Competitive Elections Wisconsin seeks bill reducing ballot access hurdles

Competitive Elections Wisconsin, a coalition of groups, parties, and former candidates seeking ballot access reform, has issued the following open letter and draft proposal to the members of the State Legislature.

To the Representatives to the Assembly and State Senators of Wisconsin,

Last November, as happens every two years, ninety-nine Representatives to the Assembly were elected. Forty-seven of them were the only name on the ballot in the general election. Many of them had also been unopposed for their party’s nomination in the primary.

Wisconsin makes it harder than most states for an average citizen to run for office. Every candidate is required to collect hundreds of signatures during a very limited period, which may seem a small burden to established incumbents with ample fundraising and a network of supporters, but is a significant discouraging factor to an average working adult wishing to participate in the electoral process.

Many candidates, who do manage to collect enough signatures, then find themselves removed from the ballot based on technicalities and complaints filed by their opponents. It is not unusual for as many as half or more of the candidates who file for an office, to be denied placement on the ballot, either because they didn’t gather enough signatures in time, or because their opponent successfully challenged the validity of the petitions. This year even saw the new absurdity of the G.A.B. scrutinizing signatures for being insufficiently cursive and “signature-like.”

For the people at large, petition fatigue is a common complaint, making it that much harder for candidates to secure the required number of signatures.

The vast majority of these elections had either one or two candidates, a small handful had three, and none but the statewide offices had four or five. The alleged problem of an over-crowded ballot with dozens of names, the legal justification for the petition requirement and ballot access restrictions in general, has given way to a clearly under-crowded ballot.

The Competitive Elections proposal would remedy this defect, by lowering the nomination petition thresholds for partisan office by half across the board, in particular down to 100 valid signatures for State Representative, 200 for State Senator, 500 for Representative in Congress, and 1000 for statewide elections. This is a modest but substantive reform, which could be easily implemented, would save taxpayer money by reducing the burden on the G.A.B., and would not make any other change to the structure or process of elections.

A state legislative body where almost half of members were elected by default, calls into question the democratic legitimacy of the entire Assembly. Even voters in “safe seats” deserve to have a debate, a choice, and to hear their incumbent defend their record, if not in the general election than at least in the primary. Neither of Wisconsin’s major political parties should be allowed to write-off half of the state as unworthy of even having a candidate. And no willing, legitimate candidate should be turned away, based on ballot access restrictions that narrow the field before a single voter is heard.

Therefore, we are asking every state legislator who was elected with no opponent in 2014, as well as their colleagues who had to compete for their seats, to agree to introduce and/or vote for the Competitive Elections proposal, the draft legislative text of which is available below.

Andy Craig
Lead Coordinator, Competitive Elections Wisconsin
www.ouramericainitiative.com/wisconsin.html
www.facebook.com/CompelWisconsin

DRAFT PROPOSAL:
Wis. Stat. (8)15.6 is amended to read as follows:
The number of required signatures on nomination papers shall be as follows:
    (a) For statewide offices, not less than 1,000 nor more than 2,000 electors.
    (b) For representatives in congress, not less than 500 nor more than 1,000 electors.
    (c) For state senators, not less than 200 nor more than 400 electors.
    (d) For representatives to the assembly, not less than 100 nor more than 200 electors.
    (dm) For district attorneys, not less than 250 nor more than 500 electors in prosecutorial units over 100,000 population and not less than 100 nor more than 200 electors in prosecutorial units of 100,000 population or less.
    (e) For county offices, not less than 350 nor more than 500 electors in counties over 100,000 population and not less than 100 nor more than 200 electors in counties of 100,000 population or less.