Richard Winger from Ballot Access News has alerted us to a hearing to be held tomorrow in Ohio.
Ohio Legislative Hearing on Bill to Remove Minor Parties Set for Wednesday, September 25
The Ohio Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee will hear SB 193 on Wednesday, September 25, at 1:30 p.m. This is the bill that, if passed in its current form, would remove the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Socialist Parties from the 2014 ballot. There are five points to the bill that are probably unconstitutional. I have e-mailed the Committee chair to explain these problems with the bill. If you are interested in seeing a copy of the e-mail testimony, please e-mail me at [email protected].
You can read the text of the bill here .
“There is no state that now requires one petition to qualify the party and then separate petitions for all of its nominees (remember, “nominee” is someone who has been nominated by the party, not someone who is seeking the party’s nomination).”
Yes there is, New Mexico. I think that the candidate for President is exempt from petition if the party that they are the nominee of has ballot status, but every other candidate must obtain addition petition signatures to be able to appear on the ballot.
Ohio Senate Bill 193 “to Remove Minor Parties”
Richard Winger of Ballot-Access.org has identified 5 problems with Ohio Senate Bill 193 “to Remove Minor Parties” which is set to be heard by the Ohio Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday, September 25 at 1:30 p.m.
Problem #1: It violates due process to make this bill apply to 2014. In 1970, the Socialist Labor Party won a lawsuit against Ohio, over the same laws. In 1971 the legislature passed SB 460, which lowered the number of signatures for the party petition and also lowered the vote test for a party to remain on. The Secretary of State at the time, Ted Brown, noted that the Socialist Labor Party only polled .44% for Governor in 1970. Nevertheless, he felt it unfair to remove the Socialist Labor Party from the 1972 ballot because it had failed to pass a vote test that had not existed at the time of the 1970 election. By the same reasoning, it is not fair to expect the minor parties to be removed from the 2014 ballot on the grounds that they hadn’t passed a vote test that had not existed during 2012.
A U.S. District Court in West Virginia ruled in Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Hechler that West Virginia, which had increased its petition requirement for new parties from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote to 2% during 1999, could not enforce the new petition requirement for the 2000 election. 112 F Supp 2d 575 (southern district 2000). The 1% petition remained in place for the 2000 election. As an aside, in 2011, the legislature changed its mind and lowered the petition back to 1%, with an August petition deadline.
Problem #2: requiring a newly-qualifying party to submit both a petition for the party and then separate petitions for each of its nominees. The bill requires one petition (for 2014) of 55,809 valid signatures, and then another petition for each of the party’s nominees. Having so many petitions is redundant; the first petition already shows the nominees have voter support. Maryland once had a similar policy and it was declared unconstitutional in Maryland Green Party v Maryland State Board of Elections, 832 A 2d 214 (2003). There is no state that now requires one petition to qualify the party and then separate petitions for all of its nominees (remember, “nominee” is someone who has been nominated by the party, not someone who is seeking the party’s nomination).
Problem #3: wording on the petition to qualify the new party. This is already a problem with the existing law, and it should be fixed. It is unconstitutional for the party petition to say that the signers “declare their intention of organizing a political party.” The petition should instead say that the signers desire that the party listed in the petition be recognized. Anderson v Mills, 664 F 2d 600 (6th circuit 1981) struck down a Kentucky law that required minor party candidate petitions to say the signers intend to vote for those candidates. The Fourth Circuit made the same ruling in Socialist Workers Party v Hechler, a West Virginia case, 890 F 2d 1303 (1989). A U.S. District Court in Nevada struck down language that the signers “represent” the party. Libt. Party of Nevada v Swackhamer, 638 F Supp 565 (1986). A U.S. District Court in Nebraska struck down language that the signers “pledge themselves to support the party and its candidates.” Libt Party of Nebraska v Beermann, 598 F Supp 57 (1984). A U.S. District Court in South Dakota struck down language that the signers “had affiliated with one another for the purpose of forming a new party.” Libt Pty of South Dakota v Kundert, 579 F Supp 735 (1984).
Problem #4: it is probably unconstitutional to force all parties to run for President in order to remain on the ballot after a presidential election year. Some parties don’t wish to participate in the presidential elections. One example is the Minnesota Independence Party. Ohio in the past has had parties on the ballot that didn’t run anyone for president, such as the Negro Protection Party of the 1890’s and some Farmer-Labor Parties in the 1930’s.
Problem #5: forcing the newly-qualifying party to list all its nominees on the petition means that the party must choose all its nominees months before the major parties choose theirs. For a party to get 55,809 valid signatures by July 2, 2014 means the party must choose all its nominees before it starts to petition. It probably takes six months for a minor party to get that many valid signatures, so in effect they must choose their nominees and also decide which offices they will be contested many months before the Dem and Rep Parties hold their primary to choose their nominees. So the bill has the same flaw that the old law had, that it is giving favorable treatment to the two major parties in the matter of when the nominees are chosen.
Further Richard goes on to add, “there is nothing really wrong with the status quo. Florida, which has a considerably bigger population than Ohio, has been getting along fine by letting any party on the ballot with no petition. All the party needs to do to be on in Florida is to file its bylaws and its list of officers, and then to make regular campaign finance reports.
Two other states permit parties to be on the ballot with no petition. Vermont lets any party on if it has town committees in any 10 towns. Mississippi lets any party on if it just files a list of party officers. Those states don’t have crowded ballots.
Idaho requires a petition to get on, but once a party is on, it stays on if it just runs at least 3 candidates every even-numbered state election.
South Carolina requires a petition to get on, but once a party is on, it stays on if it just runs one candidate every four years.
The median vote test in the nation for a party to remain on is 2%. A slight majority of states with vote tests apply the vote test to any statewide candidate.
Michigan is a neighbor state of Ohio, and its vote test for a party to stay on is only 1% of the winning candidate’s vote for Secretary of State. Any statewide nominee of the party that polls that many votes stays on the ballot. Therefore, the Libertarian Party hasn’t had to petition in Michigan since that law was passed in 2002. Michigan has 4 qualified minor parties on the ballot, plus the two major parties. This sensible policy saves a lot of taxpayer money, because forcing parties to constantly submit petitions requires election officials to check all those signatures.”
Good luck blocking it, Kevin.
George
Yes, the Grand Ole Party wants to GUT the Libertarian Party in Ohio, along with anyone else that will not vote their way. One-Party rule is alive and well in Ohio.