October 22, 2015
Many people may not realize it, but Minnesota has the most restrictive election practices of any state in our region. The LPMN is now pushing to change that, by coordinating a six-party coalition to lobby for a more free and open election process, meeting with the Secretary of State … with more action to come.
It’s been a frequent question: Why aren’t there more Libertarian candidates? Or candidates of other parties? A new effort is tackling the restrictions which have effectively prevented more ballot choices from being available to voters.
Minnesota’s multi-party culture
The LPMN’s “war room” during the 2014 petition drive
At first, it seems strange. Minnesota is well-known for bucking the two-party system with over a century of successful activism by smaller parties. The Farmer-Labor Party scored several significant election wins prior to its integration with the Democrats in 1944 to form the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL). More recently, after Ross Perot’s run for president in 1996, the Independence Party (then the Reform Party) gained major-party status, enabling easier ballot access for its candidates and leading to Jesse Ventura’s win in 1998 as Governor.
But today, due to the barriers erected by DFL and GOP, the public finds themselves in the clutches of the two-party system once again … and moreso than residents of any other neighboring state.
It’s difficult for any smaller party to gain a toehold in the political process, especially with seven major and minor parties competing in the political arena. The results of last year’s Attorney General race clearly illustrates the difficulty of any small party reaching 5% of the statewide vote. That 5% level is crucial. It conveys major-party status, which results in widespread ballot access, increased media coverage, and debate inclusion for a party’s candidates.
Re-opening the political process
Compared to neighboring states, our state is the most restrictive. Minnesota’s 5% threshold for obtaining major-party status by statewide vote is used by only one neighboring state: North Dakota. South Dakota has a 2.5% threshold, while Iowa uses 2%. Wisconsin and Michigan have only a 1% threshold.
There is another method for obtaining major-party status: direct petitioning. Minnesota requires at least 100,000 petition signatures (equivalent to 5% of the statewide vote) to directly gain major status. It’s a threshold so difficult that it has never been used since the statute was enacted in 1913. It appears to be clearly unconstitutional. North Dakota’s requirement for just 15,000 petition signatures (equivalent to 3.3% of the statewide vote), which had been met only once since its enactment in 1939, was struck down in 1980 by the US 8th Circuit Court as exceptionally difficult. Minnesota is within the 8th Circuit’s jurisdiction.
In January, the LPMN began crafting statutory changes that could allow Minnesota’s smaller parties to reasonably compete. Over the summer, the other smaller parties were invited to contribute. The Green Party and Independence Party offered input to a package of proposals which were submitted to the Secretary of State, who handles election matters, at a meeting in August.
Secretary of State Steve Simon
In an unprecedented event, all six of Minnesota’s significant smaller parties sent representatives to that meeting: the Constitution Party, Green Party, Grassroots Party, Independence Party, Libertarian Party, and Legal Marijuana Now Party. Recognizing that these organizations disagree on many issues, the willingness of this diverse coalition to come together for a unified effort made a strong impression on Secretary of State Steve Simon. After hearing the proposals, Secretary Simon voiced receptiveness to assisting the effort, stating that it was clear to him “This is about fairness”.
The package of proposals includes:
– Revising the major-party status threshold from 5% to 2% using the method of statewide election results, and revising the current 100,000 to 20,000 signatures using the method of direct petitioning.
– Detaching the petition period from the primary election date, moving the period to the warm-weather months of June and July, and expanding the period from just two weeks to six weeks.
– Eliminating the oddball 8½x14 legal-size paper requirement for petition forms, which effectively prevents electronic distribution and forces smaller parties to use postal mail and hand delivery. Standard 8½x11 letter-size paper is being proposed.
– Allowing state residents to sign a petition even if they vote in a primary election or if they sign for candidates of another party, both of which are now prohibited.
– Allowing the ability of each party to authorize which candidates may represent their party’s name on the ballot. At present, any person can claim to run under a party’s banner, even if they aren’t nominated by that party and don’t support its principles, essentially engaging in fraud to the public.
– Revising the special election requirements, which allow as little as five days for petitioning. Under the proposal, the period would change from 5 to 14 days and require half the number of signatures as for regular elections.
A long-term effort
As of this October, one proposal is already being implemented. The petition paper size is set by the Secretary of State’s office, and reformatting the petition forms to fit on standard letter-size paper is already underway. This may be finished in time for the 2016 season.
The other proposals will involve legislative lobbying to change the statutes. That push will begin by the end of 2015, before the next legislative session.
This effort is the first of its kind in Minnesota, so it’s unknown how much resistance may be faced. Some DFL and GOP legislators will undoubtedly have little desire to change the current system. There are also legislators likely to be friendly toward the changes.
It could be a long process. But long-term efforts have ultimately proven successful. Oklahoma had long been the most restrictive state in the nation; the only state where no presidential candidate other than a Democrat or Republican has appeared on their ballot since the year 2000. After years of lobbying, success was achieved this summer when a bill signed by their governor significantly relaxed Oklahoma’s restrictions. Similar successes have been seen in other states.
Libertarians are ratcheting up the pressure
The push to change Minnesota’s ballot restrictions is just one component of a larger effort to tackle all of the barriers faced by alternative parties.
In 2012, the LPMN began taking a lead role in coordinating Minnesota’s smaller parties, including this multi-party protest in St Paul.
In 2014, the LPMN joined the Independence Party in exerting pressure to include all gubernatorial candidates in the infamous Hamline University debate, which violated its own policy and risked its tax-exempt status by refusing access to all but the DFL and GOP candidates. That attempt was not successful. But another attempt was. The LPMN called on its members and supporters to contact KSTP’s Tom Hauser to include all candidates in their polls. Many did, and after two waves of appeals, KSTP finally relented, although too late to influence the election results. Similar efforts will almost certainly be needed in the 2016 election season.
Furthermore, the National Libertarian Party and Green Party are launching new legal actions to take on the two-party system. Multiple lawsuits are underway: one against the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to challenge their treatment of the televised presidential debates as nonpartisan, and another against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private entity controlled by the Democrats and Republicans, over the CPD’s use of arbitrary polling criteria which have never been met. Another is upcoming against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for granting the two parties television coverage (via the CPD debates) which is not also granted to other qualified candidates. The coordinated effort of these lawsuits is illustrated in this graphic by the Fair Debates Coalition.
It remains to be seen how the courts will decide. But the US Supreme Court has been extremely hostile to alternative parties, so success by judicial means is not assured. It’s saying something about the US political process when even North Korea has more parties represented in its national body than America does.
The goal: More choices for everyone
Seven-way debate between party leaders in Britain
It seems strange that the public has more options of ice cream flavors or brands of cereal than choices of candidates on their ballots. It seems strange that a country Americans once led a revolution against now has a much freer political system. In April, Britain televised a seven-party debate among its political leaders, which preceded elections featuring all of their respective candidates. This shows that there is room for all viewpoints to be heard! America lags badly behind.
It may not be in the self-interest of the LPMN to seek changes that also benefit other parties which often compete for the same base of disenchanted voters. That doesn’t matter. As one of our principles, Libertarians strongly support a free and open political process … and the freedom of speech as well!
It’s time to end rigged elections replete with ballot access restrictions, debate exclusions, and favoritism toward the Two Big Old parties. It’s time to allow the public to hear all perspectives, then let each individual decide for themselves!
Concerned about the expansion of government control and the erosion of individual liberty? Please consider joining and becoming active with the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. Libertarians support liberty on all issues, all the time! Libertarianism is a philosophical and political movement to promote personal freedom, strong civil liberties, a genuinely free marketplace, and peace.
Want to comment? Join this conversation on our Facebook thread.