Excerpted from an editorial at The Liberty Ticker
http://libertyticker.blogspot.com/2010/04/legalized-monopoly-ballot-access-laws.html
Except for the board game of the same name, Americans have generally railed against the power of monopolies. With their ability to maintain predominance over the production and sale of some product, monopolies are seen as having the power to destroy competition and fairness. However, few realize this concept can extend beyond the marketplace and into our government. Incumbent elected officials, in the guise of Republicans and Democrats, have managed to secure a monopoly on our political process. Their access to less stringent ballot restrictions, a friendly bureaucracy, and favorable court decisions has created a situation where independent or minor party candidates have an institutional disadvantage in politics which subverts the concept of democracy in our society.
In many states, minor party and independent candidates face the unique barrier of having to gain ballot access solely by petition. This is the tedious process of contacting one registered voter at a time to sign his or her name on a petition to allow the candidate in question to simply appear on the ballot. Many different restrictions can make this a Herculean task. Sometimes, an excessive number of signatures are required to gain ballot access. This is the case in Georgia, where a 1943 law requires the signatures of 5% of registered voters on a petition in order for minor party and independent candidates to gain ballot access. Since 1943, no minor party or independent candidate has appeared on the ballot in Georgia for the United States House of Representatives. However, there have been plenty of Republicans and Democrats, who are only required to pay a filing fee to appear in the primary election. Other restrictions make the process even more difficult for minor party or independent candidates. Texas is considered a difficult state for minor parties because of the “primary screen-out”. Essentially, the number of signatures is not the problem here; instead, the problem is who can sign. If a registered voter participates in a Republican or Democratic Party primary, he or she is barred from signing a nominating petition for a minor party or independent candidate. This barrier is notable when one considers that the act of signing a petition to place a candidate on the ballot is different than actually voting for said candidate. However, the two political parties in power cannot grasp this nuance.
Beyond the mechanics of the bias in our political system toward the two major parties, there is a substantial bias in implementation of election law. One particularly notable example occurred in Texas in the 2008 presidential election. Only one minor party candidate obtained ballot access here, Libertarian Bob Barr. Besides this candidate, only the two major parties were assumed to appear on the ballot. However, it became apparent after the deadline of August 26th that only Bob Barr had completed all the necessary steps to file for ballot access. With both major parties missing the deadline to certify their candidates, one would think that only Mr. Barr would appear on the ballot for the race in Texas. However, the Secretary of State of Texas stated that because she had already planned to place the Democratic and Republican nominees on the ballot for President of the United States, irrespective of the paperwork filed, they would remain in place in that faculty. This contrasts with the stringent deadlines imposed on the Libertarian Party of Texas when in 2004 it was forced to gain sufficient signatures to remain on the ballot in the short period of 75 days- a major burden for a minor party. Apparently leniency may be granted only to major parties rather than all parties.
Continue reading at http://libertyticker.blogspot.com/2010/04/legalized-monopoly-ballot-access-laws.html
I’m glad the message about Georgia is being propagated.
But it’s important to be concise. It is not accurate that no independent or minor party candidate has appeared on a Georgia ballot for US House.
First, they have appeared on the ballot in special elections, so the statement needs to include “regularly-scheduled”. Candidates in special elections don’t need any petition.
Also, in 1982, two US House districts had late districting, so a court ordered the 5% suspended for just that year, for just those two districts. Instead a 1.3% petition was in force, and Billy McKinney (Cynthia’s father) complied. Also in 1964 an independent did the 5% petition.
So the sentence ought to say, “No minor party candidate for US House has ever complied with the 5% petition since it was created in 1943. And no independent has overcome it since 1964.
Again, deform parties from easier states would lord over more difficult states, until lying bible beaters like Patrick and Bay Buchanan made thing difficult for all subdivisions ‘reform’!
Let’s face it, the reform movement had to die or ‘reform’ itself! If the RfP USA [and National Law Party and the Constitution Party] was not serving the populaces, then they do not deserve to exist …….
Thanks for the coverage! I also have been linking back to IPR with some of my stories.