Chad Marlow

The DeBlasio DeBacle - Thoughts About Speaking Up And Being Allowed To Speak

The recent exclusion of Public Advocate candidate from the 2009 Democratic Primary ballot in New York City due to a one digit typo in the cover sheet presenting his signatures highlights how archaic and anti-democratic New York's ballot access laws are. But, of course, that is hardly breaking news. However, two side issues relating to the issue bear mentioning on the DMI Blog as points for discussion.

First, although the ballot laws are used frequently to block non-incumbants from appearing on the ballot, it is far more rare that they are used to block a current officer holder's name from appearing before the voters. On the rare occasion this happens, as currently with Mr. DeBlasio, the elected official (rightly) expresses outrage at the result and denounces the anti-democratic nature of the ballot access process. But where were these elected officals' voices when the laws were operating to exclude others from the ballot - sometimes there own opponents? The silence has been deafening.

How can we feel sympathy for those in power who stayed silent as long as the injustice was not affecting them directly? Mr. DeBlasio needs to be put on the ballot because not doing so would hurt our democratic system and deprive voters of choices, but it is hard to feel truly bad for him when he (and all of his other colleagues and supporters) did nothing to remedy an obvious problem that has existed for years. Political leaders are supposed to fight for justice for all, not only for themselves. One cannot help but be reminded of the principles behind Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous "First They Came" poem when one looks at the present situation.

Second, the greatest single problem with New York's ballot access petitioning process is that it is based on the presumption (an entirely wrong one) that voters do not want choices at the polls. To appear on the ballot, depending on the office one is running for, a candidate needs to collect a certain number of signatures from in-district voters saying they want to person's name to appear. The problem is that a voter is allowed to sign only one petition - a voter cannot sign multiple petitions and have her later signatures count even if she wants more time to examine a range of candidates and make her decision on Election Day rather than many months before.

The idea that voters must pick the exclusive candidate they want on the ballot months before voting takes place not only favors incumbents with name recognition, but it stymies the democratic process by excluding legitimate candidates. If one rule should be changed today, it is that voters should be allowed to sign the petitions of multiple candidates for the same office for the same election. Democracy is about choice and a battle of idea, not eliminating competition before the discussion even begins. If I want choices at the polls when I go to vote, the ballot access process should allow me to express that preference.

Chad Marlow: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:53 AM, Jul 28, 2009 in Democracy
Permalink | Email to Friend