Fighting the one-party-two-right-wing monopoly

It is very difficult for independent candidates to run for office in the US, and deliberately so. The “two” parties have a monopoly on finance, and also want the same for ballot access. Consequently, independents have to jump hurdles, launch lawsuits, collect signatures and raise money for filing fees to challenge the major parties.

Here’s an example: In Montana, independents are required to collect ballot signatures by mid-March to be on the ballot in November. Two people, Steve Kelly and Clarence Dreyer, sued to move this date up, saying it was arbitrary and imposed an undue burden on people wanting to run for office. After losing at a lower court, US District Court ruled on appeal that Kelly/Dreyer had a valid case, and ruled in their favor. The March deadline was set aside.

Montana’s Secretary of State, having lost the decision, then decided on May 29th that the new date would be set at … May 29th. In other words, independents are once again screwed.

The SOS is Linda McCulloch, a Democrat. Does anyone really believe a Republican would act differently?

See details here.

13 thoughts on “Fighting the one-party-two-right-wing monopoly”

  1. Mark, thanks for helping to bring some attention to the ballot access problem. Money is what most people identify when election laws are discussed. Ballot access is a nationwide, state-by-state battle that is slowly gaining recognition. Those recently self-identified “independents” — wasn’t it 38%? — generally have no idea why independent candidates do not flock to the ballot to fight for much-needed reform.

    Ballot Access News reported: “Early petition deadlines have been struck down, or enjoined, 51 times in the past. Never before did a state election official then set a new deadline that was impossible for anyone to meet.” That’s quite a distinction few Montanans know about.

    In Montana only two independent candidates have qualified for a statewide general election ballot since 1936. We’re currently working to change that.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Ya know Obama did belong to a third party.

    Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

    Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

    Like

    Reply

    1. O saw that third party candidacy was a losing preposition.

      Decided a better route was to cloak himself as a Dem and rule like a socialist.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Don’t know about McCulloch’s feelings. but what she did is unprecedented. Do know AG Bullock fought vigorously in court and lost — twice — once on “standing,” which the 9th Cir. overturned, and then in Butte, when Hadden ruled the Montana law unconstitutional. Did what he could I suppose.

    He is a great champion of limiting corporate money in elections you know, while at the same time limiting the competition. Isn’t that “post-modern,” or something like that?

    And BIG, this is really not about 3rd parties. It is about non-party, independent candidates for the general election ballot that both parties have worked overtime to keep off the playing field. You know, power to the people. Let the people decide, and other Constitution basics. Where does it say “We, the parties…? “

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment