BRIDGING THE DIVIDE: An Independent Primary Is Our Nation's Best Chance For Unification.
GoodThoughts.us believes the two party battle for majority control is at the heart of our Nation's dysfunction, and an independent primary is the best way to bridge the divide. This page discusses some history and law and explains how an independent primary would more accurately reflect our political reality and would diffuse the existential threats of gridlock, gerrymandering, and authoritarianism.
But first, what is an independent primary? Just like the name suggests, an independent primary would be a primary election in which independent candidates could run for office in the same manner and with the same requirements as Democrats and Republicans. The winner of an independent primary would then appear on the general election ballot.
But first, what is an independent primary? Just like the name suggests, an independent primary would be a primary election in which independent candidates could run for office in the same manner and with the same requirements as Democrats and Republicans. The winner of an independent primary would then appear on the general election ballot.
Independents are the largest group of voters
People are starting to talk about the fact that more voters identify as independent than either Democrat or Republican, but this important point is still not common knowledge. Most people lump independents into the same category as third parties. In large part this is because independents and third parties are treated similarly by our election laws, but independents vastly outnumber any third-party. For example, GoodThoughts.us is based in beautiful North Carolina where (as of early 2024) we have approximately 50,000 registered Libertarians and 2,000 Green Party members, but there are 2.7 million independents. Independents are the largest voting group in North Carolina and yet there are zero independent representatives in the state legislature or Congress. That's a problem.
Weakening the grip of the authoritarian.
Many people are understandably concerned about the threat of an authoritarian. Due to our toxic political climate, partisans are not particularly open to empowering independents. Most partisans immediately jump to the thought of a “spoiler” candidate, but it is critically important for the reader to recognize the distinction between advocating for an individual independent presidential candidate, which is something that can already occur in our system (through signature collection), compared with the creation of an independent primary, which would be a structural reform that essentially guarantees independents a place up and down the general election ballot.
While there is no fail-proof system for protecting against an authoritarian, having an independent “catch-all” or “safety-valve” primary as part of our electoral system would not only provide equal treatment under the law for independents, it would also mitigate the impact of an overly influential individual or ideology. As it is now, elected officials are more likely to dig in their heels and stick with their party rather than convert to the other side or deal with the signature collection hurdles involved with being an independent.
Unfortunately, many "leaders" are willing to rationalize doing the wrong thing to maintain their personal power. An independent primary would increase flexibility within the system and would help ensure stability by creating a safe landing spot for disgruntled partisans and those rank and file legislators who might be bullied by a party leader. If the authoritarian wins the Presidency and their party controls the legislative branch, the system becomes readily susceptible to takeover. However, if becoming an independent didn’t mean giving up access to power, elected officials (and voters) could easily shift to the category of independent, and lessen the authoritarian's influence.
While there is no fail-proof system for protecting against an authoritarian, having an independent “catch-all” or “safety-valve” primary as part of our electoral system would not only provide equal treatment under the law for independents, it would also mitigate the impact of an overly influential individual or ideology. As it is now, elected officials are more likely to dig in their heels and stick with their party rather than convert to the other side or deal with the signature collection hurdles involved with being an independent.
Unfortunately, many "leaders" are willing to rationalize doing the wrong thing to maintain their personal power. An independent primary would increase flexibility within the system and would help ensure stability by creating a safe landing spot for disgruntled partisans and those rank and file legislators who might be bullied by a party leader. If the authoritarian wins the Presidency and their party controls the legislative branch, the system becomes readily susceptible to takeover. However, if becoming an independent didn’t mean giving up access to power, elected officials (and voters) could easily shift to the category of independent, and lessen the authoritarian's influence.
What does Jim Crow have to do with independents?
There is nothing in the US Constitution that establishes a “two-party system.” After the Civil War, during Jim Crow, the Democrats and Republicans ensured our path to polarization and gradual demise when they created the “modern two-party system.” The timing and exact rules were not identical in each state, but during Jim Crow, the Democrats and Republicans secured their long-term political power by creating primary elections for themselves while instituting arbitrary and onerous signature collection obstacles for everyone else.
As Black men and later all Women gained the right to vote, the White male dominated Democratic and Republican parties feared political competition. Since the two parties could no longer stop Blacks and Women from voting, the duopoly needed to make certain the two parties remained the only political game in town. To do this, the Democrats and Republicans wrote laws that gave, and in many states still give, their party members easy access to primary elections and require everyone else to collect so many signatures they either give up running for office or join one of the two major parties. While it is true that some states currently require all candidates to collect signatures regardless of political affiliation, the overall national landscape significantly disfavors independents.
We need competing ideas and equal access to power for a healthy and peaceful democracy. Since the Jim Crow era and the implementation of the Australian ballot (see the video below), being an independent has meant giving up equal access to power, and yet, the number of registered independents has steadily grown to the point that independents are surpassing Democrats and Republicans in registration numbers. Unfortunately, this old-time power grab is still effectively eliminating independents from office.
The inconsistent presence of independent candidates, up and down the general election ballot and across state lines makes voters skeptical to support an independent or third-party candidate. Understandably, no one wants to throw their vote away. While independents and third-party candidates have every right to participate, until they have equal access to power, up and down the ballot and in every state, we will continue to hear the "spoiler" narrative, and we will continue to suffer the consequences of our Jim Crow era leadership.
As Black men and later all Women gained the right to vote, the White male dominated Democratic and Republican parties feared political competition. Since the two parties could no longer stop Blacks and Women from voting, the duopoly needed to make certain the two parties remained the only political game in town. To do this, the Democrats and Republicans wrote laws that gave, and in many states still give, their party members easy access to primary elections and require everyone else to collect so many signatures they either give up running for office or join one of the two major parties. While it is true that some states currently require all candidates to collect signatures regardless of political affiliation, the overall national landscape significantly disfavors independents.
We need competing ideas and equal access to power for a healthy and peaceful democracy. Since the Jim Crow era and the implementation of the Australian ballot (see the video below), being an independent has meant giving up equal access to power, and yet, the number of registered independents has steadily grown to the point that independents are surpassing Democrats and Republicans in registration numbers. Unfortunately, this old-time power grab is still effectively eliminating independents from office.
The inconsistent presence of independent candidates, up and down the general election ballot and across state lines makes voters skeptical to support an independent or third-party candidate. Understandably, no one wants to throw their vote away. While independents and third-party candidates have every right to participate, until they have equal access to power, up and down the ballot and in every state, we will continue to hear the "spoiler" narrative, and we will continue to suffer the consequences of our Jim Crow era leadership.
Unaffiliated
The video below contains a more in-depth discussion of the history behind our primary election process, and explores the bedrock legal case for signature collection. We must make the connection between our current treatment of independents and the post Civil War fight for Blacks and Women to vote.
Table of Contents
(0:00-2:20) Introduction
(2:20-8:30)The Australian Ballot
(8:30-10:10)- White only primaries
(10:10-33:06) Jenness v. Fortson
(33:06-46:25) Separate is still not equal
(0:00-2:20) Introduction
(2:20-8:30)The Australian Ballot
(8:30-10:10)- White only primaries
(10:10-33:06) Jenness v. Fortson
(33:06-46:25) Separate is still not equal
What about other countries?
This page is not going to dive into comparative politics, but on an international level, what is clear is that the United States signed a treaty called the Copenhagen Document, whereby the United States agrees to, “Respect the rights of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations, without discrimination.” The US invited The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (a group associated with the Copenhagen Document) to observe the November 2004 elections. Among other things, the final report speaks to the issue of ballot access, and says, “There is a clear need for continued civil society work of a distinctly nonpartisan nature in the ongoing reform of the U.S. electoral system.”
Why push for an independent primary instead of a nonpartisan primary?
The recent direction within the reform community has been toward nonpartisan primaries. Nonpartisan primaries are open to all candidates and voters regardless of political affiliation. In theory the idea seems great for independents because nonpartisan primaries eliminate the signature collection hurdle. But unfortunately, nonpartisan primaries are not diffusing the duopoly because of the gap between theory and reality.
By jumbling all the candidates together and allowing, usually 2 and no more than 4 candidates to advance, the established parties are well positioned to simply continue their domination in nonpartisan primaries. Currently, the only advantage to the nonpartisan primary approach over an independent primary is that nonpartisan primary voters can choose whichever candidate they prefer regardless of that candidate’s affiliation. This piece of progress is not so great when it comes with the significant downside that independents are put in head-to-head competition with major party resources at the earliest phase of the process and the parties are free to support as many of their candidates as they wish. Accordingly, it’s not surprising that in the states adopting nonpartisan primaries (Washington, California, and Alaska), independents remain essentially unrepresented on the general election ballot.
Conversely, the only downside to an independent primary is that voters would still have to choose a primary in which to vote. This point is more than mitigated by the massive upside that independents would be guaranteed a place on the general election ballot for every contest. Even though it would still be difficult for independents to compete in the general election, simply having their presence on the general election ballot would be a huge political shift and confidence boost. Compare this to nonpartisan primaries where it is not uncommon for the result to be a general election consisting of only one party, which raises eyebrows rather than instilling confidence. And of course, once independents are safely onto the general election ballot, some of them will win. Having independent representation in Congress is imperative for diffusing the duopoly and ending the battle for majority control.
An independent primary does not require any major changes for the states and allows the parties to maintain their First Amendment right of association. An independent primary basically uses jujitsu on the duopoly. You want taxpayer-funded primaries? Fine, independents get one too. You want non-party members excluded from voting in your primary? Fine, independents get a primary of their own. An independent primary would accelerate the existing trend of independent voter registration. In relatively short time, independents would become the dominate political category, the two major parties would be reduced to their proper stature, and the idea of a nonpartisan primary would then become timely.
By jumbling all the candidates together and allowing, usually 2 and no more than 4 candidates to advance, the established parties are well positioned to simply continue their domination in nonpartisan primaries. Currently, the only advantage to the nonpartisan primary approach over an independent primary is that nonpartisan primary voters can choose whichever candidate they prefer regardless of that candidate’s affiliation. This piece of progress is not so great when it comes with the significant downside that independents are put in head-to-head competition with major party resources at the earliest phase of the process and the parties are free to support as many of their candidates as they wish. Accordingly, it’s not surprising that in the states adopting nonpartisan primaries (Washington, California, and Alaska), independents remain essentially unrepresented on the general election ballot.
Conversely, the only downside to an independent primary is that voters would still have to choose a primary in which to vote. This point is more than mitigated by the massive upside that independents would be guaranteed a place on the general election ballot for every contest. Even though it would still be difficult for independents to compete in the general election, simply having their presence on the general election ballot would be a huge political shift and confidence boost. Compare this to nonpartisan primaries where it is not uncommon for the result to be a general election consisting of only one party, which raises eyebrows rather than instilling confidence. And of course, once independents are safely onto the general election ballot, some of them will win. Having independent representation in Congress is imperative for diffusing the duopoly and ending the battle for majority control.
An independent primary does not require any major changes for the states and allows the parties to maintain their First Amendment right of association. An independent primary basically uses jujitsu on the duopoly. You want taxpayer-funded primaries? Fine, independents get one too. You want non-party members excluded from voting in your primary? Fine, independents get a primary of their own. An independent primary would accelerate the existing trend of independent voter registration. In relatively short time, independents would become the dominate political category, the two major parties would be reduced to their proper stature, and the idea of a nonpartisan primary would then become timely.
First Amendment right of association & Constitutional half-steppin.
The First Amendment right of association is an important part of the nonpartisan primary vs independent primary conversation. Simply stated, the right of association is the idea that, in the United States, people are free to form groups and organizations, which include political parties. The right also operates in the opposite direction and protects people from being forced into associations. It’s an important Constitutional principle, and there is currently an unnecessary conflict between the political parties’ right of association and our long-held aversion to taxation without representation.
The parties don’t want nonparty members choosing their leaders, and independents don’t want to be excluded from the primary process which is paid for with their tax dollars. Both arguments are valid, and there are two ways to resolve the conflict while respecting everyone’s Constitutional rights: States can either remove themselves entirely from the primary process and only fund one general election that provides equal access to all candidates, or they can offer a separate “catch-all” independent primary. Nonpartisan primaries address the independents’ taxation argument, but not the parties’ First Amendment issues. Nonpartisan primaries are an incomplete answer that fail to properly level the playing field.
It should be clear that GoodThoughts.us does not support either major party, however, the parties have a legitimate Constitutional argument. Nonpartisan primaries do offend the parties’ right of association because the nonpartisan primaries force the parties to allow nonparty members to help choose the candidates who for all intents and purposes become the party leaders. However, to be clear, despite the parties’ distaste for nonpartisan primaries, both major parties would greatly prefer a nonpartisan primary over either of the two proper answers of eliminating the taxpayer funded primary all together or having a separate independent primary. Both of those Constitutionally sound solutions would guarantee the presence of independent candidates up and down the general election ballot, and that would be the end of the duopoly.
The Supreme Court has thus far given us much more placebo than medicine. It was a 7-2 opinion in 2008 (Washington State v. Washington State Republican Party) written by Justice Clarence Thomas that ushered in the nonpartisan primary reform option after similar efforts had failed (see California Democratic Party v. Jones). Justice Thomas changed his earlier position which defended the right of association and joined with new Justices Roberts and Alito as well the liberal wing of the Court to green light the nonpartisan primary. Normally the Court issuing a 7-2 opinion that seemingly helps further open our democracy would be worthy of celebrating. Unfortunately, in this situation, the opinion is not Constitutionally sound because the majority is stepping on a right to remedy a wrong when there are clear solutions that squarely resolve both problems. Stepping on the rights of the parties has allowed the Court to give a micro victory to the independents while avoiding the Constitutionally proper action which would end the duopoly.
You might be saying to yourself, “I don’t care if the parties are getting the short end of the stick so long as independents are allowed to run and vote in the primaries.” In addition to not being Constitutionally principled logic, as previously stated, nonpartisan primaries are not actually helping to advance independent representation because independents are forced into a free-for-all early round election in which they are not likely to succeed due to the overwhelming resources of the two major parties. This is not mere speculation. In the states that have implemented nonpartisan primaries (California, Washington, Alaska), there has been no significant increase in the number of independents making it onto the general election ballot, let alone getting elected. The nonpartisan primary lures reformers into a sense of progress while the two major parties continue to dominate.
The parties don’t want nonparty members choosing their leaders, and independents don’t want to be excluded from the primary process which is paid for with their tax dollars. Both arguments are valid, and there are two ways to resolve the conflict while respecting everyone’s Constitutional rights: States can either remove themselves entirely from the primary process and only fund one general election that provides equal access to all candidates, or they can offer a separate “catch-all” independent primary. Nonpartisan primaries address the independents’ taxation argument, but not the parties’ First Amendment issues. Nonpartisan primaries are an incomplete answer that fail to properly level the playing field.
It should be clear that GoodThoughts.us does not support either major party, however, the parties have a legitimate Constitutional argument. Nonpartisan primaries do offend the parties’ right of association because the nonpartisan primaries force the parties to allow nonparty members to help choose the candidates who for all intents and purposes become the party leaders. However, to be clear, despite the parties’ distaste for nonpartisan primaries, both major parties would greatly prefer a nonpartisan primary over either of the two proper answers of eliminating the taxpayer funded primary all together or having a separate independent primary. Both of those Constitutionally sound solutions would guarantee the presence of independent candidates up and down the general election ballot, and that would be the end of the duopoly.
The Supreme Court has thus far given us much more placebo than medicine. It was a 7-2 opinion in 2008 (Washington State v. Washington State Republican Party) written by Justice Clarence Thomas that ushered in the nonpartisan primary reform option after similar efforts had failed (see California Democratic Party v. Jones). Justice Thomas changed his earlier position which defended the right of association and joined with new Justices Roberts and Alito as well the liberal wing of the Court to green light the nonpartisan primary. Normally the Court issuing a 7-2 opinion that seemingly helps further open our democracy would be worthy of celebrating. Unfortunately, in this situation, the opinion is not Constitutionally sound because the majority is stepping on a right to remedy a wrong when there are clear solutions that squarely resolve both problems. Stepping on the rights of the parties has allowed the Court to give a micro victory to the independents while avoiding the Constitutionally proper action which would end the duopoly.
You might be saying to yourself, “I don’t care if the parties are getting the short end of the stick so long as independents are allowed to run and vote in the primaries.” In addition to not being Constitutionally principled logic, as previously stated, nonpartisan primaries are not actually helping to advance independent representation because independents are forced into a free-for-all early round election in which they are not likely to succeed due to the overwhelming resources of the two major parties. This is not mere speculation. In the states that have implemented nonpartisan primaries (California, Washington, Alaska), there has been no significant increase in the number of independents making it onto the general election ballot, let alone getting elected. The nonpartisan primary lures reformers into a sense of progress while the two major parties continue to dominate.
Ranked choice voting?
There is also a lot of excitement around ranked choice voting (RCV). GoodThoughts.us believes RCV is a fair way to count votes and it helps avoid extreme candidates, but RCV does nothing to address the issue of ballot access for independent and third party candidates.
Separate is still not equal.
In most states, Democratic and Republican candidates are provided taxpayer funded primary elections that only cost a small fee to enter. Win or lose, simply having one’s name on the primary ballot and election board website provides significant name promotion. Of course, it’s not necessarily easy to win a Democratic or Republican primary; it depends on whether anyone else is running. Many primary candidates run unopposed or with only one other contestant. On the other hand, collecting thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands, of physical signatures makes the independent pathway inevitably daunting and practically insurmountable.
Maybe you’re wondering, “How many independents try to collect the signatures?” That’s a good question, but unfortunately the state law in North Carolina does not require election boards to keep records of signature collection campaigns for any length of time, so no one can tell you the exact number of signature collection campaigns attempted.
Even in the super-rare case where an independent candidate does manage to collect the signatures and pulls off the miracle win, they are essentially forced to caucus with one of the two major parties because the signature collection process prevents widespread or sustained independent success. Lastly, to add insult to injury (at least in NC), the super-rare independent winner is required to collect signatures again every election cycle. Separate and unequal signature collection processes are the reason there are essentially zero independents in office.
Maybe you’re wondering, “How many independents try to collect the signatures?” That’s a good question, but unfortunately the state law in North Carolina does not require election boards to keep records of signature collection campaigns for any length of time, so no one can tell you the exact number of signature collection campaigns attempted.
Even in the super-rare case where an independent candidate does manage to collect the signatures and pulls off the miracle win, they are essentially forced to caucus with one of the two major parties because the signature collection process prevents widespread or sustained independent success. Lastly, to add insult to injury (at least in NC), the super-rare independent winner is required to collect signatures again every election cycle. Separate and unequal signature collection processes are the reason there are essentially zero independents in office.
The map above shows the majority political affiliation in each of North Carolina’s Congressional districts (2022 maps and data), and yet there are no independent representatives in Congress.
Something else that gets overlooked...
As mentioned at the top of the page, there are far more independents than members of third parties, and accordingly, GoodThoughts.us seeks to empower independents with a primary. But it should be mentioned that one of the biggest reasons third parties have such a difficult time gaining traction, is not only because they must collect tens of thousands of signatures to get established, but also because states can require the new party to win a certain percentage of the next statewide race or lose their status. These laws are tricky because the “maintenance requirement” gets listed as a percentage, which seems small in theory, rather than the actual number of votes required, which in reality is a high bar.
Using GoodThoughts.us home state of North Carolina as an example, as of July 2024, forming a political party requires signatures from %.0025 of all the votes cast in the last Governor's race (approximately 14,000 signatures), but to maintain party status the new party must win 2% of the votes in the very next Governor's race (approximately 110,000 votes). It’s already an extraordinary challenge to collect 14,000 physical signatures, but then to have to turn around and immediately win eight times that number in votes for Governor or President is onerous. The duopoly suppresses competition coming or going.
Using GoodThoughts.us home state of North Carolina as an example, as of July 2024, forming a political party requires signatures from %.0025 of all the votes cast in the last Governor's race (approximately 14,000 signatures), but to maintain party status the new party must win 2% of the votes in the very next Governor's race (approximately 110,000 votes). It’s already an extraordinary challenge to collect 14,000 physical signatures, but then to have to turn around and immediately win eight times that number in votes for Governor or President is onerous. The duopoly suppresses competition coming or going.
How does the status quo justify this undemocratic nonsense?
The status quo wants us to believe signature collection requirements are designed to prevent frivolous candidates and overcrowded ballots, but in most states anyone can call themselves a Democrat or Republican, pay a small fee, and automatically be deemed legitimate by the current system. And while most primaries only have a few candidates, it is not uncommon for statewide primaries to be overcrowded. Frivolous candidates and overcrowded ballots are a fair concern, but if we are going to use signature collection to establish legitimacy, then all candidates, regardless of political affiliation, should be required to navigate the same signature collection requirements.
The status quo argues that independents aren’t a party; they have no organization, no unified beliefs, and no official platform. That’s true, but independents have huge numbers, and the unaffiliated category is a government created category which should receive Constitutional protection. Adults are choosing the category of independent (or unaffiliated) over both Democrats and Republicans. As it is now, Democratic and Republican candidates are not required to follow their party’s platform. Most voters have not read their party’s platform and both parties offer a broad spectrum of candidates. Successful independent candidates would meet one another, organize, and work together as they see fit.
Despite not having an official organization, independents do in fact have some unifying beliefs. Polling through SurveyMonkey found independents overwhelmingly prioritize ideas and character over political parties, and 100% agreed, “All candidates should play by the same rules.”
The status quo argues that independents aren’t a party; they have no organization, no unified beliefs, and no official platform. That’s true, but independents have huge numbers, and the unaffiliated category is a government created category which should receive Constitutional protection. Adults are choosing the category of independent (or unaffiliated) over both Democrats and Republicans. As it is now, Democratic and Republican candidates are not required to follow their party’s platform. Most voters have not read their party’s platform and both parties offer a broad spectrum of candidates. Successful independent candidates would meet one another, organize, and work together as they see fit.
Despite not having an official organization, independents do in fact have some unifying beliefs. Polling through SurveyMonkey found independents overwhelmingly prioritize ideas and character over political parties, and 100% agreed, “All candidates should play by the same rules.”
An independent primary can diffuse gerrymandering.
It is relatively easy for the majority party to draw heavy-handed maps around one equally sized competing political party, but it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to gain advantage when a third equally sized group, that lives everywhere, is also considered. The maps below (using data from 2022) help demonstrate the point.
This first map shows the majority party in each county, ignoring independents.
The second map shows the majority “party” when independents are included.
The third map shows the top-two political groups in each county.
As you can see, independents are everywhere, and if equally empowered, they would mathematically disrupt currently gerrymandered districts and help prevent heavy-handed maps from being drawn in the future.
As you can see, independents are everywhere, and if equally empowered, they would mathematically disrupt currently gerrymandered districts and help prevent heavy-handed maps from being drawn in the future.
Our gridlock is paralyzing.
The legislative process was designed to be deliberate, not intransigent. An independent primary would create three equally sized “parties,” which would improve our flexibility and functionality. An independent primary would end the current battle for majority control and the gridlock that comes with it. Three equally sized groups would force all lawmakers into a collaborative mindset because every idea would need significant support from outside of one’s own group. There would no longer be any reward for stubbornly waiting until the next election cycle to regain power. This re-organization of power, rooted in sound democratic principles, promotes unity and teamwork instead of conflict. We need the red, white, and blue working together.
How would an independent primary become a reality?
An independent primary could become law in states that allow citizens to put issues on the ballot (which includes about half the Nation). At this time, GoodThoughts.us does not foresee Democrats or Republicans passing laws to empower independents unless steered in that direction by the Supreme Court. Yes, the judicial branch is politicized and polarized too, but nonetheless it is the branch most likely to support the rights of independents.
To be clear, GoodThoughts.us does not have any objection to political parties or organizations. GoodThoughts.us objects to separate and unequal rules that result in our Nation's largest voting bloc being unrepresented. The Supreme Court needs to strictly scrutinize the laws which give rise to the lack of independent representation in American politics.
To be clear, GoodThoughts.us does not have any objection to political parties or organizations. GoodThoughts.us objects to separate and unequal rules that result in our Nation's largest voting bloc being unrepresented. The Supreme Court needs to strictly scrutinize the laws which give rise to the lack of independent representation in American politics.
GoodThoughts.us supported lawsuit.
When GoodThoughts.us founder, T. Andrew Dykers, ran for N.C. House in 2022, he was required to collect 2,320 physical signatures to earn a spot on the general election ballot. Finding over 2000 voters in one's neighborhood willing to sign an official document to support a state house campaign is a very difficult and arbitrary task designed to scare off independents who might be inclined to run for office.
Candidate Dykers collected over 900 physical signatures by mailing letters to independents in the district. In NC, the law considers anything given in furtherance of the campaign to be a contribution. Candidate Dykers did not ask for money, but over 500 people placed stamps on the return envelope, giving Dykers more contributors than the eventual winner. These facts show the arbitrary nature of the law and should be examined by the courts.
Candidate Dykers collected over 900 physical signatures by mailing letters to independents in the district. In NC, the law considers anything given in furtherance of the campaign to be a contribution. Candidate Dykers did not ask for money, but over 500 people placed stamps on the return envelope, giving Dykers more contributors than the eventual winner. These facts show the arbitrary nature of the law and should be examined by the courts.