Christina Tobin.

Read the whole thing.