Monday, December 24th, 2007...7:20 am
Blame Jim Nintzel
Over at Random Musings they remark that twelve of the Democratic candidates listed on the “Presidential Preference Election” ballot are from Tucson. I could make some snide comment that this is evidence that those of us in Tucson are just more engaged in civic life than our poor cousins from the Valley of the Yakes. But, that isn’t the reason.
Upon reading the rather lax qualifications to be on the “Presidential Preference Election” ballot (I keep repeating that name because I hate it), Jim Nintzel over at the Tucson Weekly decided to institute Project White House. The on-line version of the article included a form that could be downloaded to submit to the Seceretary of State’s office. This generated, according to Nintzel, an additional twelve Democrats and eight Republicans on this year’s “Presidential Preference Election” ballot.
A Project White House participant, named, oddly enough, Sandy Whitehouse, will be at the top of the Democratic “Presidential Preference Election” ballot.
Not everyone is happy with enterprises like Project White House. Jan Brewer complained in the East Valley Tribune that the long ballot will confuse people. Apparently, she wasn’t concerned about this last time when eighteen Democrats filed for the ballot. For the record, only Carol Mosely Braun, who had been out of the race for weeks at that point, even came close to being beaten by the also rans.
Maybe there’s a tripping point where voter confusion sets in…nineteen candidates?
I’m all for some sort of restrictions on who gets on the ballot, but I’m not sure how you implement them. Brewer has suggested making it so only folks who would be eligible to register to vote could appear on the ballot. Unless these “prankster” candidates (as the Tribune refered to them) are all felons or non-citizens, I’m not sure how this would shorten the list. My suggestion would be to allow the parties to cull the list. Of course, such a system in the 2000 party-run Democratic caucus caused one also-ran to threaten to sue my mom.
NB - The Tribune also ran a bit on Project White House on their blog…which means that Paul Giblin isn’t bitter that he didn’t think of it first.
5 Comments
December 24th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I was impressed that Bruce Wayne’s young ward is all grown up now, living in Apache Junction, and running for president.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Tedski: Since Joe Biden is not on the ballot, would you consider offering up a secondary endorsement from RRR for one of the Project White House candidates? You could set up your own political challenge for them…
December 25th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Tom, thanks for the mention but I haven’t heard that remark since about 1956…
Check out how other states handle this. Several rely on commissions or committes, as does Wisconsin, which culls the candidate list to the nationally-recognized contenders but also allows others to get on the ballot by requiring them to get 8,000 signatures.
What I am trying to do is get publicity for someone to get on the ballot to run against Sixth Congressional District U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (or the ghetto-fabulous Russell Pearce, should he enter and win the GOP primary), which no Democrat did in 2004 or 2006.
If no credible candidate runs and I have to do it myself, I don’t know how I will get the necessary signatures to be on the ballot as I cannot afford to pay the ballot-gathering businesses who know how to do it right. (I work, so I can’t take time to do it myself.)
My alternate route on the ballot is to file as a write-in (a lot easier but still harder than getting on the ballot for the presidential preference primary) and hope that the requisite number of write-in votes (about 500, the same number needed to get on the primary ballot by petition).
Why is it so much easier to run for President in Arizona than it is for Congress?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I responded to ‘The Tribune’s” editorial on their website, and I will repeat it here for convenience…
There is always a propensity for those who are in power to do anything they can to remain in power, even if it costs their constituency. We should all be in favor of encouraging fresh blood in our government. Not to do so risks stagnation and corruption.
I object to being called a ” political joker”, just because I want to express my vision for the country. There are 24 people on the Democratic primary ticket. I don’t think that it is too onerous a task for voters to find their favorite amongst these, and to enjoy the benefits of actually having a choice of candidates, rather than only those few who have been preselected by the party (in much the same way as was done in the old Soviet Union).
We should really be more concerned about opening up the ballot for the general election to be less exclusive if we want to retain a free government.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I support reasonable ballot requirements.
In general, the level of support needed to make most ballots is to obtain a number of signatures that (depending on the office) a candidate can get himself or herself by going out and talking to voters (isn’t that what someone thinking of running for office should be doing anyway?) or for higher offices (i.e. President) requires a certain level of organization. But if someone actually wants to become President then shouldn’t we expect that they can assemble a campaign and run it effectively, including inspiring enough people to follow them to get on the ballot?
I don’t have a problem with someone who wants to quibble with the specifics of the ballot requirements, for example to make a case that they are too onerous and should be relaxed, but there is a reason they are there. Running for office in itself should show a minimum level of qualification (putting together a team of supporters and directing them) and commitment.
Leave a Reply