I’m trying to learn what your savvy readers may prefer as a general ballot access framework for Illinois residents to become candidates for office. Would it be much trouble for you to run a quick poll?
One of the items I voted for included ‘pay a fee’. I will qualify that by saying the fee fee should be enough to discourage vanity filing but also small enough to not disqualify most people. I realize that is vague but I’m thinking something in the $100 to $1,000 range. Maybe it even needs to be a sliding scale based on the size of the voting district for the office.
- Former Downstater - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:12 pm:
I agree with RNUG. If we maintain a signature requirement, it needs to be reduced for Cook countywide races, and have a cap of how many signatures can be filed to allow for more efficient vetting and challenges.
I voted to continue to require signatures and also to allow Clerks to forward filings to the Electoral Board for review.
I think there should be some threshold met (signatures) to demonstrate sincerity and a modicum of organizational ability. I could be persuaded that, instead of signatures, candidates had to raise a certain amount of money from at least 100 residents in the district to show viability/sincerity etc. But I think we need something more than a birth certificate and a check for the filing fee.
I don’t think we should have a higher threshold for non-established parties. I’d rather have several political party nominees competing in a general than a bunch of non-Democrats running to win the Democratic nomination. I don’t feel strongly enough about that to vote though.
And anything that makes the petition challenge process faster and fairer is welcome. Not sure this proposal does that, but it’s worth a try.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:18 pm:
I think the signature requirement should be lower. However, with no requirement, j think there would be a lot of joke candidates like there are in countries that mandate free airtime on TV for all candidates.
Went with signatures, no fee. RNUG is right about vanity filing, but there are so many lesser offices in smaller districts that really don’t have that problem. Getting the signatures requires some effort/equity in the process, but it’s sweat equity rather than financial.
- 32nd Ward Roscoe Village - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:21 pm:
I agree with RNUG, a fee but lower fee. I believe in ballot access, so no signatures, and if you have to have signatures, no restrictions that if you sign one persons petition to get on the ballot you can’t sign someone else’s.
RNUG, I voted for signatures, but no fee for similar reasons. I think the legwork needed to collect signatures should be high enough to weed out vanity candidates (but should be MUCH lower than in most current races - see Chicago mayor). But since most Americans can’t come up with $400 in an emergency, I think the fee barrier (and the general fundraising needs for a campaign) keeps regular people from competing and attaining office.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:23 pm:
I voted for a certain number of signatures because there should be some level of support for an individual but it should be much lower, perhaps 100 per defined election district. Also, registered voters should be able to sign multiple petitions. Prior to the primary I as a voter probably have not made up my mind and want a choice of candidates. Finally, there should not be any fee other than a small processing fee, $50 and it could be a sliding scale fee based on the size of the election district.
And agree with 32nd - should be able to sign for multiple candidates. I think signature collections demonstrate that you are capable of organization and interacting with voters. Why shouldn’t we be able to support multiple candidates accessing the ballot and evaluating them against one another during the electoral process?
I think some signature requirement can be a good thing to prevent an overstuffed ballot - for example, I could see this allowing incumbents to confuse and split the opposition more than they do already.
However, I agree that the number of signatures should be lowered somewhat.
I would prefer to see a hybrid whereas you need to collect 500 signatures for State Rep (current law) or pay $500 filing fee, or some combination there of, so you could collect 250 signatures, pay $250 and meet the threshold.
This limits vanity filings, but provides equal ballot access so that people do not have the money can go get signatures, and those serious candidates will pay the fee to ensure they will not get bounced on signatures, but still collect signatures to show widespread support.
There should also be a fee paid to file challenges to petitions to stop frivolous challenges. If you file a challenge and LOSE you need to pay electoral board legal costs.
- What's in a name? - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:27 pm:
I voted for a fee and no signatures. The fee needs to be high enough to fend off vanity and crazies as has been suggested. I am not troubled by the fee being more than nominal because if you can’t convince enough people to collectively come up with $1,000 or even $5000 (should depend on the office) maybe you don’t have much of a message. I also would support a refund of a higher amount if the candidate gets 5% or another number high enough to demonstrate he or she was a real candidate.
- TopHatMonocle - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:32 pm:
One thing desperately needed are petition signature maximums at every level, not just state offices. Fraudulent signatures are out of control without them.
I voted for the ballot being accessible to anyone. My asterisk is that instant runoff voting must also be used.
If you want to run for office, you should be able to get on the ballot as easily as possible if eligible.
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
I voted for signatures, no fee, and clerks forwarding deficient filings. The clerk action is a no-brainer, and I assume it is already possible if the clerk lives in the district. The clerk could also privately (and perhaps publicly) call for someone in that district to object.
For signatures, I would like to see a rule that guarantees ballot access using the existing thresholds while also guaranteeing the top 3 signature getters access as well. If you are under the threshold but still in the top 3, you would still get ballot access.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
$1000 is not going to stop neither joke candidate nor shenanigans. @Chipartyaunt could raise $1000 in a hot second through GoFundMe or whatever to get on the ballot.
Although I am kind of a hypocrite because there is a non-zero chance I vote @ChiPartyAunt for mayor.
Voted for no signatures, no fee, but I find signatures to be outdated. Candidates should have to show some level of support, but why on a numbered paper form? It’s too open to abuse and only those that get challenged get scrutinized. Has to be a better way.
Agree with NeverPC, votes signatures but no fee other than a processing fee. Gathering signatures requires someone do some actual work and offers at least some legitimacy as far as support goes.
And also a big thanks to Clerk Yarbrough for considering the opinions of Rich’s……readership? Is “readership” the right word? “Followers” sounds too cult-y.
I voted for the bottom three on the poll. It shouldn’t be so easy to get on the ballot. If you can’t get the requisite number of signatures, then you really aren’t a serious candidate. And for the person who used the example of Chicago Mayor as an example of why we should have fewer signature requirements, I think that is a bad example! There are 14 people on the ballot, and in my opinion, having so many candidates has had a negative impact on this race. Just my opinion.
- I Miss Bentohs - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:44 pm:
I did not see my most preferred option:
Need signature plus a fee
I only clicked the third option as I simply think no signatures, not on ballot.
I think there should be more than a “gosh I wanna be an elected official” as a requirement. Especially if public financing of campaigns are going to be pushed forward.
Look everyone should be able to run for office at the same time they should have a little more drive than just downloading a form and dropping $100 bucks in the mail. I guess every millennial and their sister will be running at that point.
You think there were a lot of folks for mayor now? imagine if all you had to do was prove residence, age and pay a fee? That ballot would have 10,000 names on it.
It should be a deposit, where you need to hit a certain percent of the vote to get it back to prevent ballot clutter. That’s how it is done in the United Kingdom.
For instance to run for Alderman it could be you need to put up $1,000 and only get it back if you get more than 10% of the vote.
I support a signature requirement, but not a fee. Money should not be a prerequisite for running for office. Not an lone option on the list is that eligibility should be proven as well. Setting a reasonable signature requirement demonstrates one’s ability to garner support from the electorate.
I am definitely opposed to making newly-formed parties have more stringent qualification requirements, but along with that election law should either be ranked choice voting or a runoff if no one gets an outright majority so that third-place & below candidates (primary or general) can’t make election outcomes go against majority preference and eliminate the game theory most voters face of feeling the need to vote for one of the candidates they suspect will finish top two.
- ste_wit a v_en - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:20 pm:
I voted for a fee with no signatures. The whole signature process (all on paper) and review period is good for lawyers and not for candidates.
Voted for Sig requirement and no or a nominal processing fee. Expanding upon this, the sig requirement to run county/citywide need should be lowered along with a max sig submission amount to encourage ‘good’ sig collection practices.
Florida has an interesting way of doing it.
Candidate filing fees
In Florida, candidates are required to pay filing fees and election assessment fees to the Division of Elections when qualifying. A party assessment fee may also be required, if the party the candidate is running with elects to levy one. For political party candidates, total fees are equal to 6 percent of the annual salary of the office being sought (i.e., a 3 percent filing fee, a 1 percent election assessment, and a 2 percent party assessment). For unaffiliated candidates, total fees are equal to 4 percent of the annual salary of the office being sought. (i.e., a 3 percent filing fee and a 1 percent election assessment).[8]
A candidate may waive the required filing fees if he or she submits an in-lieu-of-filing-fee petition with signatures equal to at least 1 percent of the total number of registered voters in the geographical area represented by the office being sought. Signatures for this petition may not be collected until the candidate has filed the appointment of campaign treasurer and designation of campaign depository form, and the completed petition must be filed by the 28th day preceding the first day of the qualifying period for the office being sought. This petition must be filed with the supervisor of elections in each county in which the petition was circulated in order to verify the signatures. The supervisor of elections in the county must then certify the number of valid signatures to the Florida Division of Elections no later than seven days prior to the first day of the corresponding qualifying period.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:25 pm:
I voted to continue a signature requirement. I do think they should be lowered for most offices, as they are designed to benefit existing organizations. But some requirement is appropriate. Maybe 500 for local offices and 1000 for statewide. Not inconsequential but not overly burdensome like the existing system where the highest requirements are reserved for Cook County officials.
I voted for signatures, no fees. Agree with others that signature requirements should be exponentially lowered. Signature requirements should be uniform with no preference for established parties.
I voted for both signatures and a fee, as RNUG described and justified.
No preference for new/established parties.
Also, no restrictions on how many different candidates a petition signer may support for the same office. We should have many choices among candidates whom we find acceptable.
The signatures are the fee. Not only does it require effort, but it’s the first chance for a candidate to ask a voter to “vote for me”. Parties should have to have some level of legitimacy. Clerks should be able to send cuckoos straight over to the Election Commission if they’re that far out of whack and easy to discern from the first look at them.
I voted for fee, no signatures because of the unnecessary battling over signatures takes valuable time from election administrators in the challenge process against clearly eligible, viable candidates. I would also support the ability to substitute signatures for the fee to allow grassroots candidates an equal chance of ballot eligibility if they have low budgets. Washington makes the fee 1% of the office’s salary or 1 signature/dollar of filing fee. Seems like a reasonable system to me.
There should be no signature requirement for people who have similar sounding names as the opponent to the opponent. Shaw can go find a new job somewhere else.
- White Sox in ‘19 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:17 pm:
I’m tried of people asking for signatures. The less I put my name on stuff the better. Besides, most people who sign are low informed voter. Can’t stand watching pols collect signatures in a school gym while holding back funding for schools, undermining teachers or unwilling to move a budget forward.There has to be a better process.
- White Sox in ‘19 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:20 pm:
I support an either or approach - either signatures or a fee. Many campaigns pay gatherers on a per signature basis, that rate can be the basis for a fee in lieu of signatures. If a candidate wants to avoid a fee then the traditional signature method applies. However, as some have noted here people are less willing to sign petitions as a “civic duty”. An alternative fee system would help in areas where that attitude is most prevalent.
I also support clerks identifying deficient petitions. The challenge process is slow enough as is and it doesn’t need to consider obviously deficient petitions.
- Not a Billionaire - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:59 pm:
I think it should be a small fee like RNUG and or a smaller number of signatures.
County Clerks already have the limited power to refuse to certify petition filings that are deficient upon their face. Clerks are not to make an exhaustive review, but to reject petitions without a Statement of Candidacy or a Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests.
As for the other items on Yarbrough’s wish list, I do not see any of the features gaining traction in the legislature BECAUSE MADIGAN.
I voted signature, no fee. Signature requirements need to be low.
We need structures like Instant Runoff Voting to eliminate the spoiler effect, help break the two party duopoly, and ensure that the final candidate has a majority of popular support.
I went with collecting a certain number of signatures with no fee. I believe it is useful to demonstrate that a candidate has a level of support to be on the ballot. I would also support a provision that circulators would need to live in the jurisdiction for which the petitions are being circulated to further demonstrate support. The signature requirement should not be egregiously high, nor should they be greater for independent or third party candidates. The burden of challenging signatures should fall to citizens or election authorities to challenge.
I don’t think the current system is bad on paper. The most absurd is how much litigation happens especially around signatures. You shouldn’t need to retain a law firm to get on the ballot. Couple a strong presumption of petition validity with some non-adversarial method of sample testing and close the book on this.
In addition to what to signatures, not fees, I also agree that voters should be allowed to sign petitions for multiple candidates, and this should not be limited to “Ds only for D’s, Rs only for Rs”.
New/3rd parties should not have greater hurdles than established parties.
And regarding fees and # of signatures requirements: as someone who was a limited-income single mom running for school board, a requirement that a filing fee be paid might well have kept me out of the race. I totally get wanting to keep crackpots and vanity candidates off the ballot, but they might be one of the prices we pay for democracy. It’s easy to say, “it’s just $50 (or $500), when your income is $50,000. That $50 might be a week’s groceries or monthly electric bill for some. $500 might well be a good chunk of someone’s rent. Aren’t there better places to squeeze folks at?
As I read responses, I’m also questioning how acquainted folks are with government in small towns. Some offices (school board, village trustee) that receive no payment. Some small town mayors and village clerks only get monthly stipends of $200 or $400.
And some places may have 100 or fewer voters. Do we really want a blanket number for signatures, when 50 may be 20% or more of the votes available in that particular race.
As many here have said, there should be some modest barrier to entry to ensure that those who appear on the ballot are serious candidates.
Dorothy Brown, however, appeared to be a serious candidate who just fell short of a very high barrier to entry - that’s the kind of thing we should be avoiding. Just what the right number of signatures should be would take some brainstorming and discussion, but 12,500 seems much too high.
There most definitely should NOT be a higher signature requirement for non-established parties. All this does is perpetuate a two-party system, which is not healthy for democracy.
Petition signers should also be able to sign for any number of candidates. If they want to help more than one person get on the ballot, why stop them? The existing restriction seems like a restriction on speech to me.
- Metro East Transplant - Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 8:32 am:
Signatures, no fee got my vote. It appears we all have the same thought when voting for this option.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:10 pm:
One of the items I voted for included ‘pay a fee’. I will qualify that by saying the fee fee should be enough to discourage vanity filing but also small enough to not disqualify most people. I realize that is vague but I’m thinking something in the $100 to $1,000 range. Maybe it even needs to be a sliding scale based on the size of the voting district for the office.
- Former Downstater - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:12 pm:
I agree with RNUG. If we maintain a signature requirement, it needs to be reduced for Cook countywide races, and have a cap of how many signatures can be filed to allow for more efficient vetting and challenges.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:12 pm:
I voted to continue to require signatures and also to allow Clerks to forward filings to the Electoral Board for review.
I think there should be some threshold met (signatures) to demonstrate sincerity and a modicum of organizational ability. I could be persuaded that, instead of signatures, candidates had to raise a certain amount of money from at least 100 residents in the district to show viability/sincerity etc. But I think we need something more than a birth certificate and a check for the filing fee.
I don’t think we should have a higher threshold for non-established parties. I’d rather have several political party nominees competing in a general than a bunch of non-Democrats running to win the Democratic nomination. I don’t feel strongly enough about that to vote though.
And anything that makes the petition challenge process faster and fairer is welcome. Not sure this proposal does that, but it’s worth a try.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:18 pm:
I think the signature requirement should be lower. However, with no requirement, j think there would be a lot of joke candidates like there are in countries that mandate free airtime on TV for all candidates.
- Stormfield - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:20 pm:
Went with signatures, no fee. RNUG is right about vanity filing, but there are so many lesser offices in smaller districts that really don’t have that problem. Getting the signatures requires some effort/equity in the process, but it’s sweat equity rather than financial.
- 32nd Ward Roscoe Village - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:21 pm:
I agree with RNUG, a fee but lower fee. I believe in ballot access, so no signatures, and if you have to have signatures, no restrictions that if you sign one persons petition to get on the ballot you can’t sign someone else’s.
- lakeside - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
RNUG, I voted for signatures, but no fee for similar reasons. I think the legwork needed to collect signatures should be high enough to weed out vanity candidates (but should be MUCH lower than in most current races - see Chicago mayor). But since most Americans can’t come up with $400 in an emergency, I think the fee barrier (and the general fundraising needs for a campaign) keeps regular people from competing and attaining office.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:23 pm:
I voted for a certain number of signatures because there should be some level of support for an individual but it should be much lower, perhaps 100 per defined election district. Also, registered voters should be able to sign multiple petitions. Prior to the primary I as a voter probably have not made up my mind and want a choice of candidates. Finally, there should not be any fee other than a small processing fee, $50 and it could be a sliding scale fee based on the size of the election district.
- lakeside - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
And agree with 32nd - should be able to sign for multiple candidates. I think signature collections demonstrate that you are capable of organization and interacting with voters. Why shouldn’t we be able to support multiple candidates accessing the ballot and evaluating them against one another during the electoral process?
- Actual Red - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
I think some signature requirement can be a good thing to prevent an overstuffed ballot - for example, I could see this allowing incumbents to confuse and split the opposition more than they do already.
However, I agree that the number of signatures should be lowered somewhat.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
I would prefer to see a hybrid whereas you need to collect 500 signatures for State Rep (current law) or pay $500 filing fee, or some combination there of, so you could collect 250 signatures, pay $250 and meet the threshold.
This limits vanity filings, but provides equal ballot access so that people do not have the money can go get signatures, and those serious candidates will pay the fee to ensure they will not get bounced on signatures, but still collect signatures to show widespread support.
There should also be a fee paid to file challenges to petitions to stop frivolous challenges. If you file a challenge and LOSE you need to pay electoral board legal costs.
- What's in a name? - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:27 pm:
I voted for a fee and no signatures. The fee needs to be high enough to fend off vanity and crazies as has been suggested. I am not troubled by the fee being more than nominal because if you can’t convince enough people to collectively come up with $1,000 or even $5000 (should depend on the office) maybe you don’t have much of a message. I also would support a refund of a higher amount if the candidate gets 5% or another number high enough to demonstrate he or she was a real candidate.
- TopHatMonocle - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:32 pm:
One thing desperately needed are petition signature maximums at every level, not just state offices. Fraudulent signatures are out of control without them.
- Lefty Lefty - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:32 pm:
I voted for the ballot being accessible to anyone. My asterisk is that instant runoff voting must also be used.
If you want to run for office, you should be able to get on the ballot as easily as possible if eligible.
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
I voted for signatures, no fee, and clerks forwarding deficient filings. The clerk action is a no-brainer, and I assume it is already possible if the clerk lives in the district. The clerk could also privately (and perhaps publicly) call for someone in that district to object.
For signatures, I would like to see a rule that guarantees ballot access using the existing thresholds while also guaranteeing the top 3 signature getters access as well. If you are under the threshold but still in the top 3, you would still get ballot access.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
$1000 is not going to stop neither joke candidate nor shenanigans. @Chipartyaunt could raise $1000 in a hot second through GoFundMe or whatever to get on the ballot.
Although I am kind of a hypocrite because there is a non-zero chance I vote @ChiPartyAunt for mayor.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:34 pm:
Agree with RNUG. And credit to Karen Yarbrough for reaching out to Rich.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:35 pm:
Having to pay a fee to run for office seems incredibly offensive to me. It shouldn’t cost anything to participate in the democratic process.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:36 pm:
Voted signatures, no fees.
Work the signature matrix to allow ALL access, but there’s something to be said for the process.
The process of getting out and getting signatures, important to show a commitment.
- evolve - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:39 pm:
Voted for no signatures, no fee, but I find signatures to be outdated. Candidates should have to show some level of support, but why on a numbered paper form? It’s too open to abuse and only those that get challenged get scrutinized. Has to be a better way.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:39 pm:
Agree with NeverPC, votes signatures but no fee other than a processing fee. Gathering signatures requires someone do some actual work and offers at least some legitimacy as far as support goes.
And also a big thanks to Clerk Yarbrough for considering the opinions of Rich’s……readership? Is “readership” the right word? “Followers” sounds too cult-y.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:42 pm:
===And also a big thanks to Clerk Yarbrough===
Agreed.
That’s why this is the place. Rich’s blog is the best place to get a sample. Thanks to Rich too for putting it up
- Powdered Whig - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:42 pm:
I voted for the bottom three on the poll. It shouldn’t be so easy to get on the ballot. If you can’t get the requisite number of signatures, then you really aren’t a serious candidate. And for the person who used the example of Chicago Mayor as an example of why we should have fewer signature requirements, I think that is a bad example! There are 14 people on the ballot, and in my opinion, having so many candidates has had a negative impact on this race. Just my opinion.
- I Miss Bentohs - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:44 pm:
I did not see my most preferred option:
Need signature plus a fee
I only clicked the third option as I simply think no signatures, not on ballot.
- JoanP - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:44 pm:
I voted for signatures, no fee. Putting forth the effort to gather signatures shows a degree of seriousness.
I do think that people should be able to sign petitions for multiple candidates.
- perry noya - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:51 pm:
Bust up the two-party cartel.
- Dupage Bard - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:06 pm:
I think there should be more than a “gosh I wanna be an elected official” as a requirement. Especially if public financing of campaigns are going to be pushed forward.
Look everyone should be able to run for office at the same time they should have a little more drive than just downloading a form and dropping $100 bucks in the mail. I guess every millennial and their sister will be running at that point.
You think there were a lot of folks for mayor now? imagine if all you had to do was prove residence, age and pay a fee? That ballot would have 10,000 names on it.
- Fax Machine - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:10 pm:
It should be a deposit, where you need to hit a certain percent of the vote to get it back to prevent ballot clutter. That’s how it is done in the United Kingdom.
For instance to run for Alderman it could be you need to put up $1,000 and only get it back if you get more than 10% of the vote.
- Fav human. - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:11 pm:
Signatures, no fee. Agree with the max signatures that should be required. 500 for state/large county/city office, 75 for others.
In the UK you pay a fee to be on the ballot, but get it back if you pass a certain threshold. 5%, perhaps?
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:12 pm:
I support a signature requirement, but not a fee. Money should not be a prerequisite for running for office. Not an lone option on the list is that eligibility should be proven as well. Setting a reasonable signature requirement demonstrates one’s ability to garner support from the electorate.
- workerbee - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:12 pm:
I agree with RNUG
- 62656 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:17 pm:
I am definitely opposed to making newly-formed parties have more stringent qualification requirements, but along with that election law should either be ranked choice voting or a runoff if no one gets an outright majority so that third-place & below candidates (primary or general) can’t make election outcomes go against majority preference and eliminate the game theory most voters face of feeling the need to vote for one of the candidates they suspect will finish top two.
- ste_wit a v_en - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:20 pm:
I voted for a fee with no signatures. The whole signature process (all on paper) and review period is good for lawyers and not for candidates.
- CT Resident - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:22 pm:
Voted for Sig requirement and no or a nominal processing fee. Expanding upon this, the sig requirement to run county/citywide need should be lowered along with a max sig submission amount to encourage ‘good’ sig collection practices.
- ste_wit a v_en - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:25 pm:
Florida has an interesting way of doing it.
Candidate filing fees
In Florida, candidates are required to pay filing fees and election assessment fees to the Division of Elections when qualifying. A party assessment fee may also be required, if the party the candidate is running with elects to levy one. For political party candidates, total fees are equal to 6 percent of the annual salary of the office being sought (i.e., a 3 percent filing fee, a 1 percent election assessment, and a 2 percent party assessment). For unaffiliated candidates, total fees are equal to 4 percent of the annual salary of the office being sought. (i.e., a 3 percent filing fee and a 1 percent election assessment).[8]
A candidate may waive the required filing fees if he or she submits an in-lieu-of-filing-fee petition with signatures equal to at least 1 percent of the total number of registered voters in the geographical area represented by the office being sought. Signatures for this petition may not be collected until the candidate has filed the appointment of campaign treasurer and designation of campaign depository form, and the completed petition must be filed by the 28th day preceding the first day of the qualifying period for the office being sought. This petition must be filed with the supervisor of elections in each county in which the petition was circulated in order to verify the signatures. The supervisor of elections in the county must then certify the number of valid signatures to the Florida Division of Elections no later than seven days prior to the first day of the corresponding qualifying period.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:25 pm:
I voted to continue a signature requirement. I do think they should be lowered for most offices, as they are designed to benefit existing organizations. But some requirement is appropriate. Maybe 500 for local offices and 1000 for statewide. Not inconsequential but not overly burdensome like the existing system where the highest requirements are reserved for Cook County officials.
- Quiet Sage - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:26 pm:
I voted for signatures, no fees. Agree with others that signature requirements should be exponentially lowered. Signature requirements should be uniform with no preference for established parties.
- Hieronymus - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:28 pm:
I voted for both signatures and a fee, as RNUG described and justified.
No preference for new/established parties.
Also, no restrictions on how many different candidates a petition signer may support for the same office. We should have many choices among candidates whom we find acceptable.
- A guy - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:32 pm:
The signatures are the fee. Not only does it require effort, but it’s the first chance for a candidate to ask a voter to “vote for me”. Parties should have to have some level of legitimacy. Clerks should be able to send cuckoos straight over to the Election Commission if they’re that far out of whack and easy to discern from the first look at them.
- Dome Gnome - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 4:54 pm:
My vote was for no signatures and a fee, but I would want the fee to be reasonable. $500 seems about right to me.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 5:26 pm:
Both are needed.
- OutOfState - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 5:30 pm:
I voted for fee, no signatures because of the unnecessary battling over signatures takes valuable time from election administrators in the challenge process against clearly eligible, viable candidates. I would also support the ability to substitute signatures for the fee to allow grassroots candidates an equal chance of ballot eligibility if they have low budgets. Washington makes the fee 1% of the office’s salary or 1 signature/dollar of filing fee. Seems like a reasonable system to me.
- Not It - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 5:37 pm:
There should be no signature requirement for people who have similar sounding names as the opponent to the opponent. Shaw can go find a new job somewhere else.
- White Sox in ‘19 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:17 pm:
I’m tried of people asking for signatures. The less I put my name on stuff the better. Besides, most people who sign are low informed voter. Can’t stand watching pols collect signatures in a school gym while holding back funding for schools, undermining teachers or unwilling to move a budget forward.There has to be a better process.
- White Sox in ‘19 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:20 pm:
Voted no signatures, no opinion on fee. My bad.
- muon - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:26 pm:
I support an either or approach - either signatures or a fee. Many campaigns pay gatherers on a per signature basis, that rate can be the basis for a fee in lieu of signatures. If a candidate wants to avoid a fee then the traditional signature method applies. However, as some have noted here people are less willing to sign petitions as a “civic duty”. An alternative fee system would help in areas where that attitude is most prevalent.
I also support clerks identifying deficient petitions. The challenge process is slow enough as is and it doesn’t need to consider obviously deficient petitions.
- Not a Billionaire - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 6:59 pm:
I think it should be a small fee like RNUG and or a smaller number of signatures.
- Practical Politics - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 7:25 pm:
County Clerks already have the limited power to refuse to certify petition filings that are deficient upon their face. Clerks are not to make an exhaustive review, but to reject petitions without a Statement of Candidacy or a Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests.
As for the other items on Yarbrough’s wish list, I do not see any of the features gaining traction in the legislature BECAUSE MADIGAN.
- Odysseus - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 7:49 pm:
I voted signature, no fee. Signature requirements need to be low.
We need structures like Instant Runoff Voting to eliminate the spoiler effect, help break the two party duopoly, and ensure that the final candidate has a majority of popular support.
- Duopoly - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 8:54 pm:
- perry noya - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 3:51 pm:
Bust up the two-party cartel=
Yes. More of this.
- Duopoly - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 8:58 pm:
=The fee needs to be high enough to fend off vanity and crazies … =
Statewide - It would have to be awfully high to have stop another Rauner.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 9:43 pm:
Fifty bucks, fifty signatures. Clear a low bar with a little (but not zero) effort.
- Lynn S. - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 9:54 pm:
I voted signatures, no fee.
- RWP - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 10:10 pm:
I went with collecting a certain number of signatures with no fee. I believe it is useful to demonstrate that a candidate has a level of support to be on the ballot. I would also support a provision that circulators would need to live in the jurisdiction for which the petitions are being circulated to further demonstrate support. The signature requirement should not be egregiously high, nor should they be greater for independent or third party candidates. The burden of challenging signatures should fall to citizens or election authorities to challenge.
- GC - Wednesday, Feb 13, 19 @ 10:28 pm:
I don’t think the current system is bad on paper. The most absurd is how much litigation happens especially around signatures. You shouldn’t need to retain a law firm to get on the ballot. Couple a strong presumption of petition validity with some non-adversarial method of sample testing and close the book on this.
- Lynn S. - Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 12:48 am:
In addition to what to signatures, not fees, I also agree that voters should be allowed to sign petitions for multiple candidates, and this should not be limited to “Ds only for D’s, Rs only for Rs”.
New/3rd parties should not have greater hurdles than established parties.
And regarding fees and # of signatures requirements: as someone who was a limited-income single mom running for school board, a requirement that a filing fee be paid might well have kept me out of the race. I totally get wanting to keep crackpots and vanity candidates off the ballot, but they might be one of the prices we pay for democracy. It’s easy to say, “it’s just $50 (or $500), when your income is $50,000. That $50 might be a week’s groceries or monthly electric bill for some. $500 might well be a good chunk of someone’s rent. Aren’t there better places to squeeze folks at?
- Lynn S. - Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 12:56 am:
As I read responses, I’m also questioning how acquainted folks are with government in small towns. Some offices (school board, village trustee) that receive no payment. Some small town mayors and village clerks only get monthly stipends of $200 or $400.
And some places may have 100 or fewer voters. Do we really want a blanket number for signatures, when 50 may be 20% or more of the votes available in that particular race.
- Techie - Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 8:19 am:
As many here have said, there should be some modest barrier to entry to ensure that those who appear on the ballot are serious candidates.
Dorothy Brown, however, appeared to be a serious candidate who just fell short of a very high barrier to entry - that’s the kind of thing we should be avoiding. Just what the right number of signatures should be would take some brainstorming and discussion, but 12,500 seems much too high.
There most definitely should NOT be a higher signature requirement for non-established parties. All this does is perpetuate a two-party system, which is not healthy for democracy.
Petition signers should also be able to sign for any number of candidates. If they want to help more than one person get on the ballot, why stop them? The existing restriction seems like a restriction on speech to me.
- Metro East Transplant - Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 8:32 am:
Signatures, no fee got my vote. It appears we all have the same thought when voting for this option.