“Just as representation without voters has little meaning, voting without free choice cannot result in representative government and becomes nothing more than the people’s periodic renunciation of their sovereignty.”
- Giovanni Sartori in The Theory of Democracy Revisited

Most political scientists would agree that there is one basic criterion or variable upon which the legitimacy of government hangs. That criterion is that of frequent and free elections. Moreover, there must be choice among candidates; and the voter’s choice should have a fair chance—however remote—of winning. Through frequent and public elections the people are able to have a voice in electing those who will administer their government and who will make choices on their behalf. Those whose choice succeeds in an election likely have a stronger belief that government is legitimate; conversely those whose choices lose the election will likely believe less strongly in the government’s legitimacy. Nevertheless, political scientists typically agree that that loss does not equate to the absence of legitimacy, though a citizen may not agree with the office holder. . However, a government’s legitimacy rests on knowing that everyone has a chance at being represented by the possibility of electing their preferred candidate to office through free and open elections.

Put bluntly, we do not see people raiding the US Congress or White House every two or four years with guns and pitchforks because their candidates lost the election. Instead, the supporters of those losing candidates accept the results of the election as long as foul play or fraud is not evident and accept the legitimacy of those elected in most cases, despite their personal view of the person in office. This all sounds great and wonderful and even plausible. However, I submit to you that there is one major flaw in this idea.

The flaw itself is not contained directly in the idea or simple construct, but the actual application and definition of elections, and more importantly free elections. If one is speaking of the simple ability to cast a vote, then yes we have free elections. The right to vote in its most basic form is being able to vote; women fought for a Constitutional right to vote in the early 1900s during the women’s suffrage movement resulting in the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, I argue there is a vast difference in this simple form of the right to vote and the full and genuine right to make your choice; the right to vote one’s own conscience. The right to vote one’s conscience is absent in most states in the Union and most assuredly absent in North Carolina. You ask why? It is due to North Carolina’s anti-democratic and free speech-damning ballot access laws dating all the way back to 1901. For this reason, the choice of many North Carolina residents has a near-impossible barrier to overcome to obtain a place among the choices of others.

These ballot access laws artificially and without reasonable justification restrict the right to vote by limiting voter choice to a select state-approved list of candidates or parties, typically the Democratic and Republican Parties. Since Parties such as the Greens and Constitutionalists among others are not “state approved” they are denied the right to vote by these laws. Therefore, ballot access laws devaluate the right to vote to its most basic form. Being able to go to the polls and mark a ballot is not enough to claim we have voting rights. I truly believe that these laws are comparable to saying that people have the right to vote in countries where voters are coerced to vote for a certain candidate or only given a select number of choices on purpose by the government. The right to vote is empty where there is not choice.

With that said, it would seem to me that political scientists are really only speaking of perceived legitimacy based on the perceived notion of the right to vote (something quite different from the actual right to vote in my opinion as I explained earlier) and in which case, political scientists need to clarify this and qualify it so as not to be misunderstood. However, I dare say that political scientists are unwittingly stating something rather negative about our system of government. In this case, they may very well be saying that, by the standard given, American government has lost its legitimacy, as people do not have a reasonable expectation or chance that their candidate or choice will prevail in the coming election as their candidate may be entirely excluded from placement on the election ballot.

For this reason, modern day elections simply serve, as Giovanni Sartori so aptly stated in his book The Theory of Democracy Revisited, as “…the people’s periodic renunciation of their sovereignty” by furthering the hold of the two major parties who are unwilling to permit truly free elections in a system of “…which they are the principal beneficiaries” as Theodore J. Lowi put it. The issue is the right to vote, it is the potential of representation, the possibility of a voice and the legitimacy of the government we live under. I submit to you, that if we truly derive legitimacy of government from the opportunity to be heard, the chance of winning the next election and the competence and freedom built into the system, then sadly American government has been sorely illegitimate for over one hundred years. I say it is high time that we tell those in power that we want our right to vote back. That we reach out and show others in our state and around the nation the need for reform at the ballot box to open up the electoral process to more voices and make it a truly competitive process where people are heard and where the choices made lead to legitimate government once again.

Constitutional, democratic and lawful government is not legitimate where the state does not allow the full and unequivocal right to vote. An arbitrary and restrictive limitation on voter choice is not and cannot be consistent with government legitimacy.

Copyright © 2010 Jordon M. Greene. Jordon M. Greene is the President and Founder of the North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections, he served as campaign manager for his father’s unaffiliated congressional campaign in 2008 and as a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina State Executive from 2008 to 2010. Jordon is a student of political science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

I would like to thank Dr. Martha E. Kropf, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte for her assistance with this article.

This article is archived at: http://www.jordongreene.com/wordpress/?p=54

Just under a month ago in late July, the Students for Life of America discovered that the University of North Carolina system was requiring all students enrolled in any of its seventeen institutions to have some sort of healthcare insurance in order to attend school during that upcoming semester. In doing such, the UNC system provided an alternative, or rather mandated, that students who do not have their own health insurance or cannot afford to have their own plan must purchase the plan offered by the UNC system through Pearce & Pearce Inc, at comparably a lower rate than most any other private insurance company I have found.

However, the issue that the Students for Life of America discovered is that the coverage provided under the Pearce & Pearce Inc. plan, which students who cannot afford their own coverage must purchase, just so happens to cover up to $500 toward elective abortions and has an 80% PPO coverage rate for the same. Simply put, the UNC system first saw fit to mandate health coverage, and then they saw fit to take it a step further and force those who have to purchase the UNC system’s plan to fund the wicked and immoral act of killing the unborn child without regard to the student’s religious or political beliefs and conscience. After the Students for Life brought the issue to the front burner, the UNC Board of Governors took one-step in the right direction, and issued a statement that students will now be given the option to opt out of the abortion coverage and I applaud them for their decision. However, note that I said one-step in the right direction as it is far from solved in my opinion.

I, being a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, among those who cannot afford to obtain their own health insurance coverage am required to purchase the school’s plan through Pearce & Pearce Inc. For this reason, since this mandate was in effect in at least the past academic school year as well, I was required to pay for funding of abortions by the UNC Board of Governors to attend school, for my education, of which I was greatly disappointed in the UNC system for. At this point, the Board of Governors I imagine would say that by allowing students to opt out of the abortion coverage that that student no longer funds abortions, however I beg to differ.

As explained by the Students for Life of America on their new website www.noabortioninhealthcare.com:

“Federal grant money is directed to accredited colleges and universities from U.S. taxpayers through the Federal Student Aid Program. Student eligibility for federal grants is determined by the difference in the student’s ability to pay and the total ‘cost of attendance’ for the school. This amount equals the student’s eligibility for federal funds. As stated by the UNC System, the cost of their abortion health care plan, if the student chooses to keep abortion in their plan, is added to the student’s ‘cost of attendance’ calculation. This in turn, increases the student’s need for federal funds. Because of this increase in need, additional federal funds could be directed to the student to help cover this increase in cost.”

Beyond the possibility that the UNC system’s health insurance may violate federal law is the fact that all-in-all by not completely removing elective abortion coverage from their mandated health coverage, the Board of Governors have still failed. By allowing students to keep the abortion coverage, the UNC system is still forcing the taxpayers, both in North Carolina and across the nation, to fund the murderous act of abortion. How are they still forcing students who opt out to fund abortions? They do such by appropriating federal and state grants and loans from taxpayer dollars to student financial aid that is given to pay for tuition and the UNC system’s mandated health coverage for those who potentially still have abortion coverage on their plan.

Now let me take this one-step further. It is the fact that the UNC system included abortion on their mandated plan that got the Students for Life involved and that has caused me to oppose it with all I can, however I honestly believe that to solve the issue, one must return the issue to its basic root. That root of the problem being that the UNC system should have never required its students to obtain health insurance in the first place to attend their public educational institutes. If a student can afford their own insurance then let them have insurance, but the State should never require students to have health insurance in order to obtain a college education, to have the opportunity to move forward in life with that education.

I would be perfectly content if the UNC system offered its students the ability to voluntarily enroll in its health insurance plan, providing that abortion be in no way covered, and did not require students to have health insurance at all if they chose not to. I believe that, and at this rate, only that would be in line with the ideals of liberty and freedom by giving the choice to have insurance to the student’s free will, instead of mandating such. This would also allow the UNC system to fall in line with the NC State Constitution in Article I Section 13 on Religious Liberty by not violating the conscience of the student or taxpayer by forcing them to pay for an act that they view as abhorrent or sinful.

I am glad that the UNC Board of Governors took one-step in the right direction on this ever-important issue; however, it is just one-step along the walk across the room to the goal, which I hold to be liberty. The Board of Governors needs to complete their walk across the room by ending their mandated health coverage to attend a UNC school and give the students life back to the student and protecting the life of the unborn.

Copyright © 2010 Jordon M. Greene. Jordon M. Greene is the President and Founder of the North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections PAC, a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina State Executive and Ballot Access Committees, a political science student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and served as campaign manager for the Bryan Greene 2008 Congressional Campaign Committee.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776

These immortal words of the Declaration of Independence hold such important meaning and consequence in many realms of life and politics, maybe even more so now than they did at their genesis over two hundred years ago. One of those important issues is that of the life of the unborn child. As many of you may already know, I am a constitutionalist, a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina, a classical liberal and with that my views are often times close to some Libertarians.

However, this issue is one of several in which demands a separation from the Libertarian perspective for those who value the life of the unborn, as do the words of the Declaration of Independence as quoted above. Please do not misunderstand me; I respect the Libertarian Party’s ideals in many respects, however in this case too often the Party tends toward anarchy or simply takes its stand on limited government too far. The life issue however is of the utmost importance as it deals with our societies respect for others and the preservation of our very humanity.

How can any society be considered humane if that society does not respect life at all stages? How can a society care more, as I fear America is often guilty of, for animals than the millions of humans whose lives have been prematurely ended without having committed a crime, without any trial, without any choice simply because they were unwanted, an inconvenience or an embarrassment all under the protection of in my opinion illegitimate law? How can we therefore claim to hold true to the words of the Declaration of Independence of the rights of men having among others, the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?” Have we not considered the unborn child’s right to life, to liberty and to eventual pursuit of happiness in this harsh society?

No matter your perspective whether religious or scientific, which in my opinion merge perfectly, life begins at conception. Therefore, the rights of the child begin at conception under the care of their mother who, as I am sure John Locke would agree, has no right to take the life or liberty of that child who she has been committed by God to care over through the choice of committing that act which formed that life. Yes, the woman does have a choice in the matter. However, contrary to liberal or some so-called conservative ideas, her choice goes only as far as the decision to have sexual relations with another. After that choice has been made, God is in control and the life that is formed as a byproduct of that act, though dependent on the mother for care just as an infant or toddler, is an independent and unique being and deserving of protection under the law.

As stated earlier this is an issue which I believe should cause the pro-life individual to part from the Libertarian Party and even the Republican Party, the former which claims government simply shouldn’t be involved and the latter which claims they are pro-life but rarely show it. The only home for those who hold dear to the life of the unborn, to the unborn child’s right to live, to their right to be free and to one day pursue their own happiness, is the Constitution Party. Only the Constitution Party holds to the belief that all life is truly precious, and that no one has the right or choice to end the life of the unborn child for any reason. We hold to the belief that the unborn has committed no crime worthy of death as required by our law for those we can see with our very eyes; their only offense is that they were sadly not wanted or that another committed a heinous crime against their mother of which abortion is not the answer. The answer to a crime or wrongdoing is never another crime, as in the case with abortions resulting from rape, and only serves to exemplify the dread and torture of such an event.

Contrary to Libertarian philosophy, law must protect the life of the unborn and all abortions should be illegal and punishable as murder, as it is nothing less than the murder of the defenseless and infringes upon those unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This is one of the few legitimate purposes of government, to protect individuals from others that would do them harm, and if government is not allowed to defend the life of the most vulnerable then it is failing in its most basic responsibility.

Copyright © 2010 Jordon M. Greene. Jordon M. Greene is the President and Founder of the North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections PAC, a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina State Executive and Ballot Access Committees, a political science student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and served as campaign manager for the Bryan Greene 2008 Congressional Campaign Committee.

by Brian Irving
Press Secretary
North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections
April 30, 2010

Most Tea Party participants believe they have the right to vote for anyone they choose in an election. Most also believe they have the right to run for office.

Unfortunately, they are wrong. A state Superior Court judge has said so. When the Libertarian and Green parties challenged the constitutionality of the state’s ballot access laws, the judge denied the claim saying, “there is no fundamental right for a voter to vote for the party of their choice.”

North Carolina has most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation. It is easier to get on the ballot in Russia than it is in North Carolina. North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections is the only organization in North Carolina actively fighting to break down these restrictions.

We are a group of concerned citizens from across the political spectrum who see a need for truly free and competitive elections in North Carolina. We are Constitutionalist, Greens, Libertarians, Whigs, independents and yes even Republican Democrats who have come together to stand up for the right of all North Carolinians to vote and to vote effectively.

The right to vote in North Carolina has been unjustifiably suppressed since 1901. Though the state has seen many changes in its election law since the dramatic lockdown on political competition in 1983, ballot access remains a major obstacle for anyone outside the two major parties for nearly three decades. And the problem is getting worse.

The primary goal of the NCFPE is to restore competition to North Carolina elections, to give the right to vote back to the people by reducing or eliminating our state’s oppressive ballot access restrictions.

Current law requires nearly 90,000 signatures for new political party that is, any party other than the Democrats and Republicans. The same rules apply for a statewide independent candidate.

Ballot access laws in most other states are nowhere near as restrictive. South Carolina and Virginia require 10,000 signatures for a new political party or independent statewide candidate. Tennessee only requires 275 signatures for an independent candidate for the presidency and 25 signatures for Congressional candidates.

North Carolina’s ballot access restrictions are designed to do one thing: perpetuate the stranglehold the Democratic-Republican duopoly has on power. Such severe limitations on ballot choice are not only unfair and unjust, they have no place in a republican form of government.

All of the issues Tea Party participants are concerned about high taxes, massive government regulation of everyone and everything, the trampling of our inalienable rights, disregard for even basic civil liberties like freedom of speech, and the right of the people to assembly and to petition for redress of grievance are all made possible because the Democratic and Republican parties have made it nearly impossible for anyone to dislodge them from office.

Without the right to vote for any candidate of your choice, you cannot protect your other rights.

Without the right to vote for any candidate of your choice, elected officials have no reason to listen to you, or to answer your phone calls or e-mails.

Without the right to vote for any candidate of your choice, not some party apparatchik chosen by the party’s politburo and approved by the State, your vote is meaningless.

Without real competition, the two so-called major parties have no reason to pay attention to anyone who is not part of their system.

“One of the best-kept secrets in American politics is that the two-party system has long been brain-dead maintained by a life-support system that protects the established parties from rivals,” said Theodore J. Lowi, senior professor of American Institutions at Cornell University.

“The two-party system would collapse in an instant if the tubes were pulled and the IVs were cut. And until then, the dominant two parties will not, and cannot, reform a system in which they are the principal beneficiaries.”

We need a free market in our electoral process, just like we need a free market in our economic system. North Carolina’s ballot access restrictions limit freedom of speech, restrict choice, and stifle competition.

The lack of competition preserved by North Carolina’s ballot access restrictions creates unresponsiveness of elected officials to their constituency. Two protected political parties is not real competition.

The state has no legitimate interest in such restrictive ballot laws. The people are not served by restrictive ballot access laws. The only groups that benefit are the Republican and Democratic party establishments and entrenched incumbents.

Third parties are the only real check and balance on the two major parties. By having alternative parties, the two-major parties must stay true to their constituency in order to retain their place. If third parties are allowed to participate freely, the major parties will work to co-opt issues of those parties in order to stay in power. In doing this, the major party may still win, but the minor party and people will also win because the things they care about will become law.

Most major advancements in American government have come about because of third parties, including the abolition of slavery, curtailment of child labor and the woman’s right to vote.

When third parties thrive, liberty thrives. If the Tea Party movement is serious about making real and lasting change, then it must advocate and push for ballot access reform in North Carolina.

Brian Irving is a board member and press secretary for North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections. The retired U.S. Air Force captain lives in Cary.

-30-

NCFPE-PAC
2206 Planters Way – Lenoir, NC 28645
(828) 729-4509

For more information contact:
Brian Irving, Press Secretary, 919.538.4548

GREENSBORO (April 14) — The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to overturn a referendum approving non-partisan city council elections in Kinston is a clear example of the abuse of Federal government power and a insult to the intelligence of all voters, North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections said today.

“Nearly two-thirds of Kinston voters decided to remove partisan bickering from their city council elections, yet the Justice Department saw fit to support the narrow interests of political parties over the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people,” said Jordon Greene, NCFPE founder and president.

“This is repugnant to the basic principles of representative government,” he said. “And the reasoning given for the ruling is an insult to voters – both black and white.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King argued that black voters require a party label, specifically the Democratic party label, in order to decide who to vote for.

“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidate to be elected to office,” she said. “In Kinston, voters base their choice more on the race of the candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty of the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish ever more.”

“This is a stunning pronouncement,” Greene said. “It implies that African-American voters aren’t smart enough to vote for the candidate who will best serve their interests, regardless of party or race.”

King claimed that “numerous elected municipal and county officials” confirmed the results of statistical analysis that a majority of white Democrats support white Republicans over black Democrats in Kinston elections.

“That’s another shocking observation, given the fact that the black voters comprise 64 percent of the registered voters and there is a overwhelming majority of registered Democrats in Kinston,” Greene said.

Greene noted that Kinston has never been found to have engaged in discriminatory election practices or had any previous voting changes denied by the Federal government.

In 2008, Kinston voters approved the referendum for non-partisan city council elections by a 2 to 1 margin (64 percent) and it passed in five of the seven precincts where blacks were the majority voters. Under the 1964 Voting Rights Act, the referendum had to be approved by the Department of Justice.

A group of Kinston citizens are suing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to restore the vote results, claiming the ruling that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being used unconstitutionally to harm the election process in Kinston. The plaintiffs are Stephen LaRoque, John Nix, Klay Northrup, Lee Raynor, and Anthony Cuomo.

LaRoque organized the referendum and Raynor and Cuomo assisted him. Nix and Northrup intend to run for city council in 2011.

The Center for Individual Rights is representing the plaintiffs. CIR is a Washington DC nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and state governments. CIR seeks to enforce constitutional limits on state and federal power.

Terence Pell, CIR president, acknowledged that the Voting Rights Act has been used to prevent disenfranchisement of black voters. But now he said that it’s being used to “set aside the votes of black voters in an actual election in favor of the federal government’s presumptions about the preference of voters in some future elections.”

“Such an extraordinary exercise of federal authority is neither supported by the Constitution nor by common sense,” he said.

For more on the lawsuit go here.

-30-

North Carolinians for Free & Proper Elections – PAC
2206 Planters Way – Lenoir NC 28645
(828) 729-4509

View in original context at http://www.ncfpe.com/pr/2010_04_14_Kinston.htm

There are three lawsuits going through the North Carolina court system challenging specific areas of our state’s ballot access laws. The first case, filed in 2005, is that filed by the Libertarian Party of North Carolina and North Carolina Green Party (Libertarian Party of NC, et al and NC Green Party, et al. v. State of North Carolina, et al.). This suit challenges the constitutionality of all the state’s ballot access laws, but it focuses on a political party’s access to the election ballot.

The second case was initiated in 2008 by Bryan Greene, an unaffiliated candidate for the U.S. Congressional District 10 in 2008. (Bryan E. Greene, et al. v. Gary O. Bartlett, et al.). It focuses on unaffiliated candidates access to the election ballot in local and district elections.

The most recent case which was started in early 2010 by Mark Brody (Mark Brody, et al. v State Board of Elections, et al.), an unaffiliated candidate for the N.C. House of Representatives District 103, is set to challenge State election law to afford unaffiliated candidates the ability to retain access to the ballot once they successfully petition for access in the previous election.

After nearly two years in the courts, with delays including an attempted change of venue and a natural disaster hindering the advancement of the case, Bryan Greene’s case may soon be heard. He is challenging the restrictive ballot laws that kept him and all other unaffiliated candidates for the U.S. Congress since 1901 off of the ballot. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asking the Court to “[declare] North Carolina General Statute § 163.122(a)(2) unconstitutional…” as well as to prevent the “defendants from further enforcing…” the statute on Feb. 15.

The State responded to Greene’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March 18.

One of the first arguments the State made is that the plaintiff has the “initial burden of showing that the ballot access requirements seriously restricts political opportunity” and that the plaintiff “must demonstrate that a ‘reasonably diligent’ candidate could not gain a place on the ballot under the statutory framework.”

The State goes on to say that even though “no unaffiliated candidates have run for Congress from North Carolina” since 1901 (meaning successfully obtained access to the North Carolina election ballot to run for Congress) that “this one piece of evidence establishes nothing other than that no unaffiliated candidates have run for Congress from North Carolina” and incorrectly states that Greene has provided “no evidence why this is so.”

The State claims that not many have tried and that “no more effort” was put forth by those candidates “than did plaintiffs in this case” continuing on the State’s assumption that just because Greene only collected a total of 805 signatures that somehow his failure to get on the ballot was his own fault “from his own lack of effort to comply” with N.C.’s restrictive laws and are a “result of plaintiffs’ own decisions and inaction.”

The state also claims that Greene has no standing in the court to challenge the law because of the number of signatures he collected compared to the total 16,457 that were required in 2008. As Richard Winger of Ballot Access News stated in an article on the State’s response, “three times, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted standing for plaintiffs in ballot access cases who had submitted no signatures whatsoever,” including the historic case of Williams v. Rhodes in 1968, so according to past Supreme Court cases, Bryan Greene has standing.

As Greene’s campaign manager, I know the campaign was not done half-heartedly or with “inaction” but that the opposite is so. Of the in excess of $1,200 that came into the campaign, the vast majority of those funds went in one way or another to obtaining signatures for the campaign to get on the ballot.

This is not much money to work with in the first place. Green was at a disadvantage already simply due to the fact that he was not a major party candidate, had no big party to back him and had to start everything from scratch. Greene was a full time employee at Frye Regional Medical Center during his campaign and still had family obligations. Running for Congress under these conditions is difficult enough, but made even more difficult when your primary focus for nearly half a year has to be nothing more than obtaining ballot access signatures while your opponents can focus on actually running a campaign.

The State also claims Greene lacks standing because he fails to demonstrate any ongoing or future harm and “the record is devoid of any but the most general suggestion that Bryan Green might again seek to run as an unaffiliated candidate for Congress or any other office.”

Greene brought this lawsuit against the State’s restrictive laws in order to have them declared unconstitutional. His purpose is to get a more understandable and attainable requirement similar to most other states put in place. He is trying to do this not just for his future attempts to get on the North Carolina ballot, but for the benefit of others who wish to run without any formal political party affiliation attached to their name on the ballot, no matter if they agree with his stances or not.

The is not just for Bryan Greene, not just so he can be on the ballot again, but to allow more candidates to participate in the North Carolina election process, to introduce some real competition into the debate and election, and to allow for a better flow of diverse ideas. The State seems to think this is all about Bryan Greene, but it is all about the people of North Carolina and their right to vote their conscience and not to be forced to choose from just two different parties that often times seem to look like one and the same.

The State attempts to make the point that the idea that there is a “fundamental right … to promote Bryan Greene’s candidacy” is “absurd.” It cites a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling (Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431) upholding a Georgia standard for petition signatures in support of the State’s contention that North Carolina law does not violate First Amendment rights.

The State’s argument is that since North Carolina stipulates a lower percentage requirement, it is easier to get on the ballot here than in Georgia. This is a misleading statement. The number of signatures required is based on the number of registered voters as of January 1 of the election year. They must be turned in by the last Friday in June. That was June 27 in this case, a total of 178 days. Since the petitions must be certified by the county board of elections at least two weeks prior to that deadline, that reduces the period for signature collection to 164 days.

This is opposed to Georgia’s five percent signature requirement based on the number of registered voters eligible to vote in the last election for that office. Typically North Carolina’s highest signatures requirement for Congressional office is larger than Georgia’s highest requirement even though the percentage requirement in North Carolina is lower, as the vast majority of districts in North Carolina are larger than those of Georgia.

While it is true candidates can begin petitioning before January 1, they won’t know when they start how many signatures they need. And that number increases every election. For example, in this case the signature requirement in District 10 was 16,457 signatures in 2008 and now is 17,541.

Then as Richard Winger noted, the State fails to take into account that “a petitioning candidate had successfully qualified in each of the two previous elections before Jenness v Fortson was filed. Clearly, the Supreme Court never meant to endorse a ballot access law that is so difficult it is never used or virtually never used.” This is the case with North Carolina’s law where there has never been a single candidate successfully petition for access as an unaffiliated candidate for the Congress since 1901 when the state-regulated ballot kicked off.

It seems very convenient that the State left this important piece of information out of their response, as it is very significant when taken into context with the test established in Storer v Brown in 1974. The court’s test states “in the context of California politics, could a reasonably diligent independent candidate be expected to satisfy the signature requirements, or will it be only rarely that the unaffiliated candidate will succeed in getting on the ballot? Past experience will be a helpful, if not always an unerring, guide: it will be one thing if independent candidates have qualified with some regularity, and quite a different matter if they have not…” Substitute North Carolina for California and you will understand why an independent candidate has such difficulty qualifying for the ballot here.

So according to the Supreme Court’s own test, which was reaffirmed as recently as 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, if a law is seldom used it is likely unconstitutional. Hence the State has left out an important piece of information for their response, the fact that in the two preceding elections in Georgia a candidate had successfully met the signature requirement.

The State relies on the idea that somehow the State’s interest of preventing a crowded ballot outweighs the freedom of conscience and association, and the right to vote of thousands if not millions of North Carolina citizens. They go as far as to claim that the ballot would be too crowded because North Carolina elects the entire Council of State, and that taking into account this “complex whole” would show that what may work for others states with less restrictive ballot access laws will not work for North Carolina.

Washington state elects its Council of State every four years. Their requirement for ballot access is arguably one of the least restrictive in the nation, a 1,000 signature requirement for statewide and Congressional offices and they have no problem with a cluttered ballot. Most statewide and Congressional races have two to four candidates. There are few states that have seen more than eight candidates appear on their ballots for any statewide office during the past one hundred years, let alone enough to confuse the voter.

Breaking down this restrictive requirement in North Carolina will not open the flood gate of candidates. More choice equals a stronger voice for the people, a more effective and representative voice at the ballot box and more responsive elected officials. The Democrats and Republicans in power seem to be afraid of such a voice.

While waiting for the court to make its decision we can only hope for the best. In the meantime I encourage you to contact your state representatives and senators and let them know that the barriers to competition in the political arena through North Carolina’s ballot access laws must come down, but do not stop there. Write your local newspaper and let them know this issue is important to you and educate your fellow citizens about this important issue.

Copyright © 2010 Jordon M. Greene. Jordon M. Greene is the President and Founder of the North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections PAC, a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina State Executive and Ballot Access Committees, a political science student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and served as campaign manager for the Bryan Greene 2008 Congressional Campaign Committee.

As irritating as it may be to admit, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former president of Iran, was right when in 2005 he said “There is only a veneer of democracy in the United States…” How is this true you ask? “Election laws are so complicated in your county that people have no choice but to vote for one of the candidates who are with one of the two parties,” Rafsanjani said.

James T. Bennett, Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy at George Mason University, explains America’s problem in his most recent book Not Invited to the Party, aptly subtitled How the Demopublicans Have Rigged the System and Left Independents Out in the Cold. Bennett covers many issues in Not Invited to the Party but focuses most heavily on two. One, campaign finance reform, which is discussed often by electoral reform groups. The second, ballot access reform, rarely sees the light of day in the media and meets major opposition in a likely place, the state legislature.

In Bennett’s skillful and often comical manner, he lays out the history of the ballot in the United States, from the days when political parties printed and distributed their own ballots to our current system adopted during the Progressive Era of the state-regulated or printed ballot enforced by ballot access laws. Bennett explains how ballot laws where started as a way to determine who the State should put on the ballot, and quickly — nearly instantly — became a method to freeze the status quo by ridding the two major parties of opposition.

He notes Richard Winger’s observation that, in states with restrictive ballot access laws, minor parties do not often win elections, but in states where ballot access laws are less restrictive minor parties do win elections. However, as Bennett conveys over the course of Not Invited to the Party, what major party politician wants to lower the chances of re-election by opening up the ballot to more choices when all they must do is restrict choice, freeze the status quo and remain in office? All, of course, at the expense of free choice and an individual’s freedom of political expression at the ballot box.

Bennett also covers an important aspect of campaign finance reform, so-called “Voter-Owned Elections,” otherwise referred to as Taxpayer-Funded Elections or “welfare for politicians.” He shows how the use of public money to supposedly cleanse political campaigns of corrupt big money does not help expand the field of choices or even weed out corruption, but instead ensures only the major parties are able to compete. The result is that major party incumbents become safe in their seats. The Federal Election Campaign Act (or FECA) should correctly be called the Incumbents Protection Act, Bennett writes.

Put simply, anyone serious about election reform needs to read Not Invited to the Party. Bennett has put together a mass of information that shows why the electoral reform community has missed the mark by ignoring the issue of ballot access and allowing politicians to continue to violate American citizen’s freedom of speech at the ballot box.

Bennett says that we must break down these barriers to ballot access and replace them “with commonsense rules that permit the widest possible variety of candidates and parties to participate… [and] reduce the powers of the central government and the privileges and subsides it hands out.”

It is a sad day when it is easier to get on the ballot in post-Soviet Moscow and post- Saddam Hussein Iraq than it is in many American states such as Oklahoma and North Carolina. Bennett quotes Economists Burton A. Abrams and Russell F. Settle who said “[free] markets and individual liberty have served the United States and its citizens well. Why adopt a non-market solution for running political campaigns?”

Competition is healthy for the state and good for its citizens. As Bennett advocates in Not Invited to the Parties, we need to restore competition to the ballot in all 50 American states and allow all American’s to exercise their right to vote again.

Copyright © 2010 Jordon M. Greene. Jordon M. Greene is the President and Founder of the North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections PAC, member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina’s State Executive Committee and Ballot Access Committee, Political Science student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and formerly served in 2008 as Campaign Manager for the Bryan Greene 2008 Congressional Campaign Committee.

You may read this book review in its original context at: http://www.ncfpe.com/bookreviews/not_invited_to_the_party.htm

Hello everyone,

Welcome to Jordon Greene’s Commentary.  This blog will primarily be focusing on the issues surrounding third parties and independent candidates and their struggles to gain access to the ballot, among other issues they face.  At times however, the blog will deviate to other issues from a conservative-constitutionlist perspective.  I hope that you will check back soon to see what is going on in NC.