On June 24, a Texas lower state court judge removed the Green Party from the ballot, because the judge believes that the party had no right to receive a large indirect donation that paid for the petition drive. See this brief story. The decision will be appealed. The case is Texas Democratic Party v Texas Green Party, d-1-gn-10-001924.
Texas law has always been very insistent that a signature on a petition is equivalent to a primary vote. That is why Texas is the only state that won’t let primary voters sign a petition to place a new party on the ballot. It would be unthinkable to cancel a primary election outcome just because the winner of the primary received campaign contributions that were in some way unlawful. If this decision stands, it shows that Texas does not really believe that a signature on a petition is equivalent to a primary vote.
Thanks for explaining the connection between petition signatures and primary votes in Tx. That is a crucial point as to why this whole lawsuit is hypocritical on the part of the Dem Party. I understand that the Rs and Ds take corporate donations perfectly legally to cover administrative expenses such as …. the cost of holding their primaries!
This fact may result in a victory for the Greens on appeal.
Texas law says that nominating by petition for independent candidates is an alternative to nomination by party primary or party convention, and that a voter may only participate in one nomination process per office. If there were candidates on the ballot in a primary race, a voter in the primary is presumed to have participated in the nomination for that office. Since the Democrats did not have any candidates on their primary ballot for Controller, a voter in the Democratic primary could sign a petition for an independent candidate for Controller.
Political parties in Texas do not qualify on the basis of petition, but by having sufficient voters affiliate with the party during the party’s precinct conventions. The party is permitted to supplement the list of voters who attend the precinct conventions with a petition.
Texas law does permit corporation contributions for certain activities:
“Sec. 257.002. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CORPORATE OR LABOR UNION CONTRIBUTIONS. (a) A political party that accepts a contribution authorized by Section 253.104 may use the contribution only to:
(1) defray normal overhead and administrative or operating costs incurred by the party; or
(2) administer a primary election or convention held by the party.
(b) A political party that accepts contributions authorized by Section 253.104 shall maintain the contributions in a separate account.”
So it would appear that the Green Party could use corporate contributions to pay for their precinct conventions, including securing the signatures of voters who attend, and could also use corporate contributions for the state convention. So why can’t they use corporate contributions to secure signatures to the supplemental petition such that the nominations made at the convention are valid?
If somehow the court makes a distinction in this area, then it seems like there is an equal protection problem. In American Party of Texas v White, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas did not have to let small parties nominate by primary since that would require state funding. But it is quite different when a distinction is made with respect to equivalent activities for all parties.
Thank you, Jim Riley, for a very informative and useful post, and a good analysis.
The judge in the case is a Democratic nominee for re-election in November 2010. If there is an injury to the Democratic Party of Texas, wouldn’t it be due to increasing the risk that nominees of the party would not be elected? Should a judge be making a ruling in a case where his personal interests are aligned with one of the litigating parties?
The Houston Chronicle reports:
“Dietz said political parties can use corporate money to help cover normal operating expenses, such as telephone and Internet service, utilities, office supplies, clerical expenses, and legal and accounting fees, but spending hundreds of thousands of corporate dollars to finance a petition campaign is ‘not my definition of normal.’
First he ignores that besides “normal operating expenses” the law makes a specific exception for the conduct of party primaries and conventions.
And is $500,000 really such an extraordinary amount. What are the “normal operating expenses” of his party at both the state and county level? Judge Dietz (or his campaign) paid $1500 just to get on the primary ballot. And he is just one judge.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the number of signatures in Texas is reasonable. And $5 per signature sounds quite reasonable, given wages of circulators, plus overhead.
These are the moments when I remember the dark side of Texas politics…
The Free & Equal Elections Foundation will put an end to the dark side of Texas politics.
Thank you Christina! Give ’em hell! Texas is onerous in its ballot access. Keep up the good work with ballot access around the nation.
Thank you Christina . . . yes, give em hell in Texas and then come to NM where we’re still battling our own crazy ballot access laws and the way they’re applied by the SoS and AG.
They’ve just refused our candidate’s petition signatures!
The ballot access laws of Texas are ridiculously unfair to third parties. Did Republicans help pay for the Green petition drive? Yeah, they probably did, but the motivation of the petition funders shouldn’t be a legal issue. Did the petition get the required number of signatures from registered voters of Texas- that should be the decisive question. The “Democratic” Party may think it’s in its best interest to keep the Greens off the ballot. But in doing so, the Dems will create a lot of highly motivated enemies on their left flank who might have been potential allies against the Republican regime.
Separate is NOT equal — even in large Texas.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election stuff.
Too many MORON lawyers and judges to count — who are brain dead ignorant about basic stuff.
Only in backwards nations like the USA is selfishness supreme in politics.
In reference to the primary screenout law in Texas, I just ended up going to the Texas Secy of State’s website and saw her page regarding “new parties” and their signature requirements to get on the ballot. It states:
“Your party must register (PDF, 9k) with the Secretary of State’s Office by January 4, 2010, and needs the support of 43,992 qualified voters.”
Nowhere does it define “qualified” or state that these voters cannot have voted in the primary of another party.
Is this passive-aggressive vagueness?
#13 That section is intended for would-be nominees of a new party. A person seeking the nomination of a party must file a declaration with state or county chair of that party. Those party officials would be quite aware of the specifics of qualifying the party.
Election Code (Section 162) defines the procedure for affiliating with a political party. The simplified rules are:
(1) You must be a qualified voter (registered).
(2) You affiliate with a party by participating in its nominating activities (conventions, primaries, applying for affiliation, etc.)
(3) You may only affiliate with one party per election cycle.
In effect by affiliating with a party you support the party, and since you can only affiliate with one party, you may only support one party. To qualify for the party needs the support of 43,992 voters, who express that support by affiliating with the party or signing the supplementary petition.
Election Code (Section 181.006(f)) provides the language that must appear on the supplementary petition:
“I know that the purpose of this petition is to entitle the _______ Party to have its nominees placed on the ballot in the general election for state and county officers. I have not voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during this voting year, and I understand that I become ineligible to do so by signing this petition. I understand that signing more than one petition to entitle a party to have its nominees placed on the general election ballot in the same election is prohibited.”
Does no one see the pure hypocrisy in the Green Party accepting money from the corporate election manipulation machines as they rail against the same?
@boozer – it would be hypocrisy if we “knew” it was a corporate in-kind contribution, also we took not one penny in money from said corporation.
We were intentionally misled in that fact – we were told unequivocally and verified with the IRS and SoS in MO that they were NOT a corporation before we turned in the signatures – the signatures were collected legally and no one was misled in what they were signing.
After turning them in and the lawsuit hit, we were then told by the donor that they were a corporation.
Does that sound like hypocrisy or a set-up?