On 07/17/10 04:36 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:

You most likely won't get this either. Way too close to a poll tax
which has been tossed long ago.

How do you figure that's like a poll tax? A poll tax is a levy on
*voters*; he's talking about a small fee for *candidates*. As things
stand now, candidates for many offices have to pay a nominal filing fee,
as an indicator of good faith, I suppose; I assume that's what he means.
As long as it isn't an insurmountable barrier to some class of
candidates compared to others, it ought to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Assuming that, but it sounded like something in addition to the
filing fee to my reading. The main reason I thought it might be
constitutionally suspect is that the whole point was to make sure some
people were unable to run. That is was a way to screen out, then it
would be suspect. For the reasons you suggested.

What I had in mind was a somewhat nominal filing fee (even a refundable
deposit in the event of gaining more than x% of the vote) as evidence of
good faith -- to replace the vast sums of money people spend now just to
get their name on the ballot paper.

I had friends in Australia who ran as candidates for a new political
party (which did not survive). Six signatures and a few hundred $$ to
get their names on the ballot for a State election; ten or twenty
signatures and $1000 to get their names on the Commonwealth (national)
ballot paper.

Perce