LETTERS: SB 40 WOULD BE UNFAIR

To the editor:

Having worked for many years for a regulated utility, I have become quite familiar with terms often associated with such organizations like "predatory pricing," "market-share advantage" and "squashing the competition." For the benefit of those not savvy to these terms, there refer to large, monopolistic or oligarchic businesses that, by virtue of their size and market advantage, could if so incline demolish would-be competitors by unfair business practices. For example, "predatory pricing" refers to a company that can, by virtue of large capital reserves, price selected products below costs to eliminate the ability of a competitor to participate in that market. Our legislators and regulators have for years taken it upon themselves to voraciously protect not only those smaller businesses, but the public at large from such unscrupulous corporate giants, as the public would ultimately be harmed by the lack of natural competition in any industry or market.

But seldom do we hear much about this injustice when it takes the form of political monopolization that originates from those self-same legislators who are intent on protecting us from those other guys. Everyone has probably heard of the incumbent advantage when it comes to political races, but little is publicized regarding the games that are played legislatively to diminish or eliminate political competition. Such shenanigans can be perfectly illustrated with the recent example of a bill that has been introduced in the Missouri Senate, Senate Bill 40.

SB 40 would amend certain sections of Missouri election law, specifically to increase the number of registered voter signatures required to form a new political party in the state. Currently, Missouri law requires an aspiring new party to obtain 10,000 signatures from registered voters throughout the state to get ballot access. This particular bill would up the ante significantly to "a number of registered voters which is at least equal to 20 percent of those voting in the most recent gubernatorial election and at least equal to 5 percent of the registered voters in each of the congressional districts in the state." In plain language, this would mean, for example, in the most recent gubernatorial election (November 1996) at least 428,503 voter signatures would now be required for a new party to obtain ballot access for the next election. I think all would agree that 4,200 percent increase in the qualification requirement reflects more than a passing concern for any assumed laxity in the ballot access rules.

The real irony of this bill is not its extravagant requirement increase, but instead the sponsor of the legislation: none other than Jerry Howard of the 25th Senatorial District. Just a little background for those not so aware: Howard just survived a significant threat to his Senate seat when Ray Rowland of the newly formed U.S. Taxpayers Party of Missouri ran a solid race against Howard in the last election (63 percent for Howard, 37 percent for Rowland).

Apparently, this contest, the first significant challenge to Howard in a good many years, was too close for comfort, and he apparently feels it imperative that something be done to slow down these upstart third parties (my own words, of course). So Howard has introduced legislation that would make it extremely difficult in the future to achieve ballot access in Missouri. Not only is Howard's legislative creativity an obvious reaction to his recent election scare, but it is totally inconsistent with the trend of not only Missouri, but most all states regarding easing the restrictions to ball access, not making them more onerous. Right now there is at least one minor party automatically qualified for the ballot in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Twenty-two states have eased their ballot access laws during the last 10 years, and it appears that not one of them has regretted it, since none have reverted to the harsher systems. Even Missouri modified its ballot access laws in 1994 to make it easier for the required signatures to be obtained. The change allowed the signatures to come from anywhere in the state rather than the previous requirement that they represent some proportionate amount of each of the congressional districts.

We must ask ourselves whose interests would really be served by this legislation: Jerry Howard's or those of the citizens of this state. Howard needs to face the reality that additional political parties are good for the election process. Typically, more real issue dialogue become available to the voting public, more accountability is gained within the major two-party systems, and, simply put, people have more information and thus can make better-informed decisions. In retrospect, perhaps this is precisely what Howard is trying to prevent. His constituents would do well to know exactly what it is that Jerry Howard is trying to accomplish (or protect) with this strangely timed piece of legislative genius.

BOB WELLS, Chairman

U.S. Taxpayers Party of Missouri

Maryland Heights