The Good and the Bad of Getting on the Ballot: Part 1

2018 has already been a whirlwind in Colorado politics (and everywhere), and we are barely past the primary election. In Colorado, as in many places, candidates spent the spring establishing a base of support and securing a place on the ballot for primaries and the general. Now, candidates are reaching unaffiliated and swing voters in advance of fall elections. The ballot drama that ensued this spring in the Centennial State revealed a few fatal flaws in the current process, but also brought up philosophical debate about the right way to conduct our elections.

The democratic process requires a delicate balance. The fundamental question within our political party structure is: How do self-governing citizens ensure an open and equitable candidate process while also maximizing general voter input and weighing the voices of those more passionate within the party structure?

That is a long and complicated question with an equally long answer. Colorado has done its best to make it as complicated as possible, in fact.

The Background

In Colorado, there are two paths to getting on the primary ballot in a major party:

1. Petition Signatures from your district
2. Nomination from party delegates at assembly

For most candidates, especially those running uncontested primaries and those without significant funding, the assembly process is the most common way to get on the ballot. It’s free, straightforward, and requires far less organization and outside help to succeed than the alternative.

The petition process is where things get interesting. By receiving a enough valid, properly collected signatures from citizens belonging to your party and turning them in on time to your clerk and recorder or secretary of state (depending on the election), you can get on the ballot. This option is commonly utilized by candidates who want more control over their own destiny or forsee a crowded assembly field where obtaining the required 30% at assembly (for Colorado state races) will be difficult. While well organized campaigns can often collect enough signatures on their own, the petition process usually requires hiring an outside firm to collect signatures for you – an expensive process. Obtaining enough “valid, properly collected” signatures is where the gray area has arisen.

The Good

Colorado’s nomination system provides many benefits to party members and candidates alike. On the assembly side, the voices of passionate, involved, and hard-working activists are more heavily weighed. If you put in the time and effort to become a delegate and participate in party politics, your voice is heard. This leads to generally more serious and comprehensive deliberation by each individual elector than in a general election, for instance. In theory, grassroots-supported candidates who represent the values of the party’s platform should be elected, and less viable or principled candidates are weeded out. At the county level, there may be less than 100 delegates ultimately participating in the assembly and deciding the candidates (and delegates heading to the state assembly). Your vote really does matter in these cases.

Those that collect petitions are less subject to the whim of a few delegates who can be easily swayed by a speech or some last-second flyer that is passed around the assembly, influencing the outcome. The petition process allows candidates to do an end-around in situations where the state party is perhaps keeping outsider candidates off the ballot. In 2016, incumbent Doug Lamborn (CD-5, CO) was nearly kept off the ballot by the politically nascent Calandra Vargas. Ms. Vargas was nominated the day of the assembly from the floor, delivered a rousing speech, and received 65% of the vote from an assembly that was dissatisfied with Lamborn. Lamborn barely qualified for the ballot but went on to win the primary election easily. More on Lamborn in a minute.

Candidates who pour significant amounts of their own money into an election would usually rather not be subject to a body that can, at times, feel like a mob. Also, gathering 1,000 or more signatures from registered party members does signify a different kind of grassroots support, and requires the input of more average voters. Remember our question above of balancing “general voter input” with “more passionate voices”. It is a good thing that multiple options exist for candidates of different walks.

The Bad

It is probably pretty obvious to see some issues and potential conflicts created by the system above. Nearly every year, we hear similar arguments made on both sides of the process.

Party activists and delegates make a valid claim that candidates who may or may not actually be what they say they are (conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat) can circumvent the grassroots using the petition process. A bad candidate can go on to win the primary and end up not representing the values of the party. In addition, assembly advocates say that a candidate who goes through the petition process is less accountable early on in the campaign, won’t work as hard attending activist events, and ultimately can buy their way onto the ballot.

Petition advocates would argue that it is the assembly process that actually leads to poor results and doesn’t hold to democratic values. Relying on the whim of a few hundred impassioned delegates all in the same room leads to poorly-deliberated results. In addition, why should just a few people get to decide who’s on the ballot for the entire party? Gathering petitions also signals something to primary voters: this candidate has the organizational skills and fundraising ability to actually put together a comprehensive campaign. Theoretically, you could raise $0 and be the only candidate to make it to the primary through the assembly. Is that actually the best way to “filter” out candidates?

Conclusion

The two-way system leads to unnecessary division within the party and often to ugly primaries where one side accuses the other of “circumventing” the system, not being dedicated to the ideals of the party, or questioning the viability of the campaign. Ultimately, party voters should consider the principles and values of a candidate, not the manner of which they got on the ballot alone. In Part 2, we will discuss what happened in 2018 and some of the issues of the current petition system that lead to undesirable results.