For Virgil Goode, Ballot Access Proves Challenging
By Trevor Hayes | 09/08/2012 | Ballot Access, Elections 2012, Electoral Reform, Headline, Pennsylvania, President, States | 27 Comments
(Photo credit David P.)
For former congressman Virgil Goode, ballot access in the upcoming presidential race has been a remarkable challenge. Among the international community, the United States has been criticized for having remarkably difficult ballot access requirements for third party candidates.
An unfortunate side effect of these stringent requirements is that it can be difficult for third party platforms and candidates to gain any traction or public exposure. This is also a result of the “first past the post” voting system and how well it lends itself to two party dominance, but more on that later.
In the United States, each individual state has a specific set of laws with regard to ballot access. That means if a candidate does not have the support of either the Democrats or the Republicans, they have to make the rounds from state to state, proving their public support through independent polls, petitions, and other means in order to even appear on the list of candidates.
To make matters more difficult, the requirements for independent candidates and for less-recognized political parties are more demanding than those for major parties.
An example of the hurdles that third party candidates have to contend with is apparent in both Virginia and Pennsylvania law. In Virginia, members of a minor political party must present the state board of elections a petition of at least 10,000 signatures to be added to the ballot.
Pennsylvania has a similar law in which new political parties or independent candidates must collect signatures equal to 2% of the highest vote getter in the most recent election in the jurisdiction– no mean feat.
Despite these hurdles, former Congressman Virgil Goode, who is running for president as the Constitution Party nominee, managed to achieve the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot in both of these states. On August first Goode turned in his petition of 35,000 signatures to the Pennsylvania state election authorities, well over the amount that he needed to appear on the ballot.
In Virginia, he managed to gather 20,500 signatures, granting him access to the ballot in November. Common sense would dictate that if a candidate turns in a petition that is deemed sufficient by current law, he or she should appear on the ballot.
But the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has forced Goode off the ballot with legal threats, and in Virginia, it is threatening to do the same by claiming the Constitution Party candidate has committed petition fraud.
Unfortunately, the fear of third party candidates receiving votes that would otherwise go to a Democrat or a Republican is not exactly new, and Republicans are aware of this. It’s no coincidence then that Pennsylvania and Virginia are both likely to be battleground states in the upcoming presidential race.
Unsurprisingly, Virgil Goode, who is likely to pull votes from Mitt Romney, is having problems remaining on the ballot in both of these states.
On August 21st, the Constitution Party withdrew its ballot petition in Pennsylvania after it was warned of legal costs by lawyers representing the Republican Party, who promised to legally challenge the third party’s petition to gain ballot access. Goode’s running mate, James Clymer told the Philadelphia weekly:
“The challenge represented a monolithic establishment party which is intent on denying people the opportunity to vote for anyone who might criticize it from a limited government, non-interventionist perspective. It used its almost limitless resources to take advantage of laws designed by Republicans and Democrats to make sure no other party has a place at the election table and court decisions that have supported raising the hurdles a third party has to jump over to get to a general election.”
When reached for comment, Virgil Goode had this to say in regards to the formal complaint lodged by the Republican Party against his bid in Virginia:
“The ballot access in Virginia is not equitable because the Republican Party or anyone who files a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request can get a copy of the petitions of all third party and independent candidates, but the petitions of Gov. Romney, Congressman Paul, and others who ran in the primary are in a box with the Chairman of the Republican Party, which, as a private entity, is not subject to the FOIA. That situation should be changed so anyone can FOIA the Republican and Democratic petitions.”
So in addition to meeting the higher requirements of running on a third party ticket, these candidates are then put up to even greater scrutiny because any major party can request to vet their petition to be on the ballot. The intent is to challenge smaller candidates, tying them down with legal fees and lengthy litigation in the hopes that they will simply back down from even trying to get on the ballot.
This is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania, according to James Clymer, as a bit of election year strategy on the part of the Republican Party, which is using its overwhelming resources to block ballot access to a candidate who will likely take votes from Mitt Romney in the general election.
It is difficult to find a more clear example of how the two party system and restrictive ballot access laws can be damaging to our democracy. Actions like these limit the efficacy of government, prevent the possible diversity of a ballot that can better represent the American people as a whole, and ultimately, silence the voices of the people who would have voted for Virgil Goode in November.





Leave Your Comment →
27 Comments
Anthony A Barker
09.08.2012
Absolutely, or why challenge?
Michael O'Toole
09.08.2012
So now they wish to act as bullies to keep a Constitution supporting candidate off ballots. This is the way we would expect old King George to have acted when we were first becoming a an independent nation.
David W. Bowen Sr.
09.08.2012
THE CONSTITUTION ASSURES OUR RIGHT TO VOTE, BUT DOESN’T LIMIT THAT RIGHT TO ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER. WE ARE FREE TO VOTE AS WE SO CHOOSE.
Tylor Reinhardt
09.08.2012
Yes. They have been doing it for a long time.
Paul Chiesman
09.08.2012
It really has to end, we need free elections with representation by honest citizens who are not after a lifetime “free ride.”
Chris Fornesa
09.08.2012
Americans have probably repeatedly voted for only two parties because 1) it’s easier, 2) we’re used to it, 3) the parties that exist use techniques for their constituents to change their minds about subjects rather than have the platforms themselves change, 4) corporate powers have always influenced elections but now, more than ever, their power is exceeded due to Citizens United vs. FEC and the parties receive this money despite constituents’ wishes, and 5) only 2 other parties may participate in all 50 states this election, a grand total of 4 (European elections have way more parties which is how, for example the Green Party, has flourished there despite its status as an “Independent” party in America) because our Constitution was written in a manner so that only a limited number of parties could participate nationally.
Janelle D. Wheeler
09.08.2012
It’s a bought and paid for elitist agenda in the 2 party system. They do not want any “Ron Pauls” to shake up there deal! Wake up America!
Mike Pincher
09.08.2012
Not fearful, UTTERLY TERRIFIED.
Ann Wood
09.08.2012
we are a REPUBLIC. a democratic REPUBLIC. there is a huge diff and we want to be a REPUBLIC.
Ann Wood
09.08.2012
the party system…2 party, 3 party, none of it is in the constitution. no conventions. no parties running the elections. it’s s mess.
Pam Mercier
09.08.2012
After seeing what the RNC did to Ron Paul…with the willing collusion of the mainstream media, we don’t really get to chose much of anything, because the powers that be, don’t give a rat’s butt about us.
Edward Theilmann
09.08.2012
DON”T VOTE FOR EITHER OF THE TWO CORPORATE PARTIES ! it’s the only way we will ever get control of our government .No matter what they promise you they never deliver because they are owned and beholding to the corporations owned by the rich and will always do as they are told to protect those owners. Want change? Then vote for independents and or the Green Party . http://www.jillstein.org/
Brandon Magoon
09.08.2012
For the 15,879,645 time there is no evidence that “3rd” parties take votes away from the legacy parties and in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory that the legacy parties take votes from “3rd” parties. If you look at polling data (you know, facts and stuff) you see that “3rd” party candidates tend to under preform. That’s the old party taking votes. You also have to consider the fact that opposition parties have to meet unfair ballot access rules and the legacy parties are given tax money to run their operations and campaigns.This was even pointed this out by Nader back in 2000 at the National Press Club the day after the election. The polling data vs the election returns shows the old parties take votes from the new parties. And there’s another point that is always over looked. The percentage of the vote doesn’t mean that much unless you know what percent of the voting population knows the candidate. For example if some body get’s 5% well that sucks if you look at the whole population. But a lot of 3rd party candidates aren’t known by the whole population. If I get 500,000 votes out of 1,000,000 voters who know me, suddenly the low percentage of the total population takes on a new meaning.
Scott W. Trent Jr.
09.08.2012
I agree, WE have to bow out….. I know it’s hard on folks but UNTIL you get the MLK & Gandhi message and STOP playing THEIR game, nothing will change. THE american vote has to be WILLING to vote for some one, any one OTHER THEN the ones in the two parties. THE DAY they do and that day has a 1/3 or more voters that way, maybe? one could hope for 50%, THAT is the DAY you will begin to see change…. FEAR is a great movitvator …..!!!!!!
Trevor Hayes
09.09.2012
Brandon, show some polling data if you want to make an argument. If someone wants to vote for Virgil Goode, who supports conservative values, and he drops off the ticket, what are they going to do? They’re still going to vote, they’re just going to find the next best candidate. Conservative strategists know this, hence why they are challenging him at every turn.
Mark Bellamy
09.09.2012
Absolutely…they only cooperate to keep other parties from participating in the system. Or debates.
Bruce Stevens
09.09.2012
They are scared to death of a third party. They worked together to keep those big welfare checks coming into every elected scumbag
Tina Stephens
09.09.2012
We are a republic maybe thats the first problem everyone should relize!!!!
Scot Douglas
09.09.2012
If a third party can’t even manage to get the number of signatures/votes that are required to get on the ballot, they aren’t going to win an election.
Scot Douglas
09.09.2012
Uh, to claim that 3d parties ‘under perform’ is to assume that they would necessarily get more votes than they do. Unwarranted.
Scot Douglas
09.09.2012
1) We don’t have a parliamentary system. 2) Even well run parliamentary systems have two major parties.
Scot Douglas
09.09.2012
Y’all forget that the states elect the President, not the people.
Timothy Johnson
09.09.2012
@Timothy Johnson
Hey my take is that Romney is really a make-believe conservative. He picked Paul Ryan so there would at least be one conservative on the ticket. The Republicans talk conservatism but offer a career moderate for President. Is that really what we want? Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party is a real conservative. He’s been a four term Republican congressman from here in Virginia’s 5th District. He’s the real deal for conservatives, no apologizing for him. Check out Virgil Goode and the platform of the Constitution Party for honest conservatism. Let’s not fool ourselves into supporting a moderate Romney for the future of America. He’s got no original ideas, no specifics are given. He’s 65 years old already! His future is not our future. So I looked up the Constitution Party and got information, you should too. Virgil Goode and Jim Clymer offer a much better alternative to Romney and Obama. The Republicans feel threatened by a real conservative, they’re trying to throw Goode and Clymer off the ballot in Virginia and have done so in Pennsylvania by suing them knowing that Goode doesn’t have the money to defend himself. Don’t let the Republican machine and SuperPAC money limit your choices. Support Virgil Goode as the true conservative’s choice for President.
Gloria Buchanan
09.09.2012
He should not be on the ballot…he is not a valid canidate
Glen Ten-Eyck
09.09.2012
Gloria: Define a VALID candidate. If he meets the legal rules, he is valid, whether he gets any press or is an out and out nutcase.
William Allen
09.09.2012
To Gloria: How do you define a “valid” candidate for President? According to the Constitution, he meets the qualifications.
William Allen
09.09.2012
To Scot: You are right and you are wrong about the Presidential election. Yes, the electoral college ultimately picks the President, but electors are not free agents who just vote on a whim. In most States, by law, they must all vote for the candidate who won the majority of votes in that State. There have actually only been 4 instances where the candidate who won more popular votes lost the election on electoral votes, these are the exceptions, not the norm so voting for President does count.