Wed
Oct 29 2014
04:20 pm
Ballot order
By: jbr

Just curious what determines the order of names on the ballot?

For instance, why are Haslam, Alexander, Duncan, Briggs, Smith, all listed first in their section on the ballot? I don't understand the logic of the order.

It isn't alphabetical or the incumbent. How was the order determined?

Knox county Sample Ballot

Topics:
B Harmon's picture

I believe it is the GOP

Submitted by B Harmon on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 4:22pm.

I believe it is the GOP controlled state election commission that decides. In primaries it is in alphabetical order but not in the general.

R. Neal's picture

To the victor go the spoils.

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 5:05pm.
(in reply to B Harmon)

To the victor go the spoils.

jbr's picture

Looks like the New Hampshire

Submitted by jbr on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 5:00pm.

Looks like the New Hampshire Supreme Court found their ballot ordering method unconstitutional in in 2006. I could see the current method here as possibly being in the same category. I guess they came up with this …

656:5-a Order of Candidate Names on Ballots. –
I. Whenever there are 2 or more candidates for the same office whose names will appear together within the same column or list on a ballot, the position of such names shall be determined according to this section.
II. Immediately following the close of the period during which a person may accept the nomination of a party committee pursuant to RSA 655:32, the secretary of state or designee shall conduct a public random selection of a whole number from one to the total number of candidates for each possible list length where a group of candidates for the same office may appear in the same list in state or local elections during the next 2 years. For example, for a possible list of 3 candidates, the number one, 2, or 3 shall be randomly selected. The seed number for each possible list length shall remain in effect for the 2 years until the next random selection of seed numbers.
III. To determine the order of names on each ballot, the candidates for each office in the same list shall be temporarily listed alphabetically by surnames and the positions in such list shall be temporarily numbered in ascending order. The candidate whose position in the initial temporary list equals the seed number selected under paragraph II for the appropriate list length shall appear first on the ballot. The order of candidates after the candidate in the first position shall follow alphabetically by surname with "a'' following "z.''
Source. 2010, 330:3, eff. July 20, 2010.

Chapter 656 Preparation of Voting Materials

jbr's picture

Well not only the names part,

Submitted by jbr on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 5:10pm.

Well not only the names part, but also the "yes" and "no" listings. Seems like they shouldn't always be first "yes" then "no"

I cannot think of any way that Smith could logically be listed before Johnson on the ballot. That is pretty glaringly sketchy.

R. Neal's picture

Administrator of Electons

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 6:31pm.

Administrator of Electons Cliff Rodgers responds via email:

...ballot order is determined by Tenn. Code Annotated 2-5-208 (d)(1). “[O]n general election ballots, the name of each political party having nominees on the ballot shall be listed in the following order: majority party, minority party, and recognized minor party, if any. … A column for independent candidates shall follow the recognized minor party…with the listing of the candidates’ names alphabetically underneath. Also, Tenn. Code Annotated 2-5-208 (f)(1) requires, in effect, any questions on the ballot to be followed by the words “Yes” and ”No” in that order. I just wanted to clarify for your readers since ballot order is not left to the discretion of this or any other election commission in the State of Tennessee. Many other questions about ballot order are answered in that code section, including any questions about primaries. Thanks!

Clifford A. Rodgers
Administrator of Elections
Knox County

jbr's picture

To me this seems like

Submitted by jbr on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 9:36pm.
(in reply to R. Neal)

To me this seems like something that should be changed to some sort of random or alternating mechanism.

ballot shall be listed in the following order: majority party, minority party, and recognized minor party

jmcnair's picture

You would make a lousy

Submitted by jmcnair on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 9:41pm.
(in reply to jbr)

You would make a lousy Republican.

michael kaplan's picture

it's sort of like Google

Submitted by michael kaplan on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 10:53pm.
(in reply to R. Neal)

it's sort of like Google Search.

SnM's picture

Agreed

Submitted by SnM on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 9:55pm.

It should be changed. But did Republicans make it this way or did it pre-exist their ascension to power?

jbr's picture

I am pretty sure it predates

Submitted by jbr on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 10:01pm.
(in reply to SnM)

I am pretty sure it predates the current republican majority. But it should be changed. It never should have been that way.

B Harmon's picture

What are the chances that

Submitted by B Harmon on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 10:11pm.
(in reply to jbr)

What are the chances that whatever party is in power will change this rule?

knoxrebel's picture

Exactly. Democrats set these

Submitted by knoxrebel on Thu, 2014/10/30 - 10:47am.
(in reply to B Harmon)

Exactly. Democrats set these rules and enforced them - to our great advantage - for 100 years or so. We can't very well accuse the GOP of doing something underhanded. When you control the General Assembly, you not only control the state Election Commission and every county Election Commission, but you control legislation as well. Republicans complained about this ballot order stuff for decades. And Becky is dead-on right: whichever party is the majority party, that party is not going to "do the right thing" and make things . . . less unfair. The only way Democrats can get any relief from this suffering is to take back the legislature, one seat at a time. It'll happen, maybe not as soon as we want, but it'll happen. It's the 20-year cycle thing (yet our last cycle lasted at least 5 times that long). If we want to make things more even-handed, that'll be our chance to do it. But even then, and even after what may be years of suffering from the effects of our own legislation, I kind of doubt it'll happen.

jbr's picture

Ballot Order Effect

Submitted by jbr on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 10:12pm.

There are quite a few studies out there, here is one …

From University of Vermont …

being listed first in New York City primaries always resulted in a significant advantage, those listed first in
• gubernatorial primary races had a 2.3 percent advantage
• U.S. Senator races had a 1.8 percent advantage
• Lt. Governor races had a 1.6 percent advantage
• Attorney General races had a 2.2 percent advantage.

Ballot Order Effect

R. Neal's picture

Charlie Brown, Mark

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2014/10/29 - 10:18pm.
(in reply to jbr)

Charlie Brown, Mark Clayton...

The problem isn't necessarily ballot order.

Anonymous J's picture

life in a one party state

Submitted by Anonymous J (not verified) on Thu, 2014/10/30 - 1:14am.

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin

knoxrebel's picture

Yes, and Democrats counted

Submitted by knoxrebel on Thu, 2014/10/30 - 10:48am.
(in reply to Anonymous J)

Yes, and Democrats counted the votes in this state for over 100 years.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives