New Regulations Needed for State Elections

In the wake of recent calls for Trump to be removed from presidential ballots in the individual states, I decided to write to my secretary of state in Washington State, Steve Hobbs, to let my concerns be known. I simply requested that due diligence be taken to assure that requirements for appearing on the ballot be exercised, and because of the former president’s treasonous activities that he be determined ineligible to appear on Washington State’s presidential ballots. Of course, I didn’t expect that to happen. What I expected was to be reassured that the Secretary of State’s office would diligently follow the rules for appearance on the state’s ballots and that the question of Trump’s eligibility still needed to be assessed. But I just wanted to get on the record along with other fellow voters in advance of the presidential primary next year.

What I received from the Secretary’s office, however, was anything but reassuring: “Hi, and thanks for your interest in Washington’s presidential primary and election process,” the unsigned response began. “Washington state law and the state constitution do not give the Secretary of State authority to decide who appears on the ballot for presidential elections.” Okay . . . At this point I was eager to find out who is responsible for requirements to be on the ballot. “For presidential primaries, state law RCW 29A.56.031 says that no changes can be made to the candidates submitted by each political party.” I was so stunned when I read that I figured it must be a mistake. Political parties submit candidates to appear on ballot in Washington State, and they’re just rubber stamped with absolutely no qualification restrictions at all? And not only are there are no rules for appearing on the ballot, I was also told the only process by which to redress this situation is through the courts.

I wrote back, incredulous, but still sure that there must be some mistake. I wanted to make sure I had understood correctly, and posed a hypothetical situation to Hobbs’ office. If a person was thirty years old and born in another country, as long as a political party submitted their name for inclusion on a presidential ballot, Washington State would go ahead and put that name on the ballot with no questions asked? Is no one or no state agency responsible for making sure that presidential candidates meet the requirements set out by the U.S. Constitution before they appear on our ballots? Are voters of the state really expected to hire a lawyer and pay money out of their own pockets to file a court case in order to remove someone who is obviously ineligible to hold that office from the ballot, only after that name already has been put on the ballot?

This time the response was from a real person, the deputy director of external affairs for the secretary of state’s office. His first sentence began promisingly, “It’s not correct that ‘there is no one and no agency responsible’ for ensuring officeholder eligibility requirements are met.” That was a relief. But this was followed by, “Any voter can ask a court to remove an ineligible candidate from Washington ballots or to stop an ineligible person from being declared election winner.” Again, I was stupefied. But worse, I also was being lied to. A voter forced to spend their own money on a legal suit to do something the government should be doing in their capacity as servants of the electorate is not the same thing. So this time I tried to make it even more simple, and in my next reply I asked, “If my ten-year-old daughter wants to run for governor of Washington State, as long as a political party submits her name to the Secretary of State she will absolutely be on the ballot, and if she wins, the state is going to do absolutely nothing, unless a private citizen brings a lawsuit? Tellingly, I have yet to receive an answer.

But Washington State is not alone in this conundrum. Apparently several other states have regulations that are incomprehensively inadequate for such a seemingly simple task. The U.S. Constitution clearly lays out the requirements—as well as disqualifications—for the office of President of the United States. It seems a justifiable expectation then that individual states, who are mandated to carry out those elections, abide by the Constitution and make sure that those who are put on state ballots running for President, are indeed eligible to become president. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has run into something similar in his state:

          In Arizona we have a supreme court decision that indicates that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
          cannot be enforced because there’s no federal enforcement mechanism. Now, I’m on record as
          saying that’s pretty absurd because that means you can’t enforce the natural-born citizen clause
          [either], and you also can’t enforce the 35-year-old clause.

This seems to me a glaring lack of election oversight. Some person or some agency in each state government needs to be responsible for making sure candidates for public office are eligible to hold that office before their name appears on the ballot. This just seems like common sense. The onus should not be on the voters to spend their own money in order to bring a lawsuit for a simple procedural matter that could be resolved as easily as requiring candidates to submit an affidavit affirming their eligibility to hold the office they are seeking. If it’s discovered later that they signed their name to false information, they can then simply be removed from the ballot. The voters in the state of Washington, and elsewhere, should expect at least some minimal screening on their behalf to make sure that people who are not eligible for office do not appear on our ballots. I encourage all voters to contact the representatives in the states they live in to make sure something is done to rectify this egregious lack of oversight in our electoral process, as it may be of vital importance not only in the current presidential race but beyond.