Political Notes

Should Candidates Be Removed Over Minor Paperwork Errors?

One of the things that has been bothering me about the challenges filed against several Libertarian candidates recently is not whether the objections are legal. It’s what they say about how we view elections.

Republicans seeking to remove Libertarian candidates from Iowa’s ballot have pointed to typographical errors like nicknames, minor spelling discrepancies, incomplete addresses, and other technical filing concerns.

Those arguments may ultimately succeed or fail under Iowa law. That’s for the challenge panel to decide.

But a larger question lingers. What exactly is the purpose of election law? Is it to help voters choose candidates, or to help candidates eliminate competitors?

Consider the allegations. One candidate allegedly used a shortened version of his name on one document and a longer version on another. Another candidate allegedly omitted part of a street address. Another used a nickname instead of a formal legal name.

None of these challenges appear to argue that voters were deceived. None appear to argue that signatures were forged. None appear to argue that the candidates failed to demonstrate meaningful public support.

Instead, the argument is essentially that paperwork imperfections should outweigh voter intent. That should make all of us uncomfortable. Not because the candidates involved are Libertarians, but because standards established today rarely remain limited to today’s targets.

Once political parties begin viewing technical defects as an acceptable way to remove opponents from ballots, there is little reason to believe the practice will remain confined to third parties. Future Republicans and Democrats could face similar challenges.

If voters clearly know who they are supporting, should minor paperwork errors override that support? Reasonable people can disagree on where the line should be drawn. Election rules matter. Deadlines matter. Candidate filings matter.

But there is also a difference between protecting election integrity and exploiting technicalities. In sports, nobody wants a championship decided because a player’s shoes violated a uniform rule.

In court, nobody wants justice determined by a typo. And in elections, most voters probably want candidates defeated by votes rather than paperwork.

Perhaps the Republican challenges against these Libertarian candidates are entirely appropriate. Perhaps they are not. But the fact that these challenges are being pursued so aggressively over issues that appear largely unrelated to voter understanding begs the question “Are the challenges aimed at protecting elections, or for a political advantage?”

That distinction may matter far more than the fate of any single Libertarian candidate.

J.W. Calder
Political Notes