Another bill, HB 1188, which makes only slight improvements to ballot access, was defeated, because the Committee seems more interested in working on HB 1264. Thanks to Rich Tomasso for this news.

The bills, if passed, would have the effect of automatically moving the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from July 20 to June 16. The bills would also automatically move the petition deadline for a group to submit a petition to become a qualified party from July to June.

The Minnesota petition to create a new ballot-qualified party is so difficult, it has never been used for a statewide party even though it has existed in the law since 1913. It is in section 200.02.7(2) of the election law. It requires the signatures of 5% of the last vote cast. Groups that have become qualified parties in the last 100 years have done it in Minnesota by first running a statewide independent candidate, and then having that candidate poll at least 5% of the vote. That is an alternate method for creating a new ballot-qualified party, but it takes longer; the group must wait until after the election to attain its “qualified” status.

In 1980, the 8th circuit ruled in McLain v Meier, 637 F 2d 1159, that a similar procedure in North Dakota to create a new ballot-qualified party was so difficult as to be unconstitutional. The North Dakota party petition required 15,000 signatures (3.3% of the number of eligible signers in North Dakota at the time), and was due in June. The 8th circuit said the relative tough petition requirement combined with a relatively early deadline was unconstitutional. If Minnesota moves the petition deadline for a new ballot-qualified party to June, and doesn’t lower the number of signatures, it is plausible that the party petition procedure would also be unconstitutional. Like Minnesota currently, North Dakota at the time also permitted independent candidates to choose a partisan label which appeared on the ballot, and if that independent candidate in North Dakota polled 5% for Governor, that was an alternate method for creating a new ballot-qualified party. So it would be tough for Minnesota to defends its law, based on the 1980 precedent. Minnesota, like North Dakota, is in the 8th circuit.

Last year, a New Mexico legislator introduced a bill to provide for a filing fee alternative to petitions, for candidates running in a primary. New Mexico currently does not have filing fees. Candidates who wish to get on a primary ballot have a moderately difficult petition to get on primary ballots. Perhaps someone in New Mexico state government will revive the bill, and this year, pass it. Even better, perhaps the bill could provide for a filing fee alternative for minor party and independent candidates as well.

States that use filing fees are required to retain petitions in lieu of a filing fee. However, in the vast majority of states that have both filing fees and alternate petitions in lieu of the filing fee, practically every candidate chooses to pay a filing fee rather than circulate a petition. Of course, a state should set the filing fees at a moderate level.

Vermont state representatives David Zuckerman (Progressive-Burlington) and John Moran (Democrat-Wardsboro) have introduced HB 621. The bill would change fusion so that candidates nominated jointly by two parties would be listed twice on the ballot, so that a voter voting for such a candidate could demonstrate a party preference. This is called “disaggregated fusion.”

Vermont had disaggregated fusion before 1977, but changed to aggregated fusion that year.