Editorial Advisory: Should ‘A’ always come before ‘B’?

Posted: 7:00 pm Sun, October 17, 2010
By Editorial Advisory Board
Special to The Daily Record

Under Maryland’s Election Law, candidates for public office are listed alphabetically by surname on the primary election ballot and within party groupings on the general election ballot when there is more than one candidate of the same political party for an office. With respect to judicial races, the candidates are listed alphabetically in both the primary and general elections. The current system is inherently unfair to persons whose surname is at the end of the alphabet. We urge the General Assembly to address the issue and enact a randomized system for the listing of candidates for public office.

It is common wisdom among political cognoscenti that ballot position is important. Politicians and pundits believe that having a last name at the beginning of the alphabet is a distinct advantage in systems where candidates are listed alphabetically. This is especially so in “bottom of the ticket” races where the candidates may not be as well-known as the candidates for governor or mayor/county executive. Social science research, with some minor exceptions, confirms the common wisdom that being first or second on the ballot is an advantage.

In 1975, the California Supreme Court held in Gould v. Grubb that an election procedure that automatically placed the incumbent in the top position on the ballot was unconstitutional. Gould also held that alphabetical listing of candidates was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court stated:

We recognize, of course, that the listing of candidates in alphabetical order is not entirely irrational, for such a system does promote efficiency in voting by making it easier for voters to locate the name of the candidate of their choice on the ballot, especially in races involving a large number of candidates. … [H]owever, because the substantial advantage which accrues to a candidate in a top ballot position may significantly distort the equality and integrity of the electoral process, the simple rationality of an alphabetical order procedure is not sufficient to sustain such a provision in this context.

Under California’s current procedure, the order in which candidates are listed is selected at random for each election and the order is different across election districts in statewide races. Several other states have adopted various methods for randomizing and/or rotating the order in which candidates are listed on the election ballot.

A randomized order of listing candidates will make it harder for voters to find a particular candidate on the ballot. However, if sample ballots are provided by election authorities well in advance of the election, voters can locate their favored candidates prior to voting. Also, candidates themselves can inform prospective voters where their names will appear.

We believe that a randomized ballot is an idea that should be considered by the General Assembly.

Editorial Advisory Board members Alison Asti and Laurel Albin, who are candidates for public office, are on leave for the duration of their respective campaigns.

The current system is inherently unfair to persons whose surname is at the end of the alphabet.