Editorial published in the Huntsville Times
State law needs to give other candidates a fair shot at election
Sometimes it seems that every shortcoming or excess in state or local laws manages to end up in a federal court somewhere, usually framed as a constitutional question. Even so, grievances that do not rise to the level of constitutional violations may still beg to be addressed.
So it is with the lawsuit filed in federal court over Alabama’s ballot-access laws. Those laws are so restrictive that they often prevent independent or other-party candidates from running for any number of offices.
For example, if an independent or alternative party candidate wishes to run for governor in 2010, that candidate will have to present petitions with the verifiable signatures of 37,500 voters. That number is equal to 3 percent of the total votes cast in the 2006 gubernatorial election, which is what the law requires.
That seems an unreasonable burden, but it’s not there by accident. Alabama statutes are written in such a way as to give the two major political parties a big advantage. Is that unconstitutional? Maybe not, but it’s at least unfair and clearly designed to discourage other candidates.
According to Libertarian Party officials, Alabama has some of the most difficult ballot-access laws in the nation. Indeed, the alternative candidates running for president on the Alabama ballot last year probably wouldn’t have been there except for a separate requirement that they present only 5,000 verifiable names.
In county elections, the state’s forbidding hurdles also apply. One result is that frustrated voters are often reduced to expressing their dissatisfaction by writing in the names of other candidates, whether those “candidates” are real or not. The number of write-ins often delays the official vote canvass, and in some counties the write-ins aren’t counted at all. (In nonpartisan municipal elections, candidates need only pay a qualifying fee. No signature requirements are in effect.)
A fair argument can be made in favor of requiring some standards of support. But the notion of requiring 37,500 names just to run for governor is indefensible. Just think of the time state employees, at the taxpayers’ expense, must spend verifying the names.
While the federal lawsuit is aimed at Secretary of State Beth Chapman, the Legislature, not the secretary, makes the law, and the Legislature is where the change must occur.
Wantonly throwing open the doors to pranksters is one thing. Passing laws designed solely to protect the two entrenched political parties is quite another.
By John Ehinger, for the editorial board. E-mail: [email protected]
Posted to IPR by Paulie