Last Day To File For March Partisan Primary, Independents Have More Time For General
Today is the last day to file to be on the March primary ballot. Here are important dates from the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners:
March 8, 2011 Primary Municipal Election:
a. November 29, 2010 – Opening of filing.
b. January 7, 2011 – Close of filing.
c. January 27, 2011 – Last day to withdraw as a candidate.
d. January 25, 2011 – Start of absentee voting.
e. February 9, 2011 – Close of registration.
April 5, 2011 General Municipal Election:
a. December 14, 2010 – School Board Candidate Filing Opens
b. January 18, 2011 – School Board Candidate Filing Closes
c. March 9, 2011 – Start of absentee voting (or as soon after March 8 as possible).
d. March 9, 2011 – Close of registration.
Not mentioned above is how to bypass the partisan primary on March 8th but be on the April 5th general ballot. Â Independent candidates for the (14) even numbered aldermanic seats or for president of the board of aldermen need to collect signatures from registered voters:
Independent Candidates. A person who desires to run for municipal office as a non-partisan or independent candidate must pay the applicable filing fee to the Office of the City Treasurer, obtain a receipt therefor, and file the receipt with the Election Board at the same time he/she files his/her declaration papers. A non-partisan/independent candidate must also file with the Election Board a nominating petition signed by registered voters equal in number to at least two percent (2%) of the votes cast at the last preceding mayoral election. The deadline to file such a petition is the eighth Monday prior to the applicable General Municipal Election.
The filing fee for alderman is $333.33. Â The deadline is February 14, 2011. Â Using the 6th ward as an example, “the number of voters in April 2009 was 1,626; 2% of that number is 33 signatures, rounded up” says Deputy Democratic Director Matthew Potter. Â Thirty-three signatures isn’t bad, the number may be more or less in your ward. Â The number would be substantial to run for a citywide office as an independent.
As of the most recent candidate list, a number of offices only have one candidate. Â It is hard to let “voters decide” with only a single candidate. Â I’d love to see a bunch of independent candidates this year, making the April general election not seem so useless.
– Steve Patterson
Steve, by not running, voters have made a decision. They are deciding to leave things as they are.
So because every voter didn't decide to quit their job to run for office they are all content with the status quo? Please, give me a break.
No, rather because not one voter decided to run for office.
In how many races with only one candidate is the candidate also the incumbent? Running against one is really tough unless they are truly incompetent and/or corrupt. For many voters, the devil they know is better than one they don't, as in if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
On the individual side, yes, serving in office should be out of duty and altruism, but that don't pay the bills, and most offices around here don't pay nearly enough for the work expected. This reduces the universe to the retired, the independently wealthy, the corrupt and/or those only willing to do the minimum to get by. Add in that running takes time and money, with no guarantee that you'll win, and you get the current crop of candidates.
The two best ways to change this dynamic is to implement term limits and to raise the pay. A race without an incumbent levels the playing field and usually attracts multiple hopefuls, and we need to be realistic about the work expected and pay accordingly. In speaking with my alderman recently, he said that he gets 50 phone calls and 20 emails every day. Assuming that it takes, what, 3 minutes to review and respond to each one, that's 3 1/2 hours a day before you go to any meetings, do any research or write any legislation! It may be, in theory, a part time position; in reality, it leaves little time for a “real” job.
Voters have decided when there’s only one candidate. They’ve decided to not change things.
I don’t know if they’ve “decided to not change things” so much as they’ve decided leaving a full-time, well-paying job for a CHANCE at a political office that may not employ them for more than a few years is worth the risk. Many voters have family to care for and cannot afford the sacrifice.
People who can afford that risk ought to run, thus giving voters a choice in the type of person they want to be led by.
No one running against Krewson?
It is a system that is in place, one that does not encourage democracy. The few challengers are ignored by a main stream media who basically refuse to cover new ideas or people unless it is forced upon them. A corporate sector that makes enormous profits the way things are so they don't want change and from a public overwhelmed by choices and surviving day to day.
That is the backdrop of challengers to democrats and republicans.
It is more than people afraid to step to the plate to make a challenge. It is a whole system that has been built to discourage participation. It is subtle, but there should be no question from your blog and many others ideas and new directions exist, the power structure just does not want to hear them because they have got milking the current structure down to a science.
So much for capitalism being innovative, it is the most reactionary force there is.