Curry has chance to put the independent back in Independence Day

Being the Fourth of July issue, it seemed only appropriate to write about something political. There’s President Obama’s baffling Afghanistan policy. The Republicans’ baffling focus on seemingly opposing just about anything Obama proposes just because he proposed it. The Democrats’ baffling ability to continually trip over themselves to accommodate the Republicans when the Dems control everything in Washington. That’s just goofy.
And then the Universe handed us all the ruling of United State District Judge Marcia Krieger. Krieger ruled last week that Colorado State Representative Kathleen Curry would not be allowed to place her name on the upcoming November ballot.
Some quick background: Curry lives on a ranch in Gunnison and represents Colorado House District 61. As a member of the Democratic Party she was the Speaker Pro Tem of the House and sat on important governmental committees. It appeared she was a rising star. On December 28, she broke from her party and publicly became unaffiliated. She had always been considered an independent and now she was literally the only independent in the State House. She said the party system was broken, and not many people, including those in both major parties, argued with her.
Curry wanted to continue to represent the people of House District 61 who had sent her to Denver three times. But under Colorado law, she then had to be an independent for almost a year and a half before the election and gather enough signatures on a petition to get her name on the ballot. Her supporters gathered well over the number of needed signatures and went to court to challenge the timeline.
Judge Krieger did not rule in her favor so Curry’s name will not appear on the ballot. You will have to write her name onto the ballot if you want to vote for her. Krieger seems to believe that the two-party system is what democracy is all about.

Krieger’s ruling states in part, The Party Nominee selection process thus embodies many of the public goals identified above: it filters out frivolous or fraudulent candidacies at the party level, thus avoiding crowded and confusing general election ballots, and it serves to ensure (at least in theory) that technical, intra-party policy and platform disputes are resolved before the general election, such that the slate of Party Nominees on the general election ballot represent “major struggles” between clearly-defined and distinct party platforms.

Krieger is obviously supportive of the political parties in an ideal sense. In an idyllic world, the two parties would distinctly state their cases, woo the voters and move ahead with promises. They would represent the beliefs of most of the people on two sides. Does anyone besides Krieger and the party hacks still believe that happens? It can and does sometimes, but addiction to money and power too often seem to get in the way.

This part of the ruling might get you really steamed. Krieger goes on to state: The presence of independent candidates in an election has distinct benefits, but if it is totally unregulated, it can increase voter confusion and distraction, political opportunism, and obscure rather than clarify the differences between policy positions. Thus there is an inherent tension between having enough independent participation in the democratic process and having too much.

Don’t let your head explode if you think a voter can’t handle a decision between more than a donkey and an elephant. Curry made it clear no one was asking to totally “unregulate” the election process. Serious candidates would still have to get enough people to sign a petition to get on the ballot. Rollo the Dancing Bear’s name would not be on the ballot.
About a third of the people living in Colorado have consciously chosen not to be a member of either political party. Maybe they are confused. Maybe they are distracted. Maybe they are the ones who are “unregulated” and that’s okay.
The bottom line is that the state legislature changed the rules this past session so that starting in 2012, an independent candidate would have to be officially independent less than a year to be qualified to get a name on the ballot. There would still be rules to follow. But this year, Curry, who pushed for the electoral change and got it through the state legislature dominated by the two-party system, will not be on the ballot. An obviously effective lawmaker will now have to have people write-in her name on the ballot.

Krieger does admit that there is a place for people like Curry …The Court acknowledges the benefits of a robust, multi-faceted political discourse and appreciates the unique viewpoints and values that minor parties and unaffiliated candidates can bring to the election process. At the same time, the Court recognizes the parties’ stipulation as to the public policies sought to be advanced by Colorado election law.

Many people aren’t looking for minor parties and unaffiliated candidates to just bring an appetizer to the party. They are hoping someone not affiliated with the two major parties can bring the disco ball and a main dish to the celebration. They want something fresh and real and not spoiled by layer upon layer of special interests. Rulings like Judge Krieger’s make it harder for people not beholden to the old school to break out. And that is just wrong in a broad democracy.
Krieger’s ruling makes Curry a long shot but she has a shot. In fact, if Curry can pull this off, it might just fire a message to judge Krieger and the two political parties the judge favors so much. A Curry write-in win would be a strong message that voters are not “confused and distracted’ but focused on seeking out and rewarding good representative government for the people—not just the parties.

Happy Independence Day, everyone.