The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election saw a wide array of candidates, including those operating outside the traditional party structures. Among these was the Hartnell-Marshall campaign, a unique independent write-in effort that prioritized educational engagement and fiscal efficiency over conventional political strategies. This campaign, led by a teacher and involving students, family, and community volunteers, demonstrated how a minimal budget could generate significant popular support and public dialogue. By foregoing standard fundraising and advertising methods, the campaign focused on grassroots outreach, voter education, and the mechanics of the electoral process, ultimately receiving hundreds of popular votes across several states.
Campaign Origins and Educational Mission
The Hartnell-Marshall campaign originated as an educational project designed to demonstrate the importance of civic participation to students. The campaign leader noted that teachers and professors at various levels—elementary, middle, school, high school, and college—utilized the campaign as a tool to discuss why votes matter and how the presidency is attainable. The effort was characterized by a desire to show that campaigns did not need to be negative to be effective. Rather than focusing on winning the election, the campaign aimed to instill a sense of "wide-eyed wonderment" regarding the political process in both students and adults.
A core component of the campaign’s success was its ability to spark genuine dialogue. Despite receiving negative comments from some observers, the campaign leadership viewed this as a sign of legitimacy and the potential to disrupt the status quo. The public discussion generated by the campaign helped embed the idea of write-in candidacy into the public consciousness. The campaign viewed its legacy not as a failure to win the 2016 election, but as a success in providing hope and self-realization regarding the power of individual voices.
Ballot Access and State Certification Challenges
Navigating the complex requirements for write-in candidate status was a significant hurdle. The campaign had to file paperwork and pay fees in each state to gain official status. The process involved submitting applications to Secretary of State (S-o-S) offices and awaiting confirmation letters.
In Ohio, the campaign was officially approved on June 30, 2016. However, the timeline for certification varied by state, leading to missed opportunities. Because the campaign waited to secure official status in Ohio before looking into other states, deadlines in Florida and Indiana expired, preventing the campaign from gaining official status there.
The process in Kansas proved particularly problematic. Despite having UPS confirmation of delivery and a cashed check for the fee, the campaign never received official status in Kansas. Repeated emails to the Kansas S-o-S office went unanswered, and the campaign did not appear in the online voter’s guide. Consequently, the campaign chose to count Kansas as an official state despite the lack of formal confirmation.
In Colorado, the campaign missed the filing deadline but still received a letter from the S-o-S office. The content of this letter suggested that financial contributions could influence access to the ballot even after official deadlines had passed. In other states, the campaign deemed the requirements for write-in candidates "simply unrealistic," likely due to cost or bureaucratic complexity.
FEC Compliance and Budgetary Constraints
The Hartnell-Marshall campaign operated with a strict, low-budget model. To avoid the complexities of campaign finance regulations, the campaign did not create a formal political party. Instead, they ran as "undeclared" or "independent." The campaign name "HARTY PARTY" was created for branding purposes but did not represent a registered political entity.
The campaign operated with a total estimated budget of between $300 and $350. The leader exchanged emails with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ensure compliance. The FEC advised that no additional paperwork was required unless the campaign expected expenditures exceeding $5,000. The campaign submitted a declaration stating they were not profiting from the effort, received $0 from outside donors, and had estimated expenditures within the $300-$350 range.
Community Outreach and Media Coverage
With a budget of only $312, the campaign focused on low-cost, high-visibility outreach. A significant portion of the budget was spent on securing space in the Westerville Fourth of July Parade. The campaign obtained 300 free t-shirts donated by a supporter named J.C. Manny. Family members volunteered to distribute these t-shirts and approximately 1,000 flyers from a float consisting of the campaign leader's truck.
This parade participation led to unexpected media attention. Following the parade, photos and stories posted on Facebook caught the eye of Reneé LaSalle, a reporter for NBC. She contacted the campaign for a news segment, which was filmed in the campaign leader's backyard and included the candidate's son and Vice President (via FaceTime).
Supporters played a vital role in the campaign's visibility. Community members displayed yard signs, wore campaign shirts, and changed their social media profile pictures to campaign imagery. The campaign also reconnected the leader with classmates, friends, and former students, fostering new friendships.
The Mechanics of the Electoral College
A major educational focus of the campaign was explaining how the Electoral College functions. The campaign emphasized that U.S. citizens cast votes for a slate of electors rather than directly for the presidential candidate. These electors then meet in their state capitals to cast the official Electoral Votes.
The campaign highlighted the role of the Certificate of Ascertainment, a document that officially identifies winning candidates and lists the names of their Presidential Electors. This certificate represents the crucial link between the Popular Vote and the Electoral Vote. On December 19, 2016, electors met to vote on separate ballots, recording their votes on Certificates of Vote, which were then paired with the Certificates of Ascertainment.
The campaign used the Ohio Certificate of Ascertainment to illustrate this process. In Ohio, the Hartnell-Marshall campaign received 589 popular votes. However, the certificate showed that the 18 Electoral College representatives for the campaign received these votes, not the candidates themselves. The certificate listed the names of the 18 electors who would have cast Ohio's 18 Electoral Votes for the Hartnell-Marshall campaign had they won the state. The campaign noted that even Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton technically received 0 popular votes on the certificate; their votes were attributed to their respective slates of electors. The campaign speculated that had they won Ohio, their electors might have been "Faithless Electors," though this was not confirmed.
Election Results and Cost Efficiency
The campaign ultimately received 721 popular votes across the states where it operated. The total expenditure was $312, resulting in a cost per vote of approximately $0.43. This figure was significantly lower than the costs incurred by the major party candidates. Based on the campaign's analysis, Donald Trump spent approximately $5.11 per vote, while Hillary Clinton spent approximately $8.58 per vote.
While the campaign did not win the election, the leadership viewed the effort as a major success based on the educational impact, community engagement, and the demonstration of fiscal efficiency in political campaigning.
Conclusion
The Hartnell-Marshall 2016 write-in campaign serves as a distinct case study in low-cost political mobilization. By operating with a budget of just over $300, the campaign successfully navigated state certification processes, garnered media attention, and secured 721 popular votes. The campaign prioritized educational engagement, using the electoral process to teach students and the public about the mechanics of voting and the potential for independent candidates. While facing challenges such as missed deadlines and unresponsive state offices, the campaign demonstrated that significant community support and dialogue can be generated without traditional fundraising or negative tactics.