Against HB 1780 Hochberg - relating to the use of a driver's license or identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety in voter registration.
I witnessed the Green Party against this bill because I felt that, again, this was yet another attempt at a Voter I.D. approach which would not only serve as an additional cost to those not driving, seniors, minorities without birth certificates, etc., i.e. all the same reasons I have already written and others have observed against a Voter I.D.
Against HB 1892 Berman -Relating to nominations by primary election by all political parties.
I witnessed against this bill - This was the bill that the libertarians had identified as a possible way in which to financially cripple New Parties by forcing them to hold a primary election (I have chosen to take up the monicker of referring to so-called 3rd parties as new, in order to connote alternative instead of 3rd place or "3rd world")
Here is Patrick Dixon's written testimony that he had sent out prior to the committee hearing:
Dear members of the Elections Committee,
The Libertarian Party of Texas respectfully opposes HB 1892. I will address specific concerns to demonstrate why you should not vote to send this bill forward.
The premise of this bill is that unless candidates pay for a primary, they are getting a free ride onto the ballot. This premise is completely false. Fees paid by candidates to enter a primary election go to a dedicated fund to help pay for the primary. Of particular note:
• These funds do not cover the taxpayer burden of funding the primaries. The funds paid by these
candidates cover a portion of the overall costs.
• None of these funds pay for the general election. There is no advantage or unfairness to a candidate that appears on the general election ballot without imposing the burden of a primary on the taxpayer. The election code also provides for candidates to be nominated by a convention instead of a primary. The cost of a convention is borne completely by the candidates and
organizations conducting the nomination. The burden on taxpayers for a convention is zero.
Further, I must point out that the cost for a party to qualify for the ballot in Texas is
approximately a quarter million dollars. It is indeed an inequity for minor parties to have such a high financial hurdle simply to appear on the ballot. This is clearly not a free ride as
Texas has some of the most prohibitive and restrictive ballot access laws in the United States.
The ability to allow candidates and organizations to be compassionate toward the taxpayers of Texas and fully accept the financial and logistical burden of holding conventions in accordance with the election code would be abolished by passage of this bill.
I trust that I have sufficiently refuted the free rider premise of HB 1892 at this point.
Additionally, HB 1892 would place a tremendous organizational burden on minor parties. Primaries may be an appropriate mechanism for large parties with thousands of organizational employees and party officials throughout the state, but primaries are not appropriate for smaller parties that do not have that kind of extensive structure. I want to add, the Libertarian Party of Texas has never advocated that the Republican and Democratic parties should be forced to use primaries. As far as we're concerned, the major parties should be allowed to make nominations however they wish.
HB 1892 would also rob us of an important option. Unlike the major parties, Libertarian Party rules allow us to refuse to make a nomination for an office, even if candidates have filed for that office. In every election year, we have used this option to avoid making nominations when candidates did not represent our party well. However, if we were forced to use primaries, then we would lose this option, and we would be forced to put a candidate on the general election ballot whenever a person filed. I can imagine that the major parties might try to strategically file non-Libertarians in a Libertarian primary, in order to interfere with the other party's nominee in the general election.
In conclusion, I believe I have provided sufficient reasoning for you not to approve HB 1892. There are many bills that are more deserving of deliberation in calendars and the house floor than HB 1892.
Yours in Liberty,
Patrick J. Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
The next day Patrick Dixon wrote to thank everyone who came to the Elections Committee hearing in support of defeating this bill, stating that Rep. Berman pulled the bill late in the evening, presumably because of the large number of people and organizations against it!
Other election committee bills witnessed:
For HB 2468 Rodriuez - Relating to public access to the examination and approval of voting systems used in an election.
I witnessed in favor for this bill, because PUBLIC access is always a good thing, especially when it comes to elections and voting systems!
For HB 2524 Anchia - Relating to the accuracy, security, and reliability of certain electronic voting systems.
I witnessed in favor of this bill because I felt it points to the fact that there are problems with voting with non-verifiable computer voting machines. I know Rep. Anchia is aware of where there has been identified systemic fraud - he spoke at www.davidhasissues.com on the Voter I.D. bill(s) and spoke about real instances/circumstances of voting fraud. However, in the Green Party alliance with the Voterescue.org folks I was later reminded that they were against this bill feeling that ALL computer voting machines arrive "pre-hackable".
And don't let down your guard - Voter I.D. legislation is still out there, waiting to lift up it's ugly head....
