A Correction in your preception of Tx. HB 3118. HB 3118 In its initial form would have made party affirmation by voter registration possible but sadly it also proposes to use that affiliation to restrict a citizens ability to sign a petition for ballot access to someone for another party or independent. This is called ‘closed primaries in most states’. Once affiliated by voter registeration, you can not participate in any primary if your Independant or small party affiliated. This Bill would not effect Primary Screenout in any way. The far left and the far right love this bill because they assume it will enhance their power in party primary votes. Today, whatever your party preference you can show up at whichever polling place you choose and vote. The justification is that Democrats shouldn’t be crossing over to select GOP candidates and vice versa and independents should either get off the fence or get cut out. Most Texans would probably outraged at this imposition on their freedom of choice. Independants would not be able to participate in Primaries or Conventions to select any candidate for office.

But Texas HB2280, still pending in Elections Committee review, is the Bill that would address Primary Screenout in Texas Election Codes. However, HB2280’s present form does not cover primary screen-out for independents. This Bill is the one that actually reduces the red-tape & the many steps to remain a small party in Texas and would keep a small party accessable @ the ballot box. So if you want to really effect changing the Screenout Support HB2280. It is jointly authored by The Green, Libertarian, and Constitution Parties & Dem. Representative Mark Strama.

see: http://www.txgreens.org/drupal/node/135

Albert

The Screenout System would prevent Dr. Paul from voting for himself (for any office) in the Texas Primary, if he was intending to switch parties when he suspends his bid for Presidential consideration. Furthermore any person who already voted in a Primary for Dr. Paul would be restricted from any participation in the minor party conventions and therefore could not nominate him as their prospected candidate. The problem with Dr. Paul switching parties mid stream is that he would likely the National Election, and risk losing support for his congressional seat he currently holds as a Republican (most Republicans supporting him wont vote Libertarian). Switching parties prior to the LP CountyConventions is almost not a probability, and I don’t even think it can be done. I believe he would have to run as an Indepentant, since all parties were reguire to submit list of candidates for office to the Sec. of State in early Jan ‘08.

So the Safe Assumption is, he will not abandon his base that got him elected to Congress (even if it were possible). In the General Election any voter can vote his concience, regardless of his previous affiliation, and are not required to vote a ‘straight party’ ticket.

The BIG problem, for the LPT, is with LP voters voting for Ron Paul in the General Election for President, is that the party loses percential points (for future ballot box consideration) in National Elections and will have a very negative effect for the LP, if Our Nominated Candidate can’t get the reasonabley expected votes.

The LP should never expect the Rep of Dem vote to get there candidate over the hump in a close race. To believe they would vote Libertarian is ‘dreaming’. So if Growing the Party is Our Intention, the Libertarians have to support Libertarian Candidates to the fullest possible extent, if nominated by the LP Conventions.

Thats my view.

& the Tim Duncan Question… Hummm isn’t he the Best Forward in the NBA, out of San Antonio? Or is he the Most Dominate Player in the NBA? I sometimes get them confused. Maybe both? LOL humor

Albert

There is not always a write-in line on a ballot. A person/candidate would have already had to have registered with the Texas Sec of State to be a write-in candidate for a particular position/office sought. And then depending on the particular county’s election voting devices will a write-in ballot line appear. Ie in Harris County the eSlate electronic device will only provide a write-in ballot line if there is a registered write-in candidate for that position. Finally while it is true that you can write-in whoever you want on a write-in ballot line (if one exists for that position), it won’t be counted by any election official unless the person you write-in matches the write-in candidate that had previously registered as a write-in candidate with the Sec of State. And then your spelling of the candidate must be be good enough for election official to discern.

I haven’t voted in a major-party primary in Texas in over twenty years. There may be a write-in provision at that level, or maybe not. Can’t say.

The best/shortest answer is that to remind you that in the General Election you definitely can write in whomever you please. There’s a write-in slot at the Presidential section of the ballot. It has always been there. Dr. Paul might be a perfect fit there this time for many of you.

In the last two Presidential Generals, I have personally skipped the Presidential lines and gone down-ballot to do my voting.

January 31st, 2008 at 6:33 am
Can you imagine scores of Texas Ron Paul supporters voting for him in the GOP primary, then Paul goes Independent, and his supporters soon learn that they can’t sign his petition to put him on the ballot.

This is going to be interesting.”

This is one good reason for Ron Paul to run as a Libertarian Party candidate again. The LP already has ballot status is Texas so Ron could be on the ballot there as a Libertarian and not have to get any signatures.

Good perspective. An advantage of there being more than one kind of political structure in Texas couldn’t have been better demonstrated than the evnts you described. Options were excercised.

As far as primaries are concerned, don’t get me wrong; I can’t think of a bigger nightmare than the Texas Lege & SOS imposing primary-eligibility on alternative parties suddenly and without warning. I don’t like primaries anyway. I certainly don’t want to see 3rd Parties in TX instantly have to put up with all the logistical headaches and expense of primaries as a cost of admission to the Big Dance, once they’re on-ballot. It’s unthinkable.

Like I said, I don’t care for them (primaries). They do nothing but encourage voters to stay in a coma, basically – aroused participation-wise only enough to cast a ballot once in awhile and blissfully snoozing the rest of the time. Our electoral processes need for more people to be more directly involved than all that if our country is to ever regain its civic health. The old-fashioned Nominate-By-Convention model is nothing but hands-on, and I would (if I can be allowed to dream for a sec.) like to see the 2MP have to revert to the convention M.O. if one model or the other (primary vs. convention) had to be ditched. Of course, if that happened the voting public with 2MP ties would be suddenly thrust into the midst of the 2MP’s operational structures and would probably clean them up, relatively speaking. Uncomfortable questions would be asked. Front End Fixing (of candidacies) would be exposed and stopped. Elite heads would roll. The howls of agony and protest put forth by the Texas 2MP’s Establishment would probably be heard in the next nearest galaxy. They’d fight to the last breath to stop and reverse all that, too. It would be ugly, sho-nuff.

I agree that it’s good to have options & per your example above. But in politics, like many other serious matters, trade-offs sometimes have to be made. If commitment to a party or strictly independent status by TX voters at the outset of an election cycle also enables non-2MP Texans to climb out of second class civic status, it’s worth it to be locked in. Establishing register-by-party here would be a step in towards that.

I’d only add that restrictions that limit indie petition-signers to only one petition, or forbid petition signing by voters who are party-committed are just plain wrong. Both strictures need to be abolished no matter what else happens.

As for Primaries for minor parties, be careful what you ask for! Here in CD 22 the question arose of the Republicans supporting LP candidate Bob Smither when their own candidate was knocked off the ballot. There was a whispering campaign against him being a stalking horse for Democrat Nick Lampson. This was knocked out of the ballpark by people who knew the rigorous nominating process at the State LP Convention. Smither had been chosen over some competitors as the best candidate. With a Primary however it’s just a name recognition contest. Perennial Democratic candidate Gene Kelly is a case in point.

I suppose that was all adequate back when the state’s population was half of what it is now and not nearly as mobile. The setup is antique and needs to go.

But what’s far more problematic is that the non-2MP parties are also all governed by a different set of laws – and they’re locked into the “Nominate By Convention” model by them. They can’t have primaries. It’s as much a separate-but-equal setup as Jim Crow. By law, the minors can’t even have their precinct conventions until the primary voting polling places are closed when voting hours are concluded. These dual legal standards are another whole book. But please…If you think you want to go to court to change any of this, do some homework. The total case-law history of challenges to Texas Code provisions just since the ‘65 Voting Rights Act is MASSIVE, and as much as TX has lost, it also wins a bunch, too. Beware, and be prepared to not make the same mistake ONCE.

Now as far as the prohibition of cross-participation is concerned, you may not like it much. But it is against the law – a misdemeanor offense; again with very old statutory roots. As a practical matter, enforcement isn’t necessary usually. If your voting card is stamped with a competing party’s name when you try to enter another party’s event, you’re probably not going to get in. Likelihood of enforcement ( being charged and going to court ) can be guessed by this sort of rule-of-thumb: Was the violator just jaywalking, or was he trying to roller-blade down the center stripe of a freeway? What was the level of actual harm?

But, minor-party activists would also be wise to do some self-policing where this is concerned, just in case they don’t take it seriously. A convention event that has a noticeably high participation by folks who voted in primaries runs the risk of having the work-product (nominations) contested by legal challenge from outside the party by other party’s operatives. That hasn’t happened in awhile in Texas, but it darn sure CAN happen. Watch yourself… And by the way, when it comes right down to brass tacks, party rules are expected to have the same force and effect as state law, just as they are expected to conform to them. If you don’t believe me, call the SOS office in Austin.

Texas needs register-by-party very badly. It would revolutionize 3rd-Party activity here by ending the need for petitioning. A good bill was introduced last session in the TX lege to accomplish the changeover (HB3118). Author was even the Chair of the House Elections Committee, Leo Berman®. But the Association of Republican County Chairmen went in by back channel and killed it – it was not reported out for vote. I can only guess the GOPs still like the idea of being able to have small armies of GOP loyalists skip their primaries so they can sabotage Democrat primaries and run-offs (i.e. vote for the more beatable candidate), which is perfectly legal under the current laws. HB3118 was written to stop that practice (not to help 3rd Parties, btw). Crossover sabotage has happened a lot in recent times, and is one reason why John Cornyn was easily elected to the U.S. Senate on his first try. His Dem opponent in the General Election was a complete nincompoop. The man that lost to the nincompoop in an earlier Dem runoff was Victor Morales, an old friend of mine. Victor could have stood toe-to-toe with Cornyn and maybe beaten him, but the GOPs fixed that. It’s a fact.

Hey…If you live in Texas, lean on your state rep to bring back HB3118. It would help immensely to see it passed, if for no other reason than this: In theory, it may prevent at some future time our having even worse slates of candidates in general elections than we have now, if not bozos in ALL the nomination slots.

The Texas LP has about 210 candidates filed for partisan races. Throw in the county and state executive commitee members who want to retain their positions and we have about 300 potential Paul voters who cannot do so in order to keep the Libertarian Party option fully intact. Not a big deal either way really.

Meanwhile the Texas LP Bylaws currently reinforce the state affiliation rules and so that would have to change first before a legal challenge would become possible. So that means such a challenge could not occur before 2010 at the earliest. It also means that Ron Paul voters will be excluded from the Texas State and County LP conventions in 2008 as doing otherwise would potentially jeopardize the status of LP candidates on the ballot and this, in turn, would jeopardize the ballot status of the Texas LP.

Another tidbit under review is loosening up the rules on endorsing non-Libertarian candidates by the Texas LP (or county affiliate LPs for local races.) Currently our rules make that verbotten, but I am thinking about proposing that it should be allowed as long as there is no Libertarian in the race and at least 2/3 of the convention delegates vote for such an endorsement.

Keep in mind that LP Ron Paul voters couldn’t even participate in their state convention, either.

I’d like to see the state try and stop them. How do you enforce such a rule? It’s essentially a waiting period on changing political affiliations. I’d imagine someone would have a pretty good constitutional case if the state bothered to enforce the law at all.

The way our election rules favor the major parties you’d think we were in the Soviet Union, which was a dictatorship of a single political party. Here in the U.S. we have two such parties.