More ballot access reform is the best way to address historic low voter turnout (Guest post: Chris Powell)

Chris Powell is past chair of the Oklahoma Libertarian Party.

Photo by Robert Palmer / CC BY-NC 2.0
Photo by Robert Palmer / CC BY-NC 2.0

Fewer people voted in the 2014 Oklahoma gubernatorial election than have participated in any election for governor in this state since 1978, when the population was about 900,000 people smaller. Our state has seen low voter turnout before, but this especially dramatic collapse in participation got the attention of the Legislature. State Senator David Holt, among others, led efforts to make voting easier by allowing online registration and consolidating local elections. However, only one bill — HB 2181 by House Speaker Jeff Hickman — began to address the underlying problem that many individuals have no motivation to go to the polls because the candidate they prefer isn’t on the ballot.

Election law expert Richard Winger described Oklahoma’s ballot access laws as “absurd and the worst in the nation.” For a new party to get on the ballot, they must collect signatures equal to at least 5 percent of the total vote count in the last statewide election. Since these rules went into effect in 1974, no third party has ever qualified to be on the ballot for mid-term elections when the state chooses a governor. Additionally, no Oklahoman has been able to vote for someone other than a Republican or a Democrat for president since 2000.

As it was introduced, Speaker Hickman’s measure would have lowered the signature requirement for new parties to 1 percent of the last election’s turnout, a not insurmountable hurdle that is the standard in several other states. Unfortunately, HB 2181 was amended in the Senate to increase the signatures required to 3 percent. An alternative party with well-funded national support has a good chance to meet this signature requirement following an especially low turnout election (for 2016, the exact number of signatures needed is 24,745, although to be safe a party probably needs to get 30-35,000). However, if the 3 percent threshold had been in effect for 2014, it would have taken at least 50,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

As Keith Gaddie, chair of the political science department at OU, put it, “It’s reform in the sense that they cut the threshold, but it’s not real reform. It ain’t much. If my cholesterol was 400 and I did everything the doc asked and I got it down to 300, it’s still high. There’s no good reason to have such restrictive ballot access.”

[pullquote]“It’s reform in the sense that they cut the threshold, but it’s not real reform. It ain’t much. If my cholesterol was 400 and I did everything the doc asked and I got it down to 300, it’s still high. There’s no good reason to have such restrictive ballot access.”[/pullquote]The high bar for collecting enough signatures would be less of a problem if parties could retain ballot access over multiple elections. But in order to remain as a qualified party, their presidential or gubernatorial candidate must get at least 10 percent of the vote. This is one of the highest hurdles to maintain party status in the nation, and HB 2181 did nothing to fix it.

Prior to 1974, it took 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and 1 percent of the vote was enough to remain qualified for the next election. These are reasonable standards that did not cause a problem then and won’t cause a problem now.

Anyone who really wants to increase voter turnout has two steps they can follow. First, sign a petition for any party trying to get on the ballot. Contact the Oklahoma Libertarian or Green parties or the folks at okvoterchoice.org for more information on signing a petition or even doing some petitioning yourself. Second, let your state legislators know that HB 2181 was a good start, but it’s not enough. If we want more people to vote, the easiest way is to allow more choices and more diversity on the ballot. Continuing to use election law to shut out all but the two major parties is undemocratic and serves to shut out many Oklahomans from voting for their preferred candidate.

The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The opinions stated in guest articles are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

2 thoughts on “More ballot access reform is the best way to address historic low voter turnout (Guest post: Chris Powell)

  1. The current duopoly needs to be broken up like AT&T and Standard Oil, and for the same reasons – unfair control of the marketplace. Free market legislators would scream “socialism” if opening and maintaining a car dealership followed the same rules as ballot access.

  2. Felons cannot vote for a time equal to the original sentence. The very definition of felony is a crime punishable by death or penitentiary. I know quite a few felons whose only crimes were possession of drugs, which, in my opinion, if there isn’t an injured party, or intended injured party, should not be a felony and it should have nothing to do with voting rights. The person I know was sentenced to 20 years, served 2, is no longer under any incarceration, but still has to pay taxes, pay thousands in fines, has a very difficult time finding a job because of felony and cannot even vote for the President of the U.S.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.