Ballot access

Last updated

Ballot access in the United States refers to the rules and procedures regulating the conditions under which a candidate, political party, or ballot measure is entitled to appear on voters' ballots. [1] As the nation's election process is decentralized by Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, ballot access laws are established and enforced by the states. [2] As a result, ballot access processes may vary from one state to another. State access requirements for candidates generally pertain to personal qualities of a candidate, such as: minimum age, residency, citizenship, and being a qualified voter. Additionally, many states require prospective candidates to collect a specified number of qualified voters' signatures on petitions of support and mandate the payment of filing fees before granting access; ballot measures are similarly regulated (as is the wording and format of petitions as well). Each state also regulates how political parties qualify for automatic ballot access, and how those minor parties that do not can. Fundamental to democracy, topics related to ballot access are the subject of considerable debate in the United States.

Contents

Overview

In order to get on the ballot, a candidate, political party, or ballot measure must meet a variety of requirements. The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution states that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof." Consequently, each state may design its own unique criteria for ballot access. [2] The United States is one of the very few nations that does not have uniform federal ballot access laws. [3]

The primary argument put forward by States for restricting ballot access has been the presumption that setting ballot access criteria too low would result in numerous candidates on the ballot, splitting the votes of similar minded voters. Example: With plurality voting, also known as First past the post, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the candidate does not have a majority of the votes. Suppose 55% Belief A and 45% Belief B vote in a district. If two candidates appeal to A, but only one appeals to B, the votes of A could split between the two A candidates, say 25% vote for one and 30% for the other, giving the B candidate the office although 55% preferred to see an A candidate in the office. However, proponents of ballot access reform say that reasonably easy access to the ballot does not lead to a glut of candidates, even where many candidates do appear on the ballot. The 1880s reform movement that led to officially designed secret ballots, such as the Australian ballot, had some salutary effects, but it also gave the government control over who could be on the ballot. [4] As historian Peter Argersinger has pointed out, the reform that empowered officials to regulate access onto the ballot, also carried the danger that this power would be abused by officialdom and that legislatures controlled by established political parties, would enact restrictive ballot access laws to ensure re-election of their party's candidates. [5]

Perhaps the most prominent advocate of the 1880s ballot reform movement, John Henry Wigmore, suggested that "ten signatures" might be an appropriate requirement for nomination to the official ballot for a legislative office. [6] In the 20th century, ballot access laws imposing signature requirements far more restrictive than Wigmore had envisioned were enacted by many state legislatures; in many cases, the two major parties wrote the laws such that the burdens created by these new ballot access requirements (usually in the form of difficult signature-gathering nominating petition drives) fell on alternative candidates, but not on major party candidates. Proponents of more open ballot access argue that restricting ballot access has the effect of unjustly restricting the choices available to voters, and typically disadvantages third party candidates and other candidates who are not affiliated with the established parties. [7] [8]

President George H. W. Bush signed the Copenhagen Document of the Helsinki Accords that states in part:

(7.5) – respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations, without discrimination; (7.6) – respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities;...

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has criticized the United States for its ballot access laws. In 1996, United States delegates responded to the criticism by saying that unfair ballot access "could be remedied through existing appeal and regulatory structures and did not represent a breach of the Copenhagen commitments." [9] The OSCE published a report on the 2004 United States election, which among other things, noted restrictive ballot access laws. [10]

Ballot access laws by state

Ballot access laws in the United States vary widely from state to state:

Activists of the Arizona Green Party collecting signatures for ballot status Arizona Greens ballot status signature collectors 20080209.jpg
Activists of the Arizona Green Party collecting signatures for ballot status

Constitutional dimensions of ballot access laws

The Constitution has limited the states' discretion to determine their own ballot access laws:

The US Supreme Court precedent on ballot access laws cases has been conflicting. [45] In Williams v. Rhodes (1969) the court struck down Ohio's ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. During the 1970s the Supreme Court upheld strict ballot access laws, with a 'compelling State interest' being the "preservation of the integrity of the electoral process and regulating the number of candidates on the ballot to avoid voter confusion." [46]

The Supreme Court did strike down provisions in a ballot access law in Anderson v. Celebrezze , 460 U.S. 780 (1983), but most of the subsequent court rulings in the 1980s–2000s continued to uphold ballot access laws in both primary and general elections. Among the most notable of these cases from the 1970s–1990s:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

Requiring an otherwise eligible candidate or political party to obtain signatures greater than 5% of the eligible voters in the previous election may be unconstitutional. This is based on Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); the court upheld a restrictive ballot access law with this 5% signature requirement, whereas the Williams v. Rhodes (1969) had involved a 15% signature requirement. [47] Most State ballot access requirements, even the more restrictive ones, are less than 5%, and the Supreme Court has generally refused to hear ballot access cases that involved an Independent or minor party candidate challenging a ballot access law that requires less than 5%. [48]

International human rights law and ballot access

International agreements that have the status of treaties of the US are part of the supreme law of the land, under Article VI of the United States Constitution:

Another source of international human rights law derives from universally accepted norms that have found expression in resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not binding under US law the way a treaty is, this type of norm is recognized as a source of international law in such treaties as the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to which the US is a party:

(NB: to be completed)

Write-in status versus ballot access

Depending on the office and the state, it may be possible for a voter to cast a write-in vote for a candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot. It is extremely rare for such a candidate to win office. In some cases, write-in votes are simply not counted. [49] Having one's name printed on the ballot confers an enormous advantage over candidates who are not on the ballot. The US Supreme Court has noted that write-in status is not a substitute for being on the ballot. [50] [51]

The two most notable cases of write-in candidates actually winning are the elections of Lisa Murkowski in 2010 and Strom Thurmond in 1954, both to the United States Senate. Other cases include the election of Charlotte Burks to the Tennessee State Senate seat of her late husband, Tommy Burks, murdered by his only opponent on the ballot; and the write-in primary victories in the re-election campaign of Mayor Anthony A. Williams of the District of Columbia. All of these cases involved unique political circumstances, a popular and well–known candidate, and a highly organized and well–funded write-in education campaign.

Other obstacles facing third parties

The growth of any third political party in the United States faces extremely challenging obstacles, among them restrictive ballot access. Other obstacles often cited[ by whom? ] as barriers to third-party growth include:

Justification of strict ballot access laws by two party supporters

Strict ballot access laws are not required for a two–party system, as can be seen by the experience of the United Kingdom. However, the following arguments are put forth about the need for strict ballot access laws in the United States:

See also

Related Research Articles

Electoral fusion is an arrangement where two or more political parties on a ballot list the same candidate, pooling the votes for that candidate. It is distinct from the process of electoral alliances in that the political parties remain separately listed on the ballot. The practice of electoral fusion in jurisdictions where it exists allows minor parties to influence election results and policy by offering to endorse or nominate a major party's candidate.

A write-in candidate is a candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot but seeks election by asking voters to cast a vote for the candidate by physically writing in the person's name on the ballot. Depending on electoral law it may be possible to win an election by winning a sufficient number of such write-in votes, which count equally as if the person was formally listed on the ballot.

Libertarian Party of Oklahoma Oklahoma affiliate of the Libertarian Party

The Oklahoma Libertarian Party is the branch of the Libertarian Party in Oklahoma. It has been active in state politics since the 1970s, but due to what critics characterize as Oklahoma's restrictive ballot access requirements the party has been an officially recognized party during only portions of the last twenty-five years.

2006 Texas gubernatorial election

The 2006 Texas gubernatorial election was held on November 7, 2006, to elect the Governor of Texas. The election was a rare five-way race, with incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry running for re-election against Democrat Chris Bell and Independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman, as well as Libertarian nominee James Werner. Perry was re-elected to a second full term in office, winning 39% of the vote to Bell's 30%, Strayhorn's 18% and Friedman's 12%.

Green Party of Texas Texas affiliate of the Green Party

The Green Party of Texas is the state party organization for Texas of the Green Party of the United States. The party was founded as the electoral arm of the political movements for grassroots democracy, social justice, ecological wisdom, and peace/nonviolence. The aim of the movement is to bring change to the Government such that it is brought in line with the Global Greens Charter.

Elections in California

Elections in California are held to fill various local, state and federal seats. In California, regular elections are held every even year ; however, some seats have terms of office that are longer than two years, so not every seat is on the ballot in every election. Special elections may be held to fill vacancies at other points in time. Recall elections can also be held. Additionally, statewide initiatives, legislative referrals and referenda may be on the ballot.

The Green Party of Arkansas is the state party organization for Arkansas of the Green Party of the United States.

Electoral reform in Virginia refers to efforts to change the electoral system in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia has undergone much electoral change since its settling in 1607, many of which were required by federal legislation. However, it remains a relatively conservative state in this respect compared to California and others which have experimented with various alternative systems.

Qualified New York political parties

In New York State, to qualify for automatic ballot access, a party must have qualify every two years by receiving the greater 130,000 votes or 2% of the vote in the previous gubernatorial election or presidential election. In years with a gubernatorial election or presidential election a party must run a gubernatorial candidate or a presidential candidate to be eligible for automatic ballot access; if 130,000 voters vote for that candidate on their party line, they have qualified the party for the next two years until the following presidential or gubernatorial general election whichever one comes first. A party that is not qualified may run candidates by completing a petition process. Parties are also allowed to cross-endorse candidates, whose votes are accumulated under electoral fusion, but any parties must cross-endorse both the governor and lieutenant governor candidates for fusion to apply. Parties that are already qualified must issue a Wilson Pakula authorization if they cross-endorse someone not enrolled in that party; there are no restrictions on who can be nominated on a non-qualified ballot line, as these lines are determined by filing petitions.

The Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) was created in 1946 as a nonpolitical agency responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, accuracy and purity in all elections in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The SBE promotes the proper administration of election laws, campaign finance disclosure compliance, and voter registration processes in the state by promulgating rules, regulations, issuing instructions, and providing information to local electoral boards and general registrars. In addition, the SBE maintains a centralized database of statewide voter registration and election related data.

Electoral reform in Alabama refers to efforts to change the voting laws in the Yellowhammer State. In 2006, HB 711 was introduced to use preferential ballots for overseas military voters' it was passed by the Alabama House of Representatives. In March 2007, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments as to whether Alabama election law unfairly restricts third-party and independent candidates from the state ballot. Candidates are required to collect signatures from 3% of the total number of voters who voted in the previous gubernatorial election in order to gain ballot access. Ordinarily, such candidates would gather signatures at the polling place at the party primary, but Alabama made it more difficult by moving the deadline for signature turn-in to the date of the primary. Alabama ranks third nationally in disenfranchising formerly incarcerated persons. One out of every 14 Alabama residents is disenfranchised. To regain the right to vote, individuals convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude” who have completed a felony sentence must apply to the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles for a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote. As soon as you apply for a Pardon you automatically receive the right to vote back. This is the new rule of law and was passed through the House and the Senate due to voter disenfranchisement. In 2007, HB 192 was introduced to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but it failed in the Constitution & Elections committee.

Electoral reform in New York

Electoral reform in New York refers to efforts to change the voting and election laws in New York State.

Elections in Oklahoma

Elections in the State of Oklahoma are established by the Oklahoma Constitution in Section 1 of Article 3. They are governed by the Oklahoma State Election Board.

Libertarian Party of Alabama Alabama affiliate of the Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party of Alabama (LPA) is the Alabama affiliate of the national Libertarian Party (LP). It is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. Due to the high signature requirement to get onto the ballot and the requirement that a party run a statewide candidate that receives at least 20% in order to maintain ballot access the Libertarian Party of Alabama has rarely fielded candidates.

The Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP) is the Arizona affiliate of the national Libertarian Party (LP) and has been active since its foundation on October 7, 1972.

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Ohio's filing deadline for independent candidates was unconstitutional.

N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that involved a constitutional challenge brought against New York State's judicial election law, alleging that it unfairly prevented candidates from obtaining access to the ballot. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge and held that the state's election laws did not infringe upon candidates' First Amendment associational rights. Several concurring justices emphasized, however, that their decision reflected only the constitutionality of the state's election system, and not its wisdom or merit.

Libertarian Party of Virginia Virginia affiliate of the Libertarian Party

Founded in 1974, the Libertarian Party of Virginia (LPVA) is the Virginia affiliate of the United States Libertarian Party. The current party Chairman is Nick Dunbar, the Vice Chair is Joe Paschal, the Secretary is Dean Davison, and the Treasurer is John Kennedy.

The Montana Green Party is a state-level political party affiliated with the Green Party of the United States. It formed in 2001–2002 following Ralph Nader's run for president in 2000 as the Green Party nominee.

References

  1. "Ballot access". www.ballotpedia.org. Retrieved February 16, 2019.
  2. 1 2 Baracskay, Daniel. "Ballot Access". The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Middle Tennessee State University. Retrieved February 16, 2019.
  3. Avlon, John P. (December 30, 2011). "How ballot access laws hurt voters". CNN. Retrieved February 16, 2019.
  4. Evans, Eldon (1917). A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 21–26.
  5. Argersinger, Peter (April 1980). ""A Place on the Ballot": Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws". The American Historical Review. 85 (2): 287–306. doi:10.2307/1860557. JSTOR   1860557.
  6. Wigmore, John (1889). The Australian Ballot System as Embodied in the Legislation of Various Countries. Boston, Massachusetts: The Boston Book Company. p. 53.
  7. Sifry, Michah (February 2, 2018). "Why America Is Stuck With Only Two Parties". The New Republic.
  8. "Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2019-12-30.
  9. "U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Fusion", Ballot Access News, 5 May 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  10. "OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report on the 2 November 2004 elections in the United States", OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 March 2005. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  11. "Constitution Party".
  12. "Alabama Votes" (PDF).
  13. Mary Jo Pitzl, ""Green Party wins ballot status", The Arizona Republic, 20 April 2008. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  14. "California Secretary of State - Political Party Qualification". Sos.ca.gov. 7 November 2006. Archived from the original on 6 May 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  15. "Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 1, Article 4: Elections - access to ballot by candidates". www.sos.state.co.us. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
  16. 2016-08-26
  17. Archived 2016-11-22 at the Wayback Machine 2016-04-14
  18. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 4, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2011.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  19. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 4, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2011.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  20. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 26, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2010.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  21. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2015-07-17.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  22. NC General Assembly webmasters. "N.C.G.S Chapter 163 Elections and Election Law". Ncleg.net. Archived from the original on 3 May 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  23. "N.C.G.S. §163-96(a)(2) "Political party" defined; creation of new party". Ncleg.net. Archived from the original on 17 April 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  24. 1 2 "New Political Party Ballot Access | North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections PAC". Ncfpe.com. Retrieved 9 May 2010.[ dead link ]
  25. "N.C.G.S. §163-96(a)(1) "Political party" defined; creation of new party". Ncleg.net. Archived from the original on 17 April 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  26. "N.C.G.S. §163-97 Termination of status as political party". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  27. "N.C.G.S. §163-97.1 Voters affiliated with expired political party". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  28. 1 2 "N.C.G.S. §163-122 Unaffiliated candidates nominated by petition". Ncleg.net. Archived from the original on 17 April 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  29. "Unaffiliated District Candidates Access to the Ballot | North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections". Ncfpe.com. Retrieved 9 May 2010.[ dead link ]
  30. "Elections and Voting", North Dakota Secretary of State. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  31. [ permanent dead link ] "Secretary of State Eases Restrictions on LPO Ballot Access", Libertarian Party of Ohio, 22 May 2007. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  32. "Ohio Libertarian Party wins ballot access lawsuit", Ballot Access News, 17 July 2008. Retrieved 16 October 2008
  33. "Number of Signatures Required on Petitions Filed for the 2006 Election", South Dakota Secretary of State. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  34. "Qualifying Procedures for Candidates for United States Senator", Tennessee Division of Elections. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  35. "Qualifying Procedures for Tennessee Candidates for United States House of Representatives", Tennessee Division of Elections. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  36. "Tennessee Ballot Access Procedures for Candidates for U.S. President", Tennessee Division of Elections. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  37. "Against all odds, third-party candidates fight on", The Tennessean. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  38. "Candidate's Guide to Primary and General Election", Texas Secretary of State. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  39. An example for the 2007 election appears here "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2007. Retrieved September 24, 2007.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link).
  40. "LIS> Code of Virginia> 24.2-506". Leg1.state.va.us. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  41. Cofsky, Kevin (1996-12-01). "Pruning the Political Thicket: The Case for Strict Scrutiny of State Ballot Access Restrictions". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 145 (2): 353. doi:10.2307/3312660. JSTOR   3312660.
  42. "Constitutional Right To Candidacy." Nicole A. Gordon Political Science Quarterly Volume 91, Number 3, 1976
  43. "Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S. 431 (1971)", US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  44. "Oklahoma Supreme Court Won't Hear Ballot Case – Libertarian Ballot Access Case Had Been Filed in 2004", Ballot Access News, 1 June 2007. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  45. "Writing in your vote for president? It might not get counted". PBS NewsHour. 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2019-12-30.
  46. "Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2019-12-30.
  47. "Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2019-12-30.

Bibliography