It does this by jacking up the signature requirements so high that for all practical purposes it is impossible for Libertarians and Greens to get the required number of signatures.
Currently in Arizona, Republicans and Democrats each have about one third of the registered voters in Arizona. I think the Republicans have a slightly more registered voters then Democrats.
Independents, who are not affiliated with any party have the other one third of the registered voters.
Libertarians and Greens, the only other two parties with ballot status have slightly under one percent of the registered voters.
The problem from the Republican and Democratic point of view is that if a candidate from either party gets ALL of the votes from registered voters in their party they can't win an election.
In order for a Republican or a Democratic to win an election they MUST get more then half of the Independent voters to vote for them.
And many of those Independents who would normally vote Republican tend to vote Libertarian, which means the Democrats end up winning close elections.
In this article the Republicans want to eliminate the Libertarian Party from the picture so they can win those elections.
Measure makes it tougher for 3rd-party candidates to reach ballot
Posted: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:55 pm | Updated: 6:56 pm, Tue Jun 18, 2013.
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
Contending one and maybe two congressional races were stolen from them, Republican legislators have approved a measure to finesse election laws to keep out the Libertarians who they say are taking votes from their candidates.
The change, tucked into a much larger set of revisions to election laws, would sharply increase the number of signatures that Libertarian and Green Party candidates need just to get on the ballot for their own legislative and congressional primaries.
Barry Hess, the Libertarian Party's former candidate for governor, said in most cases the number of signatures required is far more than the number of people actually registered in most districts. He said unless these minor parties could find independents willing to help them get on the ballot, it would create an "insurmountable obstacle'' to any minor party candidate getting nominated, much less being on the general election ballot.
But Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, admitted publicly that's precisely the purpose of the change. And the real goal is creating an easier path for GOP candidates to win.
Mesnard, in a late-night bid on the House floor last week on to corral necessary votes for the change, argued that people try to "manipulate the outcome of elections by putting third-party candidates on the ballot.''
"All they have to do right now is get a dozen or 15 signatures and on the ballot they go,'' Mesnard said, saying he was aiming his comments at the Republicans who control the Legislature. And he claimed that at least one congressional race and maybe two did not go "in the direction I would have liked to have seen them go'' -- and would have gone, Mesnard contends, had this law been in place last year.
In CD 1, Republican Jonathan Paton fell short in his bid to oust incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick. Paton garnered 113,594 votes against 122,774 for Kirkpatrick.
But Libertarian Kim Allen picked up 15,227 votes -- votes that Mesnard contended likely would have gone to Paton to help him win.
Similarly, in the newly created CD 9, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema bested Republican Vernon Parker by 10,251 votes, with Libertarian Powell Gammill tallying 16,620.
Mesnard said upping the signature requirements for minor parties makes these races "much less vulnerable to sham candidates and manipulation.''
And to drive the point home, Mesnard said the legislation should be supported by Republicans who were "disappointed in the outcome'' of those races.''
"So I strongly urge folks, at least in my party, who looked at the last election in November of 2012 and were disappointed with the outcome, and looked at a couple of the third-party candidates that were in there and how they impacted us in a detrimental way'' to support the legislation.
And to drive home the point to his GOP colleagues, he noted this change applies not only to congressional races but also to legislative battles. Mesnard told them that if they didn't vote for this change, they could be personally and directly affected in their next race.
"I can't believe we wouldn't see the benefit of this,'' Mesnard told fellow Republicans.
The change is all about numbers.
Under existing law, candidates for each party have to gather signatures equal to one-half of one percent of the party's voter registration.
Last election, for example, that meant Republicans wanting to run in the First Congressional District needed 568 signatures. Democrats needed 721 to get on the ballot. And Libertarians needed just 12.
This legislation changes the percentage for all to one-sixth of one percent of the total voter registration, or 618.
"It's not fair, or even potentially positive or productive,'' Hess said, calling the provision "petty political games.''
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, a key proponent of the change, said it's only fair that all candidates have the same hurdle to get nominated.
Hess said even if Farnsworth's intentions were not to cripple the minor parties, all that is irrelevant.
"I can't imagine trying to win elections like this,'' Hess said.
The Libertarians are not alone. Angel Torres, chairman of the Arizona Green Party, also registered his objections.
The measure, HB 2305, is currently on the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican like Mesnard. But Matthew Benson, her press aide, said his boss is still reviewing the measure and has made no decisions.
If Brewer signs it, there are some other options. D.J. Quinlan, chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, said his organization might finance a referendum to take the issue to voters. And Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said a legal challenge remains possible, not only to this provision but other changes in the law including alterations to procedures for early ballots.
Mesnard's logic in urging Republicans to support the change presumes that most of those votes for Allen would have gone to Paton. Even the GOP candidate isn't convinced that's the case.
"I never met a Libertarian who supported Obamacare,'' Paton said, something Kirkpatrick supported and he opposed. Allen said during the race he supports a "single-payer'' system but would not repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Allen also took some other positions which were decidedly contrary to those being espoused by Paton and Republicans.
He espoused expanding Medicaid to make more people eligible. And Allen said he would have voted against SB 1070, the 2010 legislation aimed at giving police more power to detain and arrest people suspected of being in his country illegally.
Hess bristled at the idea that somehow Libertarians are "spoilers'' in any race.
"I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'spoiler,' '' he said, saying all the candidates of all the parties are working the same "fishing pool'' in the general election to get voter support.
Specific races aside, Hess said it's wrong for the Republican-controlled Legislature to use its powers this way. And Hess said it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the primary process -- and even the role of the parties.
"The primary is just to put the people on the ballot to give the public an opportunity to vote for different perceptions,'' he said. Hess said upping the signature requirements as a sign of whether a candidate has broad enough support to be on the ballot is effectively moving the general election into the primary -- and then leaving voices other than the major parties out of the general election where it really matters.
Well technically this law doesn't make it illegal for Libertarian Party members or Green Party members to run for office. But it jacks up the signatures requirements so high that it makes it impossible for them to run for office.
Other news articles have said the law was passed specifically because Libertarian party candidates have caused Republicans to lose elections by stealing votes that would normally go to the Republicans.
Our government masters tell us they are "public servants" who work for us. But when you see laws like this it is very obvious that our government masters are royal rulers who work for themselves and the special interest groups that helped them get into power, and that government is all about "money and power", not "democracy and freedom".
Raft of election changes OK’d
By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:03 AM
Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday signed into law a controversial bill that will reshape the way Arizona runs its elections.
Her action angered Latinos and Democrats who say that, with one stroke of her pen, the Republican governor wiped out the goodwill of last week’s bipartisan accord on the state budget and Medicaid expansion by enshrining in law practices they view as voter suppression.
Matthew Benson, the governor’s spokesman, defended the legislation as “common sense.” He said concerns that the legislation will disenfranchise voters are overblown.
Brewer’s signature on House Bill 2305 ushers in a wave of election-law changes, from limits on who can return a voter’s ballot to the polls, to stricter controls on citizen initiatives, to tougher requirements for minor-party candidates to qualify for the Arizona ballot.
“This measure enjoyed the broad support of county clerks and recorders across the state of Arizona as well as the Secretary of State’s Office,” Benson told The Arizona Republic. “It’s viewed as a critical election-reform bill that will help make sure that Arizonans don’t have to wait weeks on end for election results every two years.”
Benson adamantly disputed a statement from Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, that Brewer’s chief of staff, Scott Smith, promised the governor would veto the legislation.
“I’m told that absolutely no pledge was made that the bill would be vetoed,” Benson said.
The bill folds in portions of separate elections-related bills that were hotly debated during this year’s legislative session.
One of the key provisions is a regular purging of the state’s permanent early-voting rolls.
County officials pushed for the ability to scrub the permanent early-voting list of voters who failed to use their mail-in ballots in the previous two federal elections. Last year, it took almost two weeks for officials to tally final results because many of those voters instead turned up at the polls and were required to cast provisional ballots, which take more time and manpower to process.
There were similar delays in earlier election cycles.
The bill allows election officials to identify voters who didn't mail-in ballots for the 2012 election and fail to do so a second time, in 2014.
They will receive a postcard informing them that they will be removed from the early-voting list and be required to vote at the polls unless they ask to remain on the list.
The legislation also:
Prevents anyone working for an organization or a political party from collecting an individual’s ballot and dropping it off at a polling place.
A voter as well as the person returning the voter’s ballot must sign an affidavit saying both parties are aware of the transaction.
Dramatically increases the number of signatures minor-party candidates must obtain to qualify for statewide and legislative races. At the same time, HB 2305 lowers the signature requirement for Republicans and Democrats.
Representatives of the Libertarian and Green parties on Tuesday said that the provision will make it virtually impossible for their candidates to qualify for their own party primaries and warned that it will cement the two-party system in Arizona. Libertarians pointed to their analysis that showed increases of 4,000 percent or more in signature requirements.
[That is an increase of 40 times the required number of signatures]
Imposes stricter standards for citizen initiatives, requiring all their moves to strictly comply with state law. Currently, the courts have allowed some leeway in the process.
Critics say that this will make citizen initiatives much more difficult, and they note that lawmakers can refer matters to the ballot without having to meet many of the technical details that HB 2305 requires of citizen efforts.
Allows the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office to use county prosecutors to investigate attorneys general suspected of election-law violations.
Under the legislation, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe the attorney general has broken election laws, he or she must notify the county attorney in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred.
The county attorney could then order the attorney general to comply with the law.
As the bill moved through the Legislature, various portions drew loud protests from Latino groups and other civic organizations, which said its provisions, such as culling the permanent early-voting list and limiting who can return ballots, are a form of voter suppression.
The hike in signature requirements for candidates, meanwhile, appeared to have drawn the interest of local and national Republican political leaders. By making it harder for Libertarians, for example, to qualify for the ballot, Republicans believe they can dampen the “spoiler” effect of third-party candidates.
That became an issue last fall in two Arizona congressional races, in which Republicans believe their candidates would have prevailed over Democrats if not for Libertarians on the ballot.
Republic reporter Yvonne Wingett Sanchez contributed to this article.
From this editorial by Laurie Roberts it sounds like Jan Brewer has signed House Bill 2305 which effectively makes it impossible for Libertarian and Green Party candidates to run for office.
Currently the Libertarian and Green Parties each have slightly under 1 percent of the registered voters in their parties. To run for office as a member of the Green Party or Libertarian Party you need to collect between 5 and 150 signatures on petitions. From what I have read in one other article this new law will raise the number of signatures required and effectively make it impossible for Libertarians or Greens to run for office.
Republicans pull a fast one on voters
Last year, Republican Jonathan Paton lost his bid for Congress to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick by about 9,000 votes. Meanwhile, Libertarian Kim Allen in the race got just over 15,000 votes.
But for the Libertarian, Paton would be a congressman today – assuming, as Republicans do, that Libertarian votes would logically slide over to the R column.
What’s a good Republican to do about a bunch of spoilers who are keeping them from electoral glory?
Well, today we found out.
This afternoon, Gov. Jan Brewer signed an elections bill that basically wipes out Libertarian and other third-party candidates, boosting their signature requirements to unattainable levels. Green Party candidates would actually have to collect more signatures than they have party members.
Wasn’t it just a few months ago that our leaders were oh so concerned about making sure that voters had choices? Who can forget their collective whine that last year’s top-two primary initiative would virturally assure that no third-party candidate would ever again appear on a general-election ballot?
Now they’ve guaranteed it.
The sponsor of House Bill 2305, Sen. Michele Reagan, calls her measure the “elections integrity bill.”
I imagine that Jonathan Paton might agree with her, and Vernon Parker as well.
Last year, Parker lost his Republican bid for Congress to
Democrat Kyrsten Sinema
by
about 10,000 votes. Meanwhile, Libertarian Powell Gammill collected just over 16,000 votes.
But for the Libertarian, Parker would be a congressman today
OK, that also includes the Green Party too. Remember the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are the only political parties that want to end the insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs".
Libertarians want to legalize ALL drugs and legalize ALL victimless crimes.
I am not sure exactly what the Green Party platform is, but I know they want to legalize marijuana.
Foes vow to fight new ballot qualification requirements
By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:58 AM
Libertarian Barry Hess said he’s determined to run for governor next year, even though he’ll face a 4,380 percent increase in the number of signatures he’ll need to qualify for the ballot.
For Democrats, it’s a 9.8 percent increase. Meanwhile, any Republican seeking the seat will have a 5.8 percent decrease in the signature requirement.
The shifting numbers are due to a late addition to a wide-ranging election bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week. The measure was favored by Republicans, who flexed some local and national muscle to revive House Bill 2305 in the waning hours of the recently completed legislative session.
The law raises the bar to qualify for the ballot so high that minor-party candidates, such as Greens and Libertarians, say it would be nearly impossible for them to compete in statewide, congressional and legislative races. The law also raises the requirement for Democrats seeking to run statewide, be it for governor or U.S. senator.
In legislative and congressional contests, the effect on Democrats and Republicans varies with the voter registration in a given district. In some cases, they will need to collect fewer voter signatures; in others, more.
That provision, on top of other parts of HB 2305, has energized critics who say they are working on plans to stop the law from taking effect Sept. 13.
Warren Severin, chairman of the Arizona Libertarian Party, predicts a referendum to put the matter before the voters in 2014.
“There will be legal action,” said Severin, adding that opponents are meeting Tuesday to discuss strategy.
D.J. Quinlan, executive director of the state Democratic Party, says the bill smacks of voter suppression with its tighter limits on the citizen-initiative process, ballot collection and the early-voting list.
“All options are on the table,” he said.
The new law ties the signature requirement to the total number of voters registered in a given district, as opposed to the the current system, which is linked to the number of registered voters of a given party. Parties with smaller numbers have had a smaller base from which to calculate the signature requirement; the new law widens that base by linking it to all registered voters, not just those of a given party.
Representatives of the Green and Libertarian parties said they find that particularly offensive in the case of primaries, in which parties nominate their own candidates. In some cases, they will have to get the signatures of independents, Democrats or Republicans to qualify for their own party primaries.
Angel Torres, chairman of the Arizona Green Party, said the law effectively shuts his party out of primary contests because of the higher signature count. He predicted the Greens will opt to run as write-in candidates.
Critics of the law said it’s a valentine for Republican candidates, who often view third-party candidates, particularly Libertarians, as spoilers in their races. The bill would cement the two major parties’ hold on Arizona elections, said Hess, communications chairman for the state Libertarian Party.
Republicans who pushed the measure say it’s a matter of fairness: All candidates for a given race should meet the same signature threshold.
The bill failed on a Senate vote but was revived when Sens. Steve Pierce and Rich Crandall reversed their stances and voted in favor of it.
Pierce, R-Prescott, said he got a call from Daniel Scarpinato, spokesman for the Republican National Congressional Committee. Pierce said Scarpinato was not calling in his official capacity, although his concern was how the signature requirement would affect campaigns.
Scarpinato was a comunications director for the Republican National Congressional Committee in 2012 and in 2010 was press secretary when Jonathan Paton ran for Congress. Paton lost to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick in a close race for Congressional District 1 that also included Libertarian Kim Allen, who received 6 percent of the vote. If Allen were not on the ballot, Paton’s camp believes, Paton would have won.
To underscore the political ramifications of HB 2305 and its effect on minor-party candidates, Pierce said an angry state Rep. Adam Kwasman, R-Oro Valley, confronted him after the bill failed. Kwasman said he needed it to pass because he plans to run in CD1 next year, Pierce said.
Kwasman did not return a call seeking comment.
Pierce said he switched his vote after calling two people, whom he did not identify, asking to be released from his promise to vote against the bill.
Scarpinato did not return a call for comment. Crandall, R-Mesa, also did not reply to several requests for him to comment on his changed vote.
Well technically the law doesn't make it illegal for them to run for office, it just jacks up the signature requirements so high that it will be impossible for then to get on the ballot.
This is the second editorial that Laurie Roberts has written on it.
Last if you want to legalize drugs, the Libertarian Party is the way to go. Libertarians want to legalize ALL drugs.
The Green Party wants to legalize marijuana. I don't know if they support legalizing other drugs like the Libertarians do.
Posted on June 20, 2013 5:17 pm by Laurie Roberts
Democrats, Libertarians teaming to fight election law
While all eyes are on the Republicans’ petition drive to block Medicaid restoration and expansion, there’s another possible referendum on the horizon.
Democrats and Libertarians are threatening to mount a campaign to block House Bill 2305, the election “reforms” signed into law on Wednesday.
The bill, which is supported by all 15 county recorders in the state, makes a number of changes to Arizona’s election laws. Republicans say it’s about fairness and integrity. Democrats say it’s about suppressing Latino turnout and keeping Republicans in power.
The crown jewel in the bill was a little gem added late last week – one that’ll make it far more difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot.
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, the Gilbert Republican responsible for the change, didn’t return a call to explain his motivation. But it’s not terribly difficult to figure out what’s going on here.
Republicans – still smarting from losing three swing congressional districts last year –believe that more congressional and legislative seats will fall their way once Libertarians stop soaking up votes. Their aim: the congressional seats now held by Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Ron Barber and
Kyrsten Sinema.
Libertarian Barry Hess says Republicans are miscalculating. His party draws from both the right and left and even those inclined to lean R would likely take a pass now, given this sneak attack, he says.
“They believe they’ve got a Republican majority, with Libertarians climbing over onto their bandwagon,” Hess told me. “That’s not going to happen. … This is going to be a big issue. The governor, she was the only one who could have stopped what I think is going to be political war.”
Look for the war to start soon. Democratic Party activist John Loredo says his party is working with Libertarians and the Green Party to mount a referendum to put HB 2305 on hold until the November 2014 election.
That would be bad news for Republicans who already have to worry about a potential Medicaid referendum on the ballot, one that would bring out all thousands of angry people newly tossed out of AHCCCS.
Add in a referendum on HB 2305 and you’ll see angry Libertarians and angry Latinos also flocking to the polls next year, when all statewide offices are up for grabs.
“This will wind up being one of the stupidest political moves of all time,” Loredo told me.
Hess concurs, saying that Libertarians also are looking at a lawsuit and payback in next year’s elections.
“This is going to be a situation where the activists in the Libertarian and Green Parties are going to be doing serious opposition research and vocalizing what they find for every single Republican,” he said. “It could turn out exactly the opposite of what the Republicans intended. They thought they could lock up Arizona. I think they’re going to hand it to the Democrats.”
That would fix this problem, and it would save the taxpayers a bunch of money.
Last remember the Libertarians and Greens are the only political parties that want to legalize drugs and end the insane war on drugs.
The Libertarian Platform demands that ALL drugs be legalized. I know the Greens want to legalize marijuana, and I am not sure on their position on other drugs.
Arizona Republicans, prepare for backlash
It could go down in Arizona lore as the night the Republican Party shot itself in the tukus.
At least, the Democrats, Libertarians and Greenies hope so. This week, they’re preparing to launch a counter offensive to thwart a late night raid by Republicans – one aimed at riding off with a few congressional seats.
“This,” said Libertarian Barry Hess, “is going to be political war.”
[While Barry Hess has ran for governor as a Libertarian a number of times, Barry Hess is more of a Republican who is running as a Libertarian. Barry Hess thinks some taxes are OK, which is definitively NOT libertarian. Barry Hess also tried running for governor using the Clean Election money, something that is also not Libertarian. Barry Hess didn't get the clean elections money, probably because he didn't get enough donation, and then after that Barry Hess said he never planed to run with the clean elections money, something that a number of us REAL Libertarians think was BS]
To explain, I take you to final night of the Arizona Legislature 2013. After 151 days, our leaders were finally ready to vote on a series of election reforms aimed at … well that’s the question, isn’t it?
At issue were several changes sought by county election officials. Republicans insisted the bill was about adding fairness and integrity to elections. Democrats insisted it was about suppressing Latino turnout and keeping Republicans in power.
Then, in the final hours of the session, a little gem was added to House Bill 2305, one that looks to be the crown jewel in the Republican Party’s 2014 election strategy.
The new law dramatically raises the number of signatures that third-party candidates must collect to get on the ballot — by more than 4,000 percent for Libertarians seeking statewide office.
So why, you might ask, would Republicans be so anxious to keep Libertarians off the ballot? So much so that the spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee would lobby for the bill’s passage?
Well, let’s listen in on Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, as he explained his vote that night on the House floor.
“I believe that, if you look at the last election, there was at least one, probably two congressional seats that may have gone in a different direction … if this requirement had been there,” Mesnard said.
Busted.
Republicans – still smarting from losing all three swing congressional districts last year – believe that more races will fall their way once Libertarians stop soaking up votes. Their aim: seats now held by Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema.
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, the man behind the signature boost, didn’t return a call to explain any other conceivable reason for this sudden urge to stick it to third-party candidates.
But Daniel Scarpinato, national press secretary for the NRCC, says the bill is about fairness. The new law requires candidates to collect signatures from a percentage of all registered voters rather than just a percentage of the party’s voters in order to stand for their party’s nomination.
Scarpinato lobbied for the bill’s passage as it headed toward defeat, urging state Sen. Steve Pierce to change his vote to support this and other “reasonable reforms” in the bill. Scarpinato says he wasn’t speaking for the NRCC but as an Arizonan who believes we’ll see better third-party candidates on the ballot as a result of making it harder for them to get there.
“I don’t know that it’ll have a huge impact on who wins these races,” he added.
Well, someone sure thinks it would because Pierce told The Republic’s Mary Jo Pitzl that Rep. Adam Kwasman was furious at his initial vote against the bill. Kwasman, R-Oro Valley, plans to challenge Kirkpatrick next year.
Last year, Republican Jonathan Paton lost to Kirkpatrick by 9,180 votes. Meanwhile the Libertarian in the race got 15,227 votes.
Sure, this bill is alllll about fairness … and plowing the field clear of potential spoilers.
Democrats believe Libertarians have increasingly siphoned Republican votes in recent years. They credit the “conservative protest vote” for the Libertarian as instrumental in Democrat Richard Carmona’s strong showing in last year’s U.S. Senate race.
Hess, however, says Republicans are miscalculating if they believe wiping out Libertarian candidates will lead to victory. Especially now, when people are riled.
“They believe they’ve got a Republican majority, with Libertarians climbing over onto their bandwagon,” Hess told me. “That’s not going to happen.”
Look for the backlash to begin on Tuesday morning as Democrats, Libertarians and others meet to organize a referendum to put HB 2305 on hold until the November 2014 election. They’ve got the money, Hess says, and they’ve certainly got the motivation.
That’s bad news for Republicans who already have to worry about a potential Medicaid referendum, a genius move by the party’s own right wing. If successful, 300,000 angry people could flock to the polls, hoping to save their access to health care.
Add in now the chance to vote on HB 2305, prompting angry Libertarians and angry Latinos to hit the polls next year when all statewide offices are up for grabs.
If you’re a Republican candidate, that’s going to leave a mark.
Posted on June 28, 2013 11:40 am by Robert Robb
GOP shouldn’t count on Libertarian votes
From the political notebook:
* The Green and Libertarian parties are spitting mad over a new state law requiring their candidates to get as many signatures to qualify for the ballot as the major-party candidates. They have joined league with Democrats, who oppose the bill primarily for other reasons, to threaten to refer or sue the new law into oblivion.
Republicans reportedly engineered the change in hopes that Libertarian candidates wouldn’t make the ballot. They think that will bolster their chances in close congressional races, such as CD 1 (Ann Kirkpatrick vs. Jonathan Paton) and CD 9 (Kyrsten Simena vs. Vernon Parker), in which the Republican candidate lost by fewer votes than the Libertarian candidate got.
In principle, I don’t see a problem with requiring all candidates to get the same number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. [The signatures don't get them on the GENERAL election ballot, they get them on the PRIMARY elections ballot. And doing the math in my head I think they might need more signatures to get on the ballot, then there are people that vote in the Libertarian primary election. The real solution to the problem is to let the political parties to pay for and put on their own primary elections] It doesn’t really prevent Libertarian candidates from qualifying, since they can obtain signatures from independents, who are plentiful in every district. They’ll just have to work harder.
But I think Republicans are deluding themselves if they believe Libertarian votes were what cost them these races. [I suspect Robb is wrong on this]
Libertarian candidates do strongly outperform their registration in general elections. In both of these congressional districts, Libertarians are less than one percent of the registration but got over 6 percent of the vote.
Since Libertarians invariably don’t have much money to communicate with voters, their over-performance at the ballot box probably does reflect something other than just agreement with their views. But what?
I’m not sure anyone knows. And it’s probably a lot of things: some philosophical agreement; disgruntlement with the candidate of the voter’s party; disgruntlement with both major-party candidates; disgruntlement with the two-party system. [I suspect he is right on this. Although as a Libertarian I would love to lie and say people vote for us because they agree with our policies]
Since the Libertarian vote is probably in some large measure a protest vote, the assumption that these are default Republican voters seems highly suspect.
Republicans Paton and Parker would have had to get over 80 percent of the Libertarian vote to close their deficit with their Democratic opponents. I doubt the Libertarian vote would split anywhere near that decisively.
* Democrats have invested heavily in the message that, when it comes to voting rights, Arizona is every bit as bad as the Jim Crow South and needs to have the federal government pre-approve everything it does.
The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, relieved Arizona and all other covered states from preclearance last week. But the Democratic message about Arizona actually received quite a blow from the dissent in the case by Justice Ruth Ginsburg.
Ginsburg all but conceded that preclearance as applied to Arizona (and Alaska) was unconstitutional. But she maintained that Arizona and Alaska could be severed from the requirement while continuing it with respect to the Jim Crow South states.
Why would Ginsburg say that? Well, one of her arguments in favor of continuing with preclearance was that preclearance states, according to a study, had significantly more successful lawsuits brought against them under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that applies to all states. That, according to Ginsburg, was evidence that the preclearance states were still disproportionately likely to violate voting rights and hence still appropriately singled out for preclearance. Arizona, however, had not a single successful section 2 lawsuit brought against it during the study period.
Arizona wasn’t dragooned into preclearance because of a history of violating voting rights. Arizona was subjected to preclearance because we didn’t provide bilingual ballots in 1972, even though the federal government didn’t require them until 1975. Our sin was a lack of clairvoyance, not voter suppression.
* Among the alleged sins Democrats are citing as evidence that Arizona is a serial violator of voting rights and should still be subject to preclearance is our voter ID law, requiring proof of citizenship to register and identification when voting at the polls. The registration component was recently the subject of yet another U.S. Supreme Court decision.
There’s one rather large problem with this argument, however. Arizona’s voter ID law was subject to preclearance. And the Department of Justice approved it.
The Libertarian Party is the only party that wants to re-legalize ALL drugs.
The Libertarian Party is the only party that fully supports your Second Amendment
rights.
This new initiative is the result of the Republicans passing a law that pretty much makes it impossible for Greens or Libertarians to run for office.
Group files to fight Ariz. election law
By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Jul 1, 2013 10:14 PM
Another petition drive is about to hit the streets. A committee has filed a referendum to repeal a wide-ranging elections law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed last month.
The Protect Your Right To Vote Committee needs to collect the signatures of 86,405 registered voters by Sept. 12 to block the law from taking effect until voters can decide if they want it in the November 2014 election.
The measure is backed by members of the Democratic, Green and Libertarian parties, as well as various civic groups.
Each group has found something to hate in House Bill 2305, which makes changes to election law in areas ranging from the number of signatures a candidate must gather to qualify for the ballot to who can return a voter’s ballot.
The committee supporting the referendum is headed by Julie Erfle.
Joseph Losada is its treasurer.
Critics of Medicaid expansion last month launched their own referendum drive to block the health-care law from taking effect. They face a Sept. 11 deadline.
Well, OK, it's not impossible if you have unlimited resources, but for all practical purposes the law makes it impossible for Libertarians and Greens to run for office.
Posted on July 2, 2013 5:26 pm by Laurie Roberts
An uh-oh moment for the Arizona GOP?
Yet another referendum has been filed, hoping to block a bit of midnight maneuvering by the Arizona Legislature.
Unlike the petition drive to block Medicaid expansion, however, this one’s actually got a good chance of making the ballot.
If you’re a Republican running for office in 2014, that can’t be good.
Protect Your Right to Vote Arizona is targeting House Bill 2305, a raft of election “reforms” passed in the final hours of this year’s legislative session.
The new law would make it harder to mount citizen initiatives and recalls, harder for third-party candidates to get on the ballot and it tosses a few obstacles into the path of civic-engagement groups that were successful last year in mobilizing thousands of new Latino voters.
“This is a power play by incumbents who are in charge right now,” said Julie Erfle, who is leading the referendum drive. “This is a way to negate what’s happening within the state of Arizona: the fact that Latinos are becoming more energized; the fact that people are starting to pay more attention; the fact that, in my opinion, things are starting to moderate. As things start to moderate, the people who are not moderate become more concerned and so then you get a bill like 2305 where they go about stacking the deck in their favor.”
Erfle writes the blog Politics Uncuffed, though she is best known as the widow of slain Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle.
Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, who authored much of the elections bill, did not return a call. In the past, she has said the bill is about fairness and fixing problems that cropped up in last year’s elections, when thousands of people who got early ballots showed up at the polls on Election Day and had to cast provisional ballots.
Referendum organizers hope to put HB 2305 on hold until November 2014, allowing voters to decide whether it should go into effect. To get on the ballot, they’ll need 86,406 voter signatures by Sept. 12. They’re aiming for twice that.
Former Rep. John Loredo, a Democratic consultant helping with the campaign, says referendum organizers will rely both on volunteers and paid circulators to get the signatures. I expect they’ll have plenty of help, given the sheer number of people this bill offends.
Among its provisions, the bill would:
– Make it harder for citizens to mount an initiative or a recall by requiring “strict compliance” with the laws governing such campaigns. Since at least 1991, the courts have required “substantial compliance”, giving citizens some leeway as they exercise their constitutional right to propose laws and recall elected officials.
Had “strict compliance” been required, last year’s sales tax and create a top-two primary initiatives probably wouldn’t have made the ballot. And ex-Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, wouldn’t have been recalled.
– Make it more difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot by massively increasing the number of signatures they need to seek their party’s nomination.
Republicans say it’s only fair that everybody should have to get the same number of signatures, so they’re lowering the number Republicans need and raising the bar for everybody else. The fact that Republicans believe Libertarian spoilers likely cost their party two congressional seats last year is entirely beside the point. Really.
– Allow county elections officials to potentially toss you off of the early ballot list if you didn’t vote in both the primary and general elections in both 2010 and 2012.
Supporters say this is a bid to clean up the early voter list, one supported by county elections officials who want to cut down on provisional ballots. Opponents point out that many of those who would be cleaned off the list just happen to be new Latino voters.
– Make it a crime for political or civic-engagement groups to return ballots on behalf of voters. Last year, that was a central feature of Latino groups’ successful get-out-the-vote drive.
Bottom line: the bill seems to help not so much voters but Republican officeholders.
“This is exactly what voters hate about politics,” Erfle said. “This is exactly why you get people who say I don’t pay attention and I don’t vote because it doesn’t matter. It’s all about people who just want to be in power.”
Beware the backfire, though.
This referendum is likely to bring a lot of highly motivated people to the polls.
Somehow, I don’t think they’ll be voting for Republicans.
I was planning on going to the
Arizona Legislator web site
and
grabbing all the dirty, filthy nasty details about
HB 2305
which effectively makes it impossible for members of the
Libertarian and Green Parties to run for office and put them
here for the world to view.
But sadly the tyrants that passed the law in the Arizona Legislator
didn't want that to happen and put next to nothing on the
Arizona Legislator web page about
HB 2305.
Here are the nitty gritty details on that government tyrant:
(602) 926-5735
That's not to say that the other people that helped pass HB 2305
are ethical people looking out for the interests of the people in Arizona,
they probably are not.
I suspect the reason no one else sponsored it was because they figured
that Eddie Farnsworth would receive the least amount of political damage
by sponsoring it.
I am not sure which version was passed into law,
but I am guessing the
last version
was passed into law.
To run for governor of Arizona a Republican or Democrat would need
say 5,000 signatures.
But because the Libertarian and Green parties are very small parties
a Libertarian or Green Party member could run for governor with
something like 100 signatures.
The old law required:
And of course that will effectively make it impossible for Libertarians
and Greens to run for office in Arizona.
I have not read the full law, but from what I have read in the newspapers,
the law will also make it more difficult for citizens to get citizens voter initiatives
on the ballot.
One standard tactic is to vote both for and against a bill in different votes
so the politician can claim he wants it both ways.
Say a there is an abortion bill and the politicians wants to
tell people that are pro-abortion he agrees with them and
he wants to tell people that are anti-abortion that he also agrees
with them.
Of course that is a bold faced lie, but the politicians do it all the
time to get votes.
In this case the politician will vote against the abortion bill in it's
first reading. That way he can tell the anti-abortion folks he voted
against the bill in an attempt to get their votes.
But he will use those prior votes, which were both for and against
the bill in an attempt get people to vote for him.
Raft of election changes OK’d
More on the law that makes it impossible for Libertarians to run for office!!!!!
Republicans pull a fast one on voters
Brewer signs bill outlawing Libertarian candidates???
Libertarians vow to fight new ballot qualification requirements
More - Legislators makes it impossible for Libertarians to run for office!!!
Democrats, Libertarians teaming to fight election law
More on the law that makes it illegal for Libertarians and Greens to run for office.
Arizona Republicans, prepare for backlash
More on making it illegal for Libertarians to run for office.
When I was involved in the Libertarian party one of the things we wanted was to stop the government from funding the primary elections held for each political party. Let the political parties decide who they will let run as their candidates. And as the same time let the political parties pay for the cost of holding their primary elections.
GOP shouldn’t count on Libertarian votes
I don't agree with this article, but I will pass it on.
Initiative to keep Libertarian & Green Parties on the ballot
If you are against the war on drugs, the Libertarian and Green Parties are the only politician parties that want to re-legalize marijuana.
An uh-oh moment for the Arizona GOP?
More on that law that makes it impossible for Libertarians and Greens to run for office.
HB 2305 - Makes it illegal for Libertarians & Greens to run for office!!!
OK, HB 2305 doesn't make it illegal for Greens or Libertarians to run for office in Arizona,
it just makes it almost impossible for them to run for office.
HB 2305 - Sponsered by Eddie Farnsworth
The bill was sponsored by government tyrant Eddie Farnsworth.
Eddie Farnsworth
Republican District 12
House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 417-3122 fax
HB 2305 - Title "initiatives; filings; circulators"
While HB 2305 is titled
initiatives; filings; circulators
It probably should be titled something like
Flush the voting rights of Libertarians & Greens down the toilet
HB 2305 - The law
This
web page
shows at 5 versions of HB 2305.
They are:
HB 2305 - The filthy details of the law
In the past to run for office you had to get a small percentage of
the number of registered voters in YOUR party to sign your petitions.
one‑half of one per cent of the of the party of the candidate
The law has been changed with HB 2305 to require
one‑sixth of one per cent of the voter registration
That pretty much means that a Libertarian or Green who used to
be able to run for governor with a measly 100 signatures will now
be required to get the same number of signatures as a
Republican or Democrat running for office, which is something in
the range of 5,000+ signatures.
HB 2305 - Who voted for HB2305 in the Arizona Legislator????
Please note, many of these elected officials are lying hypocrites
who will do anything to get your vote.
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2305 - Judiciary
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2305 - Rules
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2305 - Third Reading
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2305 - Elections
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2305 - Final Reading
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2305 - Final Reading