Proponents have withdrawn three ballot initiatives that would have eliminated the caucus and assembly process as a method of placing candidates on primary ballots, requiring instead that office-seekers collect signatures on petitions.

Initiatives 316-318 received a ballot title earlier in April, despite concerns from objectors that the true purpose of the measures was to reduce the number of candidates and competitive primary elections. Specifically, in smaller counties the number of registered voters of one political party is sometimes lower than the number of signatures needed for a candidate to secure a place on their party’s primary ballot.

“As proposed, these measures could have created ballot access problems in certain rural areas,” said Mark Grueskin, the attorney for the initiatives’ designated representatives, Hattie Lou Reed and Mike Melanson. “In places where one party predominates, elections that gave voters a real choice might have been hard to come by. That was never the intent behind these reforms, and so the three initiatives were withdrawn.”

During a Title Board hearing to consider objections, Celeste Landry argued that if every candidate had to circulate petitions, voters would tire from the increase in signature gathering. “If an unhappy electorate revolts and generally ‘declines to sign’ candidate petitions, very few or perhaps zero candidates will be placed on the ballot,” she contended. Landry also pointed out that the caucus and assembly process was better-suited for candidates with smaller budgets who were unable to hire sufficient numbers of signature gatherers.

Title Board member Julie Pelegrin summed up the feeling of the board in explaining that “We can’t predict how ultimately changes in the law play out, and we can’t put into a title what somebody’s motive may or not be in presenting a measure.”

After the withdrawal, Britta Singer, who also expressed concerns to the Title Board, said that she and Landry believe that there should be more than one route to access the ballot, and that assemblies provide “hands-on civic engagement.” She added that the two women would be willing to work with proponents should they decide to revive the concept in a future election cycle.

In related news, proponents of Initiatives 273-275 withdrew their measures to mandate voter approval for enterprises – government-owned businesses – that exceeded certain revenue thresholds. Those initiatives were before the state Supreme Court following an appeal of the Title Board’s decision to set a ballot title. Three virtually identical proposals from designated representatives Michael Fields and Lindsey Singer retain their titles and are on track for circulation.