At Ballot Access News, Richard Winger has written an article expressing his dismay at an op-ed piece written by a Republican party official in South Carolina. Richard Winger notes that “South Carolina and North Carolina are the only states in the nation in which no independent candidate for U.S. House has ever managed to get on the ballot.”
(excerpt from) Ballot Access News
South Carolina Republican Party Official Boosts Anti-Independent Candidate Bill
April 11th, 2009
Katon Dawson, an official of the South Carolina Republican Party, has this op-ed in the April 8 issue of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, in support of a bill to make it illegal for primary voters to sign an independent candidate’s petition…
South Carolina’s law for independent candidates for district office is already very severe. ..Yet Dawson’s op-ed claims that independent candidates are currently treated more leniently by the state than partisan candidates…
A vote in a party primary is secret, and signing a petition isn’t. Most people don’t sign petitions, either because no one gets to them to ask them to sign, they are too busy when they get asked, or they don’t know the person asking them and are worried about giving their information.
Even if a candidate has 5% support in a district that is a far different thing than getting 5% of the voters in that district to sign. Even an initiative that has 50% or more support is not easy to get 5% of the voters to sign to get it on the ballot.
It’s ridiculous to compare the two processes. Government pays for, promotes and administers primaries. Meanwhile, petitioners get chased off from both quasi-private (yet open to the public) as well as government-owned public places of all manner, and even in some places stopped from going door to door.
If you really want to make the two processes equivalent, the major parties should have to chase down their primary voters and make them sign a list of which candidate they are voting for among a list of their neighbors’ names. In other words, make them petition in the same way as smaller parties.
Otherwise, you are comparing apples to elephants.
“The flaw in this argument is that signing a petition for an independent candidate is not the same act as nominating someone. A petition is a means for a voter to express the idea that the voter believes that the particular independent candidate belongs on the general election ballot. It does not necessarily mean that the voter has decided to vote for the independent. ”
A vote in a primary is a means for a voter to express the idea that the voter believes that the particular party candidate belongs on the general election ballot. It does not necessarily mean that the voter has decided to vote for that candidate in the general election.
Sorry for the plagiarism. I fail to see why the two are all that different. Especially in an open primary where a Democrat can vote for a Republican in the primary, that does not necessarily mean he’ll vote Republican in the general election, even if his favorite is nominated.
I agree that the rules for independents are too strict, that it should be easier to gather the required signatures, probably by reducing the amount needed. However I disagree that petitioning and primary voting should be treated differently in this regard.
Yes, the Fringe Alliance Strategy in action.
Read the Book of Isaih, Romans Chapter 6, Exodus chapter 15.
Turn back, O Israel, and cry out with joy to thy God, for the redeemer liveth,
Send forth your spirit and renew the face of the Earth, amen.
How about a media release with a number of groups signed on to it?
Are Libertarians, Greens and anyone else in South Carolina going to write letters to the editor criticizing this guy and his points?
Sorry ’bout that…I read the op-ed and not the BAN commentary…
I haven’t checked out other info regarding the cases cited, but I hope that they are enough to shut this law down…as I said in my prior comment, the more candidates in the general elections the better…
But even with that said, I am curious what the courts will decide, as I don’t see it as a “true” open and shut case…
From BAN
Dawson says current law, allowing any registered voter, to sign for an independent candidate, is not fair because a voter who signs for an independent, and who also votes in a partisan primary, is effectively nominating two different candidates.
The flaw in this argument is that signing a petition for an independent candidate is not the same act as nominating someone. A petition is a means for a voter to express the idea that the voter believes that the particular independent candidate belongs on the general election ballot. It does not necessarily mean that the voter has decided to vote for the independent. The sixth and the fourth circuits have recognized this principle, by striking down Kentucky and West Virginia laws that forced an independent candidate’s petition to say that the signers intend to vote for that independent candidate. Also, a U.S. District Court in Michigan in 1980 in Hall v Austin also contains a short essay on this matter.
Signing a petition cannot be equated with voting for someone, because elections for public office in the U.S., by strong tradition, are secret; yet signing a petition is not a secret act.
South Carolina’s law for independent candidates for district office is already very severe. South Carolina and North Carolina are the only states in the nation in which no independent candidate for U.S. House has ever managed to get on the ballot. South Carolina requires an independent candidate for U.S. House to submit exactly 10,000 valid signatures, and no one has ever done it. South Carolina also rarely has any independent candidates for the legislature on the ballot. Yet Dawson’s op-ed claims that independent candidates are currently treated more leniently by the state than partisan candidates.
I know I am about to get beat up over this, but…I read the opinion, and see at least some merit while finding the wording offensive.
In ’08 I did not participate in the D or R primary (I had candidates in both that I would like to have supported) because I was going to the Green Party nomination convention where I was to have a vote. I was not approached by anyone gathering signatures, so I can’t say what my response would have been…but I probably would have signed (even if they were running against me, as I was a candidate), but I would have explained it to the petitioner, putting the ball in their court…
But back to the issue at hand, I would like an UNBIASED legal opinion on it. Because I see it from both sides. In South Carolina we have “open” primaries, but if you vote in the R primary…you can’t vote in the D primary… and vice versa… If Libertarians or Greens begin to have primaries in our state, I would assume that the same rules would hold true. This would infer that each voter would get ONE vote in ONE party primary. If you follow me so far…this would mean that anyone not participating in any primary would still have their vote left to give. To an Independent???
Don’t get me wrong…I think the more candidates voters have to chose from in the general election the better. But I see why this law could pass, and be found “legal” in the court fights. Especially since it is not “changing the number” of signatures needed. If I am not mistaken Texas has a similar rule….which would give proponents a precedent to cite.
Just as an aside, Ralph Nader gathered the signatures to be on the ballot in SC. If he had gathered the same number for putting a Party on the ballot, there would be one more guaranteed choice in 2012… I swear this pisses me off….
‘Geniuses’ like Dawson are the same Dems and GOP establishment types whom have run the ship of state [AND THE ECONOMY] aground and now offer to be the [self proclaimed] savior for the 21st century. Lord save every day abused patriotic Americans from ‘friends’ like Billy Shoeshine Dawson………..
Yeah, I got your msg., but when I called back it was a wrong #.
I’m home now.
PEACE
Steven,
O/T: tried to call you a couple of times but I haven’t been able to get through.
This guy has some serious issues, from his condescending reference to voters as “children” to his contempt for free elections.
And through it all, he manages to equate membership in a hate group (democrat or republican parties) as on par with signing a public petition for a choice on election day!
Well, Mr. Dawson should be reminded of his own advice when he states “they should be bound by the decisions made by them and their partisan peers“. Under our Constitution, we have something called “equal protection under the law”, and restrictions on our right to vote might be considered a violation of that principle.
Therefore, it is no stretch that membership in hate groups such as the democrat or republican parties might trigger RICO action where every member of that organization could lose all their property and savings. Afterall, these people need to be reminded that “they should be bound by the decisions made by them and their partisan peers“.
PEACE