Legislators seek to have indy candidates announce earlier
Some legislators want to shorten the time that independent candidates have to file for office.
A Senate committee that studies elections matters heard HB 1310, which requires independent candidates to declare their intention to run by the filing deadline for major-party candidates. This year, that deadline was last Tuesday.
Critics say the measure, which has already cleared the House, is simply an incumbent-protection device.
“All this bill does is stifle potential independent candidates and ensure that many major-party candidates will run un-opposed,” said Barbara Woodruff, the co-chairperson of Show Me Independents.
Woodruff found few supporters at the hearing.
Sen. Delbert Scott, the committee’s chairman, said opposing parties often recruit candidates to run as “independents.”
“It is a game that’s played every election,” he said. “Maybe you’ll understand sometime.”
In 2006, Scott received a stiff challenge from independent candidate Mike Holzknecht, who garnered nearly 43 percent of the vote. Last year, Scott co-sponsored a similar measure crafted by Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, who had a similar challenge in ‘06. His independent opponent, Kim Wright, got 36 percent of the vote.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ted Hoskins, D-Berkeley, didn’t face an independent candidate in 2006. Even though he only faces one foe in August’s Democratic primary, he said an independent candidate could swoop in at the last minute and surprise him.
In a situation like that, “I’ve expended all of my funds against my opponent trying to win the primary,” he said. “I have to now turn around and raise some more funds.”
Independents now must file for office by July.
If the bill were to pass, Woodruff predicted a court challenge from an independent candidate based on the Anderson v. Celebrezze case in which the Supreme Court said it was an unconstitutional burden to require independent candidates to file early.
This is silly! An independent candidate is NOT going to run in the primary–which is what the filing deadline applied. They would only be running in general elections. So, in effect, you would actually be making their deadline EARLIER (in # of weeks before an election) than those who run in the primary.
I don’t see how you can oppose these arbitrary guidelines on independent candidates.
This lady wouldn’t be kin to David Woodruff the Democrat operative would she??
Regardless of party or no party affiliation why should any group receive preferential treatment.
This sounds like if someone doesn’t like a statement or ad during an election they can decide to go file as an independent. What would happen if multiple independents filed- wouldn’t that create a need for a primary? or should they all get to be on the ballot- if so that discriminates against those who declared their party.
Independents would NOT be receiving preferential treatment. In fact, they would be receiving a more burdensome deadline.
Look at it this way, why should any candidate (independent or otherwise) in a November election, be bound by deadlines for an August election?
First, I am not kin to David Woodruff.
Party candidates already have an advantage with organization and funding and this bill is nothing more than an incumbent protection plan. Sen. Scotts reference to a game played every election is actually one played by party members and not by legitimate independent candidates.
This bill only makes it more difficult for ordinary citizens who do not align with a party to run for office and will be challenged if passed. A similar bill is currently being challenged in Montana.
So we have a potential law which is not only unfair and undemocratic it’s unconstitutional…..why are we dealing with such matters when there are serious problems to be solved?
Barbara,
Under your plan to keep the independent filing date in August, you have the potential for a 2006 CT-Senate scenario where a candidate loses a primary and then files for the general (keep in mind, I’m not complaining about Lieberman-I’m just saying). And it can be used against the major party candidates.
Makes it “more difficult for ordinary citizens who do not align with a party to run for office”? Why? Because they would be in the race longer than they might have? They might have the chance to raise more money, and have a longer timeframe to get their name out there? Oh, perish the thought!
Listen, why should candidates that actually affiliate with a party be “punished” unfairly by having their filing dates earlier than independent candidates? You don’t have a primary to run in? Great. But, you make it seem as if there is some sort of general election filing for the party nominee to do after the primary. It’s not as if someone will win the primary, but decide not to run in the general. The filing period is the time in which we have Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutioners, Green, Progressives and everyone else declare their candidacy. Why should independent be exempt?
Nick why should an independent candidate be listed after the party candidates on the ballot? Why isn’t the independent candidate listed first since he/she has no party affiliation? The filing deadline is set for the election. If we are going to oppose different filing deadlines than all filing deadlines should be the same even for initiative petitions. If a candidate for a party withdraws than the party should not be allowed to put anyone else on the ballot after the filing deadline has passed after all the candidate did not timely file and parties coerce the withdraw to place the person they want on the ballot.
“It is a game that’s played every election,” he said. “Maybe you’ll understand sometime.”
This bill was written to protect the party affiliates and the incumbent candidates. It creates an unfair playing field by not allowing constituents to challenge a corrupt incumbent once the filing deadline passes. Have you ever heard a politician promise one thing to his/her constituents then do the opposite? If the filing deadline has passed, what incentive is there to do the right or fair thing? After the filing deadline a corrupt official would be free to file any bill that protects or pays him/her a windfall from taxpayer funds. If the deadline remains for the election than an independent that got fed up with business as usual could file in an attempt to change the corrupt, Delbert Scott’s, which hold office.