Ballot access

This article is about access to elections in the United States. For access to elections elsewhere, see Nomination rules.

Ballot access rules, called nomination rules outside the United States, regulate the conditions under which a candidate or political party is entitled either to stand for election or to appear on voters' ballots. The criteria to stand as a candidate depend on the individual legal system, however they may include the age of a candidate, citizenship, endorsement by a political party and profession.[1]

Overview of ballot access

Each U.S. State has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots. According to the Elections Clause in Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is up to each State, unless Congress legislates otherwise.

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, an old but common way to pick the winner, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the candidate does not have a majority of the votes. Suppose 55% liberals and 45% conservatives vote in a district. If two candidates appeal to liberals, but only one appeals to conservatives, the votes of liberals will likely split between the two liberal candidates, for example 25% may vote for one and 30% for the other, giving the conservative the office although 55% preferred to see a liberal in the office. Plurality races, also known as First past the post, tend to cause consolidation among political parties for this reason. 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 had some salutary effects, but it also gave the government control over who could be on the ballot. 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 (specifically, the Republican and Democratic Parties), would enact restrictive ballot access laws to influence election outcomes to ensure re-election of their party's candidates.

Perhaps the most prominent advocate of the 1880s ballot reform movement, Dean Wigmore, suggested that "ten signatures" might be an appropriate requirement for nomination to the official ballot for a legislative office. 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.[2] 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.

State laws, the Constitution, and International

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 harsh ballot access laws in the past. In 1996, United States delegates responded to the criticism by saying, unfair ballot access "could be remedied through existing appeal and regulatory structures and did not represent a breach of the Copenhagen commitments."[3]

The OSCE published a report on the 2004 United States election, which, among other things, noted restrictive ballot access laws.[4]

The United States and Switzerland are the only countries that do not have national ballot access standards for federal elections;[5] however in Swiss federal elections each Canton elects its own representatives, and each candidate can only be listed in one Canton. Since 1985, Democrats and Republicans (including Congressmen John Conyers (D-MI), Tim Penny (D-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX)) have repeatedly introduced in the United States House of Representatives a bill that would set maximum ballot access requirements for House elections. The bill has only made it to the House floor once, in 1998, when it was defeated 62–363.

While some supporters of easy ballot access seek congressional intervention, other reformers are happy that congress has not mandated stricter access laws in all states. Reducing access requirements at the local level would be easier than doing so federally if congress wanted to guarantee its re-elections.

State ballot access laws

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

Activists of the Arizona Green Party collecting signatures for ballot status

Constitutional dimensions of ballot access laws

State ballot access restrictions can affect fundamental constitutional rights, including:

It has also been argued that ballot access restrictions infringe the following constitutional rights:

The US Supreme Court precedent on ballot access laws cases has been conflicting. In Williams v. Rhodes (1969) the court struck down Ohio's ballot access laws on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, but during the 1970s tended to uphold strict ballot access law, with the newly declared '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."[40]

The Supreme Court did strike down restrictive 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 strict 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.[41] 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%.[42]

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. 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 absolutely no substitute for being on the ballot.

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 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

References

  1. ACE Encyclopaedia: Criteria to stand as a candidate. Retrieved 15 July 2009
  2. Richard Winger, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 30, 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2016. "The Importance of Ballot Access", Long Term View (Andover, MA: Massachusetts School of Law, Spring 1994)
  3. "U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Fusion", Ballot Access News, 5 May 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  4. "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
  5. "Ballot Access Bill Re-Introduced in Congress", Ballot Access News, 1 October 2007. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  6. "Constitution Party".
  7. "Alabama Votes" (PDF).
  8. Mary Jo Pitzl, " "Green Party wins ballot status", The Arizona Republic, 20 April 2008. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  9. "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.
  10. 16 October 2008
  11. 2016-08-26
  12. 2016-04-14
  13. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 4, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
  14. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 4, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
  15. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 26, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
  16. 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.
  17. "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.
  18. 1 2 "New Political Party Ballot Access | North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections PAC". Ncfpe.com. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  19. "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.
  20. "N.C.G.S. §163-97 Termination of status as political party". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  21. "N.C.G.S. §163-97.1 Voters affiliated with expired political party". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  22. 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.
  23. "Unaffiliated District Candidates Access to the Ballot | North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections". Ncfpe.com. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  24. "Elections and Voting", North Dakota Secretary of State. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  25. "Secretary of State Eases Restrictions on LPO Ballot Access", Libertarian Party of Ohio, 22 May 2007. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  26. "Ohio Libertarian Party wins ballot access lawsuit", Ballot Access News, 17 July 2008. Retrieved 16 October 2008
  27. "Number of Signatures Required on Petitions Filed for the 2006 Election", South Dakota Secretary of State. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  28. "Qualifying Procedures for Candidates for United States Senator", Tennessee Division of Elections. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  29. "Qualifying Procedures for Tennessee Candidates for United States House of Representatives", Tennessee Division of Elections. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  30. "Tennessee Ballot Access Procedures for Candidates for U.S. President", Tennessee Division of Elections. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  31. "Against all odds, third-party candidates fight on", The Tennessean. Retrieved 3 November 2008
  32. "Candidate's Guide to Primary and General Election", Texas Secretary of State. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  33. An example for the 2007 election appears here "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2007. Retrieved September 24, 2007..
  34. "LIS> Code of Virginia> 24.2-506". Leg1.state.va.us. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  35. Constitutional Right To Candidacy. Nicole A. Gordon Political Science Quarterly Volume 91, Number 3, 1976
  36. "Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S. 431 (1971)", US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 22 September 2008
  37. "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

Bibliography

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.