Category: ballot access

Categories
ballot access general freedom national politics & policies

The Duopoly Rules

Duopoly

As Americans brace themselves for another presidential campaign, USA Today’s editors hazard that the “configuration” of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) “certainly creates an appearance of a political duopoly designed to limit independent voices.”

In 1987, after the League of Women Voters displeased the two major parties, the duopoly’s respective chairmen cooked up the CPD. Both men indicated that including non-​R-​or‑D candidates was not part of the plan.

Thirteen years later, to keep the CPD’s tax-​exempt status, the CPD established a “non-​partisan” rule to “fix” an opportunity for minor parties: candidates must garner 15 percent support in the polls for inclusion in the debates.

Fast forward to today, and we witness a new group pushing the CPD to drop that requirement. Change the Rule wants one third-​party nominee to be included, provided that candidate is on enough state ballots to mathematically have a chance to win the presidency.

“A third person in the general-​election debates would make it harder for the major-​party candidates to stick to talking points and platitudes,” agrees USA Today. But the newspaper worries about “unintended consequences,” that rather than the “centrist” they want in the debates, a new system might produce someone “on the far left or far right.”

Dear Editors, the election process ought not be designed to produce a certain pre-​arranged ideological outcome.

Establishing a fair system entails not limiting voter choice ahead of time. Voters should get to hear from every candidate on enough ballots to be elected president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Duopoly

 

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies

Anti-​Democratic Republicans?

political, politics, 2 Party Lockout, political party, politics, exclusion, elections, democracy, collage, photomontage

The Republican Party of Ohio paid lawyers $300,000 to keep a competitor off the ballot.

Typical two-​party corruption. We can blame the party, yes — but also blame the system.

A “two-​party system” is, mathematicians tell us, the logical result of simple plurality/​winner-​takes-​all elections. That is, when the first candidate “past the post” wins enough votes to best any other, that candidate wins.

When you count votes like this, two parties emerge to dominate.

But to really rule the roost, those parties are incentivized to pile on … to make it hard for “minor-​party” challengers. Ballot access becomes a nasty business.

Last year Charlie Earl ran for the governorship of Ohio as a Libertarian Party candidate. But he was blocked from the ballot. And when the Ohio LP “filed a federal lawsuit to try to force Earl’s name on the ballot,” Ohio Republican Party Chair Matt Borges testified that his party had nothing to do with the legal maneuvers involved.

As Borges put it at the time, “Anyone who’s looking for the conspiracy behind it — it’s just not there.”

Now, it turns out, the conspiracy was there. His party paid the bills.

Whether Borges was lying or not — maybe he was clueless about these shenanigans — the deed got done.

More important than whether Borges himself can be held culpable for the ballot-​access conspiracy, it’s the system that encourages such anti-​democratic nonsense that needs changing. First-​past-​the-​post elections must go. There are alternatives, as my friends at FairVote​.org champion.

As Ohio GOP leaders stand shame-​faced with the evidence of evildoing, it’s time to press such reforms.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

2 Party Lockout

 

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Finished Business

Nebraska Win

The civil war is over!

I mean Nebraska’s civil war, a 23-​year schism between its unicameral legislature and what’s known as the state’s “second house” — that is, the people, acting through the initiative and referendum process, often checking the power of the first house.

Hero of the day? State Senator Mike Groene of North Platte, who championed Legislative Bill 367. Kudos also to the 42 – 0 vote of the Nebraska Legislature that enacted the measure, as well as to Governor Pete Ricketts for signing it into law.

Groene, who has been politically active for years with the Western Nebraska Taxpayers Association, got into office as a result of term limits. His LB 367 reverses the state’s seven-​year ban on paying petition circulators according to the number of signatures they gather. He convincingly argued that the ban had “really broken the back of people trying to take part in their government through the petition process.”

“It’s time for this body to call a truce,” Groene told fellow lawmakers, declaring that since term limits were first passed, citizens and their representatives had been locked in a “civil war.”

During that war, State Sen. Diane Schimek, a 20-​year legislator about to be term-​limited, successfully pushed legislation to restrict citizen petitions. Part of her measure was struck down as unconstitutional in Citizens in Charge v. Gale.  Now the rest has been unanimously repealed by the state legislature.

Sen. Paul Schumacher of Columbus favored Groene’s bill, saying that legislators could use a more viable initiative check on their power. The unicameral’s attacks on citizen petitions were, he said, “reflective of a government that was afraid of its people.”

Now it’s peacetime in Nebraska.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Nebraska Win

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access Common Sense First Amendment rights general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

Really Protecting Our Rights

Incentives matter. Which is why Ohioans have much to celebrate
this week.

Federal District Judge Michael Watson turned his previous temporary injunction against enforcement of Senate Bill 47 into a permanent injunction. That statue outlawed non-​residents from helping Buckeye State residents by gathering petition signatures for an initiative or referendum.

The case is Citizens in Charge v. Husted. Citizens in Charge — where I work — protects initiative rights. Jon Husted is the Ohio Secretary of State.

But Judge Watson went further, declaring Sec. Husted’s office liable for damages to one of our co-​plaintiffs, Cincinnati for Pension Reform. The judge found that “a reasonable official would have understood that enforcement of the residency requirement would violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to engage in political speech.”

Public officials have what’s known as “qualified immunity,” which protects them from liability when acting in good faith. A spokesman for Husted offered a defense: they were acting “on the assumption that the law is constitutional.”

“Some qualified-​immunity cases are difficult,” countered election-​law expert Daniel Tokaji. “Not this one.”

Ohio’s residency law was ruled unconstitutional in 2008, after Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign sued. In 2009, the previous secretary of state officially acknowledged the law unenforceable regarding all petitions. Yet, seeking to block citizen petitions, legislators passed it again, and Husted was quick to enforce.

Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, our attorney, cheered the “deterrence” this decision provides.

“If public officials from the governor down through the police know that they will be liable for enforcing an unconstitutional law,” he explained, “they are far more likely to take Ohioans’ constitutional rights seriously.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
Accountability ballot access Common Sense general freedom government transparency

Pierce Petition Power

Jerry Gibbs

Pierce County, Washington, Executive Pat McCarthy charges that “a majority of the County Council bowed to political pressure, even though this could set a terrible precedent that the most basic administrative actions of government can be derailed by the simple act of signing a piece of paper.”

Yeah, right.

At issue is a $127 million construction project to build a new county administration building. Back in February, the Council voted 4 – 3 to move forward on the project.

The total cost of the new building, including financing fees and interest, will add up to $235 million according to Jerry Gibbs and a group called Citizens for Responsible Spending. These activists filed a petition to demand a public vote on the issue next November.

As is all too common these days, their grassroots effort was quickly countered by the big guns: the city filed a lawsuit against them, attempting to block the referendum.

The lawsuit didn’t sit well with people in Pierce County.

“Why don’t they want this voted on by the people?” asked Gibbs.

“This is absolutely an abuse of power,” decried resident Sheila Herron, “this is bullying of a private citizen.”

Council Chair Dan Roach argued that the power to launch a court challenge must come from the council, which had not discussed it. He warned his fellow city officials: “you are sending a very chilling” message to citizens not to “dare try to challenge what we’re doing as the government.”

Last week, the County Council voted 4 – 3 to drop the lawsuit, bowing to political pressure … from the people they represent.

In short, good government broke out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Black Mark for Brown

“The outrage over the Brown Bill, and it is outrage,” wrote The Argus Leader’s Jonathan Ellis, “is being voiced across the political spectrum.”

The Brown Bill, Senate Bill 166, is legislation introduced by South Dakota State Sen. Corey Brown (R‑Gettysburg) to nearly double the number of signatures citizens must gather on petitions to place issues on the ballot.

Sen Corey Brown NOEr, I mean, it was legislation.

“I’m quite surprised that a lot of folks are willing to not engage in an intellectual conversation,” Sen. Brown said in scuttling a hearing where such a conversation might take place. He asked that his own bill be tabled and fellow legislators obliged, of course, meaning an inglorious demise for what had been “emergency” legislation.

Perhaps what surprised the good senator were so many folks lighting up the state capitol switchboard — fervently opposed to his move to make it more difficult for voters to have a say. An online Argus Leader poll showed 87 percent of South Dakotans against making it “harder for citizens to initiative measures.”

Then again, maybe public opposition to his bill didn’t surprise Sen. Brown one little bit. Legislators routinely slap emergency clauses onto legislation because that prevents voters from petitioning to refer that legislation onto the general election ballot.

South Dakota became the first state to enact statewide initiative and referendum back in 1898. The people cherish this process.

Not surprisingly, their politicians despise it.

Eternal vigilance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.