Deadlines to Put New Parties on the Ballot for 2018 Have Already Passed in Five States

Ballot Access News:

Already, deadlines for certain procedures to get new parties on the ballot for 2018 have passed in five states. With two exceptions, no new party qualified in these states.

In California, the deadline for a new party to obtain approximately 60,000 registrants, and thus be on the 2018 ballot, passed on January 2. No group came close to qualifying. This deadline had been struck down in 2015, but the decision was interpreted only to apply to presidential election years.

In Arkansas, the petition deadline for new parties was also January 2. No group submitted a petition. The only three ballot-qualified parties are Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian.

In Maine, the deadline for a group to show that it had 5,000 registered members was also January 2. No group tried. The four ballot-qualified parties are Democratic, Republican, Green, and Libertarian.

In Utah, the deadline for a group to submit a petition for party status was November 30, 2017. The Green Party met this deadline, and earlier in 2017 the United Utah Party did as well. The other qualified parties are Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Independent American, and Constitution.

In Vermont, the deadline for one method to get a new party on the ballot, that it have town committees in ten towns, was January 1. The only group that met that requirement was the Green Mountain Party. Parties that were already on the ballot were Democratic, Republican, Progressive, Working Families, Libertarian, and Liberty Union. Groups that didn’t make the January 1 deadline can still appear on the ballot in 2018 if their nominees submit petitions by August 7, 2018.

9 thoughts on “Deadlines to Put New Parties on the Ballot for 2018 Have Already Passed in Five States

  1. D Frank Robinson

    Deadlines for market entry have passed? Why does any voter have to ask permission from other other voters (petition) to select a candidate?
    Free the ballot from content censorship. Let all voters write-in their choices without censorship by the two self-entrenched and state-sponsored parties. Just print a content neutral ballot like the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. No petitioning and deadlines, no filing fees, no vote quotas for parties, no compulsory candidacies for parties to sponsor candidates.
    Yes, a ballot can still be anonymous if the voter chooses, but the voter has a First Amendment right to publish their ballot before and after it is cast (selfie) just as they did before 1888.

  2. D Frank Robinson

    Gee, would you like to chisel you vote on a stone tablet, George? We do have technology to sort the names and months after an election before a person takes office to adjudicate typos and misspellings.
    C’mon, George. Who handles the FWAB? Why is the FWAB practical for citizens overseas, not not domestically?

  3. George Phillies

    You do not have the technology to read the names. You do not have voters, all of whom can write English words. If you have a handwritten vote for John Smith, you don not know which John Smith it is. Even America does not have enough attorneys to handle the resultant litigation. Your ideas are simply implausible.

  4. D Frank Robinson

    Gosh damn! How did our ancestors ever manage to conduct elections before 1888 with all the insuperable obstacles? Must have been mind readers back then.

    Seriously, consider that the incumbent politicians still have the final say on who can take office and if a person should be expelled or impeached. Let the voters vote and then let the incumbent politicians answer to those voters for who they reject as “unfit to serve.” Election ballot access laws are prior content censorship.

    Looking forward to the next scoffer.

  5. D Frank Robinson

    Will artificial intelligence one day be able to read what a voter writes on a ballot and transcribe that intent into a more legible form that is both human and machine readable?
    Or is it unnecessary to wait for ballot reading and counting utopia? As a practical matter few elections can be disputed because the margin of winning indeterminable because of illegible hand-written names on the ballots.
    Furthermore, the technology exists off-the-shelf for the voter to write-in a candidate or party name, have a machine read the name and feedback to the voter if the inscribed name is ambiguous before the voter leaves the polling booth.
    If there are objections to write-in voting that make it “impracticable” today that our ancestors did not find impracticable when the voted with hand-written ballot for a century, then it will be beneficial learn of them and see if our technology today cannot overcome such objections.

  6. D Frank Robinson

    As candidate filing deadlines approach , one may ask: why do candidates need to register with the state months before an election? The answer given is so that the state know which names to print on the ballots.
    One may ask: why do candidates names need to be printed on the ballots? The typical answer is so that voters know who the serious candidates are and censor unsatisfactory unserious candidates from appearing on the ballots making voting speedy for the voters.
    One may ask: If the ballot is for use on election day or as an absentee ballot in the weeks before an election, how does compelling candidates to register for ballot advertising make those candidates serious? Why not trust the voters to sort out the serious from the unserious candidates by their own standards when they vote? Why not use a content-neutral uncensored open write-in ballot and request – not compel – candidates to file a declaration specifying their names for recognition when ballots are counted. Regardless, all ballots should be counted and tallied even if some names are illegible.
    All ballots should be verifiable to a voter so he can determine if his vote was not assigned to a candidate because of illegibility and also assigned accurately.
    Inspect the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot as a practical format.
    Who benefits from censoring ballots?

  7. George Phillies

    One may ask: why do candidates names need to be printed on the ballots?

    So that the election officials can figure out for whom the vote has been cast, in the face of illegible writing.

  8. D Frank Robinson

    If a voter brings an illegible list of candidates to the poll and attempts to transfer the illegible names on the list to the ballot, it is the voter’s choice to be illegible. If someone sees the voter’s illegible list of names, how does that compromise the anonymity of the illegible ballot?
    Where is legible handwriting a compulsory qualification for citizenship or the right to vote? No victim, no crime. Candidates have no right to legible votes.
    All these arguments to assist voters who do not want assistance are self-serving partisan paternalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *