Rocky Anderson’s Fight For Ballot Access
By Timothy Troutner | 09/10/2012 | Ballot Access, Elections 2012, Electoral Reform, Headline, President | 9 Comments
Credit: voterocky.org
As Romney and Obama march toward November, all eyes are focused on the two parties and their battle for the White House. Many Americans are unaware of the struggle of third-party candidates such as Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson to gain media attention and ballot access.
Rocky Anderson’s fight for ballot access depends on a web of laws governing elections. Although ballot access laws vary from state-to-state, naturally most of them favor candidates who can obtain a large number of signatures. Candidates from minor parties are caught in a vicious cycle of media attention and ballot access. Without media attention and popular support, it is difficult to reach the threshold of signatures. Without ballot access, it is hard to gain media coverage.
Rocky Anderson’s campaign is trying to carve out a niche among voters dissatisfied with the current system, especially those concerned with issues of justice. As the Justice Party website proclaims:
“The two-party system has failed us. The moment has come for American citizens to come together for our mutual benefit to solve the problems that lie before us. The Justice Party issues a clarion call to join our community of concerned Americans demanding social, economic, and environmental justice for all, not just for the wealthiest Americans and their corporations.”
Rocky Anderson’s campaign encountered opposition, both from those who fear his effect on the election and from ballot access laws across the nation. Some fear that Anderson and the Justice Party may take votes away from Democrats. Last year, The Salt Lake City Tribune recorded the words of Thad Hall, a political science professor at the University of Utah:
“Basically what Rocky is saying is he wants a bunch of Republicans to get elected, because what’s going to happen in these situations – he’s going to peel votes away from Democrats and end up electing a bunch of ultra-pro-life, ultra-gun, don’t-tax-the-rich, cut-benefits-to-the-poor people.”
Anderson and his supporters insist that his campaign exists to give Americans another option, which will help shift the political dialogue. According to a recent article in The Salt Lake City Tribune Anderson said:
“We’re in this more than to simply make a statement. We can, with very significant support in the election, make an enormous difference in altering the disastrous direction this country is headed.”
Yet, his influence depends on giving voters a chance to see his name on the ballot. Ballot access laws are a frequent point of complaint for third-party candidates trying to break into the public spotlight. The campaign has faced an uphill battle.
Rocky Anderson has taken an unusual approach, seeking the nomination of a variety of parties from state-to-state. He has achieved ballot access success on the ticket of the Justice Party in several states, the Natural Law Party in Michigan, the Oregon Progressive Party, as well as gaining the nomination of independent parties across the country. The fight to get on the ballot continues.
In a telephone interview, Rocky Anderson said, “We have paperwork turned in in two states, and we’re waiting on those.”
He went on to mention that in a third state, the campaign’s signatures were in legal limbo. The effort has not been without setbacks. Anderson failed to meet signature requirements in Ohio, Arkansas, and several other states. He said that even the threat of a legal challenge can shut down a signature campaign in a state, as the fines associated with the legal challenge are enough to make responding economically impossible. Anderson pointed out that the current system favors the establishment.
“The two parties gather all the spoils… [Our current system] disregards any integrity and sense of democracy.”
The Rocky Anderson campaign is aware of the tremendous challenges facing a third-party campaign. That being said, Anderson sees his campaign as part of a larger movement to restore power to the people, a movement that will take more than just one political candidacy.
“It’s going to take a tremendous people’s movement… and that’s why I founded the Justice Party.”
American political discourse often seems to be caught in a rut. Washington, D.C. seems to be caught in partisan gridlock, and yet many voters don’t find their views represented by either party. The third-party candidacy of Rocky Anderson illustrates the difficulties candidates face in placing their names on the ballot. Still, it is refreshing to see a candidate take a stand on issues often ignored by the two-party system.
Rocky Anderson’s fight for ballot access is the latest in a series of efforts to give Americans another choice.With a fiscal crises and high unemployment, issues of justice often are left behind for “pragmatic” reasons. America, and hopefully the American ballot, will always have a place for candidates who are passionate about the forgotten issues facing this generation.
Leave Your Comment →
9 Comments
Mike Morrato
09.10.2012
Voter mentality that voting for a 3rd party is a “wasted vote”
Propaganda spewed forth by the R’s and D’s that they are the only legitimate parties
Voter apathy in that voters are so numb to the political process that they ignore anything outside of the so called “norm” of which the GOP and Dems are anything but normal.
Most importantly and probably the saddest…money. 3rd parties just can’t raise funds with the same level of success that the R’s and D’s do. And since they don’t have money, they are hard pressed to advertise. And since they can’t advertise to get over the annoying noise that are the PACs and party ads, they can’t get heard. If they aren’t heard they can’t attract new donors and thus they can’t get money. Repeat cycle.
Doesn’t help that the media fails to give them equal airtime even though often these “third party” (more like independent thought) individuals generally have better ideas or at least don’t try to cling to the status quo.
Steve Malloy
09.10.2012
“Although every man in a democracy thinks himself individually the equal of every other man, this makes it difficult to resist the collectivity of equal men. If all opinions are equal, then the majority of opinions, on the psychological analogy of politics, should hold sway. It is very well to say that each should follow his own opinion, but since consensus is required for social and political life, accommodation is necessary. So, unless there is some strong ground for opposition to the majority opinion, it inevitably prevails.”
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (p 246-247)
Kathryn Dalenberg
09.10.2012
http://billmoyers.com/segment/jill-stein-and-cheri-honkala-on-third-party–politics
Duane Dichiara
09.10.2012
I guess my first question to IVN (which I haven’t seen answer many questions here) is: are the rules the same for “IND” candidates (which means different things in different states) as they are for candidates of recognized political parties?
Independent Voter
09.10.2012
Duane Dichiara Duane, as a Republican consultant for whom we have answered questions a few times here, you should know that the “rules” in California treat every candidate the same. This is a result of the non-partisan Open Primary, which removed the institutional barriers to participation that largely conditioned participation based on party affiliation, except for in Presidential election, because the Presidency is a federal office and governed by federal law. Washington has a similar system.
However, most other states across the country have electoral requirements that heavily favor ballot access for major party candidates. This varies not only from state-to-state, but between federal and state offices (per the above).
Bill Wirt
09.10.2012
short answer: the 2 party system
Portier Gary
09.10.2012
money & support
Dana Marie
09.11.2012
start by posting links to independents here…
EJB
09.11.2012
As a member of the Libertarian Party and a supporter of Governor Gary Johnson, I certainly feel the pain of the ridiculous and exclusionary ballot access laws imposed on campaigns such as Mr. Andersons. It takes a huge effort and quite a bit of money to get onto the ballot in all 50 states. Beginning iIn the late 1940′s, ballot access laws in many states were made much more restrictive, departing from a judicially sanctioned government interest of ‘stability’ and ‘clarity of the ballot’ to outright exclusion of third party voices. The motivation was in part anti-socialist, anti-communist sentiment of the time, but also was directed at protecting the Republicans and Democrats from any form of competition. Few realize how important third party politics were in American History. Every single President on Mount Rushmore was at one time or another associated with a third party. Third parties were instrumental in many single-issue reforms, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century. Yet since the Republican’s displaced the Whigs, there has been a move to use exclusionary laws as the basis of limiting public choice in the election of their leaders. Very undemocratic yet our citizenry has only a marginal interest in understanding why they routinely tell pollsters why they don’t like either of their choices (especially prevalent in recent elections).