New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced AB 838. It would alter the definition of “political party” from a group that got 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that got 100,000 votes for Governor. If passed, it would take effect for elections starting in 2016. Thus, it would remove the Independence, Women’s Equality, and Stop Common Core Parties from the ballot.
Pretlow has been in the Assembly starting in 1992. In November 2014, no one ran against him, and he had the nomination of the Democratic Party and the Independence Party.
Mr. Katz, I don’t think of the Green Party as competitors. The Democrats & Republicans, along with their parasitic satellite parties, are our competition. I wish no ill-will on the Greens, other than that I hope we beat them in the battle of ideas.
Paulie – true, but for the next election, it would mean at least one competitor would not get automatic ballot access.
On the practical side – we have come close to 50k, but never been close to 100 k, so it would put it much further out of reach.
To be clear, I wasn’t taking the position that NY would not reach 50,000 – I say NY will elect a Governor, let alone pass that arbitrary threshold, and not in the distant future. I should have been more clear – what I meant was that you’ve functioned for a very long time without passing the bar, so it doesn’t seem disastrous to raise it – but, in the short term, it would take away a practical disadvantage and clean up some of the mess. I agree on the moral question, of course, but I don’t think that stops me from looking at the practical side as well. I agree with Roderick Long that the two aren’t opposed, but will always complement each other.
Does NY have any way for independent candidates to retain ballot access? Here in CT, it is impossible for an independent to retain ballot access. The bill we introduced today did not address that; perhaps I should have included it but I actually didn’t think of it until just now. Maybe I will work on something for the next session.
I agree. Given that we came close before, 50k is not nearly as bad as 100k, which raises an already high (but not way out of reach) bar …. way out of reach.
Josh–
If one takes the position that we will never get 50,000 votes for Governor (many hold that view), then making the ballot status hurdle even higher should not matter to the LP and would do away with some of the parasite parties that keep popping up in New York.
On the other hand, if one takes the view that we might make 50K as Warren almost did in 2010, then raising the bar to an unobtainable figure is tantamount to no ballot status ever in New York.
Also, on a moral rather than practical level, I favor lower requirements for ballot access for all independent candidates, not just Libertarians.
Mark, can you explain why? It seems to me that, since the LP didn’t make the hurdle last time, and hasn’t made it before, the impact would be to make the Greens, for instance, level with the LP, not to hurt the LP. What am I missing?
States like NY that allow fusion (CT allows it in some limited cases) are the reason I wanted to amend the bylaws so that no interpretation could exist that would ban fusion. That doesn’t impact my opinion on whether or not NY should allow fusion – just that, so long as it is allowed, the LP shouldn’t try to prevent our affiliates from taking advantage of it.
I spoke against the fusion ban in CT, but in large part because of the weird way it works, and how it applies to some parties and not others. I don’t have terribly strong opinions on whether or not a state should allow fusion. I do have very strong opinions that, where it’s allowed, affiliates should use it (and there should be no bylaw that may prevent them using it) wherever it is tactical.
(Con)Fusion voting should be abolished. If the Working Families Party wants to remain active in New York, it should field its own candidates.
Obviously, if this bill were ever enacted, it would be a disaster for the Libertarian Party of New York. I urge every New Yorker to contact his/her local Assemblymember and urge him/her to oppose this Draconian restriction.
I agree that this last election was a shame as far as phony 3rd parties (WEP and SCCP). However, I am a member of the WFP and strongly believe in the fusion concept. The WEP, however, was created by Andrew Cuomo as a purely cynical ploy to try to screw the WFP. Interestingly this bill would basically nullify the success he had in doing this but I simply don’t think that is a good enough reason. My guess is that both the WEP and the SCCP will quickly wither on the vine because there is no real organization or true believers behind them. The fake parties may sneak in there every once in a while but their long term prospects will be terrible unless they become a true Party with a real ideology and movement behind them.
What one has to understand is how hard it is for unofficial “Political Parties” have it as far as getting on the ballot is, and that is more and more true the further down the ballot you get. While the Conservative Party and WFP often serve as rubber stamps for the Dem or Rep candidate they also serve as a true outlet for races where either a liberal or conservative constituency aren’t being served by their local Dem or Rep parties.
If they really wanted to address the proliferation of sham fusion parties, then they could much more directly address that problem by getting rid of fusion nominations. Without harming the actual political parties that nominate their own candidates.
I’m not necessarily an opponent of allowing fusion nominations in the abstract, but New York makes a pretty strong case against allowing it in practice.
As a NYer I find this very depressing. As much as I dislike the Independence Party and think the WEP and SCCP are mostly BS it would be terrible if this law passed. If you live in NY then please contact your local reps and let them know how you feel about this bill.
Here are pages that you give you the contacts for the Assembly and Senate
http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/