Stant May Not Qualify in Indiana

It appears that the Green Party’s candidate for Indiana Secretary of State won’t gather enough signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot. He’s already looking toward a 2010 run at the office, though he’ll continue this year as a write-in candidate.

There are some pretty annoying quotes in here from a Democrat and a Republican in regards to allowing other parties to participate in the electoral process. Particularly the one who says she’s a “believer” in the two party system… whatever the hell that means.

From WISH-TV...

Green Party candidate Bill Stant wants to be the Indiana Secretary of State. But its more than likely that Stant’s name won’t even get on the ballot.

Bill Stant is a Brown County stockbroker and former college instructor who wants to offer voters a choice in November. Yet his name will be on the ballot only if he can gather nearly 30,000 petition signatures by Friday. That’s why petitions bearing signatures fill the dining room table in his home outside Nashville.

“A lot of them have one but then again, for example, here’s Hamilton County and its full,” says Stant.

Stant is over halfway to his goal but he’s been working at it for two years. Time is running out and both republicans and democrats show no sympathy. Perhaps Indiana ballot laws are too strict.

“Well, they’re pretty strict but I’m a believer in the two party system so they’re not too strict for me,” says Ann Delaney, Democrat.

“I agree with Ann. I don’t think it’s too restrictive. I’d just as soon have the two parties and leave it at that,” says Mike McDaniel, Republican.

Stant distributed a DVD in the effort to build interest and he has a small group of volunteers helping his campaign.

“But you have to ask yourself why should it be so difficult to get on the ballot? Is not the right to run for office the flip side of the right to vote?” asks Stant.

Stant is already talking about starting an effort to get on the 2010 ballot. The threshold of almost 30,000 signatures is equal to two percent of the votes cast in the 2002 race for Secretary of State.

If Bill Stant fails to reach that threshold and win ballot access he will run as a write-in candidate.

On a personal note, I’m not a big believer in extremely low ballot access requirements… but 30,000 is crazy and excessive.

Maybe 2,500 or 5,000 signatures would make sense for this office. It would require the candidate to be serious about the office they’re running for, but still be an entirely doable task with a handful of dedicated volunteers or even hire people to do it for a few thousand dollars.

And we need to enforce the same requirements for all candidates, regardless of party affiliation. < / end my 2 cents >

9 Responses to “Stant May Not Qualify in Indiana”

  1. Phil Says:

    Is this not the second article from Indiana that’s been very j*ck*ssy towards third parties? Hopefully the entire state isn’t like this…

  2. Rob Says:

    Mike Kole, the only decent candidate in this race, has some things to say about this on his blog:

    http://kolehardfacts.blogspot.com/

  3. Gary Odom Says:

    This is another example of why it is essential for the Greens, LP, CP and other independents to set aside any jealousies or philosophical differences at least for the purpose of uniting to fight patently unfair and discriminatory ballot access laws.

    As the three larger “3rd Parties” continue to grow (and I believe each will) I believe the major parties will become more fearful (and believe me, Nixon was far from the only politician suffering from unreasonable paranoia concerning threats to his power or position) of the competition. I really don’t see the same folks who like to increase their salaries every couple of years and carve up districts to ensure that they are as safe for incumbants as possible welcoming us into the process with open arms. Two parties is reasonably manageable in their eyes. Five parties will create more uncertainty than they care to cope with. Up to now, ignoring us has worked fairly well. If that strategy starts to falter, look for less passive measures to be employed-including attempts to pass more restrictive ballot laws. Again, I actually hope that it is me being a little paranoid here, but we do have to be vigilant.

  4. Citizens For Says:

    .....just because you are paranoid does not mean that ‘they’ are not out to ‘get you’.......

  5. Mike Kole Says:

    Phil- More is coming. The Libertarian Party of Indiana was just notified that a whole host of candidates were kicked off the ballot.

    In a nutshell, the laws were changed this year as regards the post-convention appointments of candidates. The ruling was based on a requirement to give a 10-day notice of intent to fill vacancies. The state party sent an email to the Secretary of State’s office indicating that we would be filling positions. The Elections Division ruled that email was not sufficient. What is though? The Division has not supplied a form of any kind, and email and other electronic filing is sufficient for many other filings. This looks purely subjective to me. It interests me to see proof that the Ds & Rs post-convention filings should be treated the same way as ours just were. If they are treated equally, the Ds & Rs will also be shedding candidates.

    But, that’s bad for representative government. I’m sick of these restrictive rules that are designed to trip candidates up and limit the number of choices on the ballot.

  6. Steps to Freedom/Sean Bagley Says:

    Since Nader ran for President in 2000, the Indiana legislature has repeatedly worked to make ballot access more difficult for 3rd Parties. 1st they changed the petition deadline to June 30 from July 15 meaning 2 weeks less to get the 30,000 signatures. i hadn’t heard the change the Lib posted of but it certainly doesn’t surprise me.

    Steps
    (IGP Secretary)

  7. alien Says:

    alien

    news

  8. sfondi sport Says:

    sfondi sport

    news

  9. rai sport Says:

    rai sport

    news

Leave a Reply