Revision 11: election reform - striving for a more open and equitable process.

• Author: Kogan, Gerald
• Position: Florida Constitution Revision Commission

Ballot Title: Ballot Access, Public Campaign Financing, and Election Process Revisions

Ballot Summary: Provides ballot access requirements for independent and minor party candidates cannot be greater than requirements for majority party candidates; allows all voters, regardless of party, to vote in any party's primary election if the winner will have no general election opposition; provides public financing of campaigns for statewide candidates who agree to campaign spending limits; permits candidates for governor to run in primary elections without lieutenant governor; makes school board elections nonpartisan; corrects voting age.

From its earliest stages, the 1997-98 Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) was committed to receiving input from the public and making citizen participation meaningful. To that end, the CRC began its work by conducting a series of 12 public hearings throughout the state. The value of the public's participation in the process is perhaps best demonstrated in Revision 11. Revision 11 represents the CRC's response to the public's expression of disenchantment with the electoral process. This article will explain each proposed amendment within Revision 11, its purpose, and the substance of the arguments made for and against each one.

Elections reform was one of the most-discussed subjects in the course of the commission's public hearings. Through the public hearing testimony and written submissions, the commission received well over 50 separate public proposals regarding elections. Citizen after citizen testified to the unfair statutory advantages enjoyed by the major parties, the disproportionate role that money plays in our elections, and the general feeling of disenfranchisement. It became clear that, throughout the state, there is a perception on the part of many citizens that they have little voice in their government and are overpowered by big money, lobbyists, and special interests. A particularly prominent participant was the Constitutional Liberty Coalition,(1) whose members appeared at every public hearing and through which the commission learned that Florida has the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation.

Ballot Access

"The requirements of an independent candidate or a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate's name on the ballot must be no greater than the requirements of a major party candidate." (Amendment to Fla. Const. art. VI, [sections] 1)

Florida law currently provides that candidates of major parties may be placed on the ballot either upon payment of the filing fee or by petition of three percent of the voters registered in the candidate's party. In contrast, a minor party or independent candidate must pay the filing fee (or file an oath of undue burden) and submit the petition of three percent of all registered voters in the voting jurisdiction.(2) The filing fee for ballot placement is six percent of the salary of the office,(3) which is far in excess of processing costs and substantially higher than filing fees in other states.

In a 1973 Florida Senate committee study, it was concluded that "Florida has arguably established the most substantial barriers to ballot access for legislative candidates of any of the fifty states."(4) The rationale most commonly put forth to support stringent ballot access laws is that the state has an interest in avoiding voter confusion, ensuring efficiency, and increasing the likelihood that the winner has attained a majority vote.(5) As the following debate excerpts reflect, the commission determined that combating voter apathy and fundamental fairness outweighed those goals.

The sponsor of the ballot access proposal, Commissioner Judy Bryne Riley related to the commission that it is easier to qualify for President of the United States in the New Hampshire primaries than it is to qualify for ballot placement for the Seminole County Commission. Commissioner Riley suggested that our laws are backwards and extremely unfair."[I]f we are looking for participation, I think this [proposal] will do it. This will bring more people out to... vote. It is equitable; it is fair; it's not going to be done any other way except by this commission."

Commissioner Ken Connor added,

I come from a party that extols the virtues of competition. And I believe strongly in providing a basis for competition in the political arena. I believe that the major parties have in large part contributed to the political malaise that exists among the voters today and that, in fact, they are not providing for the kind of competition that will stir the pulse of voters... I had no idea of the inequity and unjust treatment that minor parties were receiving in this state. They have been subjected to hurdles that are unfair, unjust, inequitable and that have the effect of disenfranchising their participation in the process. And frankly, it's with the intent to do so in order to preserve the hegemony that now exists for the two major parties. I think that's wrong.

Statistics support these statements. In the 20 years between 1974 and 1994, the two major parties failed to offer competing candidates for more than 49 percent of the 1,320 state House seats that were up for election. During that same period, they failed to provide competing candidates for more than 30 percent of the U.S. House seats that were to be filled. From 1984 through 1994, the two major parties failed to offer competing candidates for more than 42 percent of the state Senate seats that were to be filled.

This ballot access proposal is a tribute to all those citizens who took the time and initiative to attend the public hearings and to petition their government for a change. Its unanimous passage is an example of the desire of the commission to look beyond partisan interests to help craft a better and fairer electoral process.

Voter Participation

"A primary election shall be held in each county as provided by general law. If all candidates for an office represent the same political party And the winner will have no opposition in the general election, all qualified electors may vote in that primary election for that office regardless of...