Among the most irrational ballot access laws are the laws of Arizona, Florida, Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas, which require independent presidential candidates to submit far more signatures than those states require for newly-qualifying parties.
The consistent excuse for severe ballot access laws is that without them, the ballot would be too crowded. But when a state requires far more signatures for a single independent candidate, who will only occupy one line on a ballot, than for a entire new party (which could put a nominee on the ballot for all the partisan offices, thus impacting the ballot much more), the law isn’t even rational.
Florida does not require a newly-qualifying party to submit any signatures at all, but for 2016 it requires an independent presidential candidate to submit 119,316 signatures. Only independent presidential candidates have a mandatory petition in Florida; independent candidates for other office need no petition. No one has yet challenged Florida’s discriminatory ballot access for independent presidential candidates. Instead, independent presidential candidates have simply formed a party to avoid the problem. For instance, Ralph Nader in 2008 helped create the Ecology Party, a party that only existed in Florida. That party then nominated Nader for president.
Arizona for 2016 requires 20,049 valid signatures for a newly-qualifying party, but will require approximately 36,000 or more signatures for an independent candidate for president and any other statewide office. The exact requirement can’t be known until early 2016, but is 3% of the number of registered voters who are not registered in a qualified political party. No independent candidate has ever sued Arizona over this law.
Maryland for 2016 requires a newly-qualifying party to submit 10,000 signatures, but an independent presidential candidate, and any other statewide independent, needs approximately 38,000 signatures. The exact requirement won’t be known until early in 2016, but will be 1% of the number of registered voters.
Texas in 2016 requires a newly-qualifying party to submit 47,086 signatures, but a presidential independent needs 79,939 signatures.
Several organizations exist to promote to interests of independent voters and, to some extent, the interests of independent candidates. Some of these organizations have substantial networks of supporters and considerable financial resources. Anyone who reads this blog post, and who is associated with such organizations, should consider either (1) bringing these unconstitutional laws to the attention of state legislators; (2) finding independent candidate-plaintiffs who want to run in 2016 who will bring lawsuits. Already, a potential independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland is considering bring a lawsuit, although an attorney must still be found.
An Independent running for president, could in Florida just have his supporters create a new party, and then nominate presidential electors for him/her. If I remember correctly, George Wallace had his supporters form the “George Wallace Party” in Florida for his ballot access there in 1968. Of course, Wallace was running nationally under the American Independent Party name, but various states at the time prohibited him from using the word “American” and/or “Independent” as part of the party name. There was no such prohibition in Florida, but Wallace ballot access officials were afraid to use the name “American” because a party already in existence in Florida using the name American Party had supposedly threatened legal action if Wallace used it, and in the abundance of caution, the Wallace officials simply resorted to a name which no one could challenge – the “George Wallace Party.”
Ross Perot in 1992, who had declared himself as an Independent, had to, if my memory is correct, create a 3rd party in one or two states to get on the ballot.
Most voters don’t pay any attention to the label an Independent is using in a particular state. They know the candidate is an Independent and they look for his/her name on the ballot and not the name of the party. I think Wallace in 1968 used some 5 different labels to get the ballot in all 50 states. He won presidential electors with 3 of them. One of the 3 was the regular Democratic label in Alabama. And oddly, not a single one of these victorious slates used the “American Independent” label.
And in the case of Wallace, I never have fully understood why he called himself a 3rd party candidate, but I think it evolved out of the harsh California law at the time. It was either to persuade 1% of the registered voters to register or re-register in his American Independent Party rather than gather 10% of the voters signatures on a petition. It is my understanding that the late Eileen Shearer, the wife of the late Bill Shearer, was the one who suggested “American Independent” as the name for the California party. Wallace supposedly liked it and it was used. From the California success, other “AIP” state parties sprung up across the nation – some of them without Wallace’s blessings. Wallace would not allow candidates for lesser offices on his ticket, except in a handful of states which the state statutes required other candidates as a condition for ballot access.
Richard may have to correct me regarding some of the above.
Don’t have much hope the Courts will strike down this obvious discrimination there in Florida against Independent presidential candidates, but the Courts do “surprise” us occasionally.
What century will the HACKS on SCOTUS detect that every election is NEW ???
i.e. EQUAL ballot access stuff for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
Too many zombie brain dead lawyers and judges in ballot access cases since 1968 – Williams v. Rhodes.
In Texas, the independent petition requirement for president is based on the presidential election.
The independent petition requirement for governor and other statewide offices is based on the gubernatorial election.
You appear to forget, or refuse to remember, that minor parties must nominate by convention, and thus must hold those conventions.
The supplementary petition is only necessary if they fail to have attendance at their precinct conventions.
“You appear to forget, or refuse to remember, that minor parties must nominate by convention, and thus must hold those conventions.”
Didn’t think I had discussed nominations by 3rd parties except in referring to Florida. I may be wrong, and correct me if I am, but I believe Florida leaves it up to 3rd parties as to how they choose their presidential electors. Not aware of any requirement to hold convention for such. I think the officers of the party – if they have not state executive committee – can submit list of Presidential Electors to Secretary of State.
If the above is true, an Independent candidate for President, could have organized by others who support his/her candidacy, a 3rd party in Florida, and not have to spend time and money collecting 119,316 signatures on petitions.
Again, correct me if I am wrong about Florida.
My comment was directed towards Richard Winger, and was specific to Texas.
How can I start a Marijuana Party in FL? I remember from the Sec. of State website that I need a treasurer and deposit $500. I want to run for president in 2016 to end prohibition against marijuana. I would change the 1938(?) law to delete the word marijuana from the list of other drugs like heroin and cocaine.
Joseph,
I ran for Arizona governor on an abandoned party’s ballot (AEL) as an Independent. One of my key platforms was decriminalizing cannabis as well as legalizing industrial hemp.
I’ll run for US Senate out of Arizona with the same thoughts and plans…. A huge amount of proposed industry related to industrial hemp (with investors) can not be refuted and will lead to a stronger campaign.
Just an FYI.
JL