On March 21, the Arizona Senate Judiciary unanimously approved HB 2304. This bill, sponsored by the Secretary of State and containing many election law changes, improves ballot access. It says that when a party qualifies for the ballot, it is then entitled to be on the ballot for two elections, not just one. Also it legalizes out-of-state circulators for all types of petitions. The bill had already passed the House.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
This bill does nothing to improve ballot access, in fact it attempts to prevent independent and third party candidates from having access to the ballot and hands the two established parties an unfair advantage by guaranteeing they will be on the ballot for two elections no matter how unpopular they may get.
Arizona republicans are taking advantage of the fact that the Constitution allows states to set their own election rules, in fact one might say they are using this fact as a loophole to cover their own back-sides while simultaneously keeping independents off the ballot. This bill belongs in the nearest wastebasket.
Out of state circulators? You mean people who stay just long enough to collect signatures and then not be around to clean up the mess they created? Get real!! Vote that part down!
No! vote the hole thing down!
like the name BTW ;P
This bill makes no harmful changes for independent candidates at all. The 9th circuit ruled in 2008 in Nader v Brewer that out-of-state circulators cannot be barred from working.
And the part of the bill allowing a party to be on the ballot in two elections instead of one is immensely helpful to voters who like choices on their ballots. If this bill is signed into law, the Green Party will be freed from doing another expensive petition for 2012. Having the Green Party on the ballot gives every voter more choices.
I love how you say “This bill makes no harmful changes for independent candidates at all” when it clearly requires them to get more signatures to appear on the ballot.
I think the Conservatives in the state are clearly hiding much in the language of the bill. If i’m wrong then ok, but i doubt i am and think this bill should be, at least reconsidered and at most flushed down the proverbial toilet.
#5, I just looked again at the text of the bill. It makes no change to section 16-341.E. The number of signatures for independent candidates stays the same, 3% of the number of registered independent voters, which is about 1% of the number of all registered voters. That is too high and should be lowered. But this bill doesn’t change the number of signatures.