The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? <<<<<>>>>>
of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)...
Have you actually looked into all the lawsuits that the Nader campaigns have filed?
Here are a couple of lawsuits (probably among many more) that the Nader campaigns this year and in the part have filed, singly or jointly with other parties:
<blockquote>V.T.C.A., Election Code §§192.032(a), 192.032(b)(3)(A), 192.032(c), and 192.032(d), as applied to the Plaintiffs herein for the 2004 Texas General Election and all subsequent General Elections in Texas, and the facts and circumstances relating thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, in that they are violative of the rights of the Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title 42, United States Code, § 1983, in that the aforesaid statutes are not framed in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve the legitimate State interests in regulating ballot access for a Presidential election, particularly as relating to the fact that the relatively earlier filing deadline for the current election year (viz.: May 10, 2004), shorter petitioning time, and higher number of required petition signature of 64,077 for Independent presidential candidates as opposed to the later petition signature deadline for the current election year (viz.: May 24, 2004), longer petitioning time, and lower petition signature requirement of 45,540 for recognition of new political parties in Texas constitutes an invidious discrimination against Independent presidential candidates in violation of their rights and the rights of their potential supporters under the equal protection clause to the United States Constitution, their right to political association for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right to cast their votes effectively; and, as applied to Independent presidential candidates, Texas' relatively early signature deadline, combined with the significantly higher signature requirement for Independent candidates as opposed to new political party candidates, and other particular circumstances herein, establishes an unreasonable and undue burden on Independent candidates for President of the United States seeking ballot access in Texas. <http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/nader/nadertxsuit.html></blockquote>
<blockquote>1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requirement at 25 P.S. §§ 2873, 2911, 2913, and 2914 that all candidates for elected office pay a filing fee in order to gain access to the ballot, with no provision for a waiver of such fee or alternative means of ballot qualification. This filing fee system violates Plaintiffs' fundamental rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. <http://www.nvri.org/library/cases/Belitskus/Belitskuscomplaint.pdf></blockquote>
<blockquote>Ohio had authority to list the name of presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the November 2000 ballot without his Green Party affiliation, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
Ohio officials said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the state's position that it has authority to impose reasonable requirements for ballot listings to ensure orderly, fair elections.
The Green Party and Nader had argued that keeping the party's designation off the ballot violated their constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection of law. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4245></blockquote>
As a matter of fact, in his writing, Nader indicted violations of the equal protection clause as early as in 1958 in the context of noting the court's turning a blind eye to them:
<blockquote>For example, the Illinois statute states that a petition to nominate candidates for a new political party must be signed by at least 25,000 qualified voters, including at least 200 from each of the 102 counties in the state.
The New York statute compels even greater omnipresence. It reads:"An independent nominating petition for candidates to be voted for by all the voters of the state must be signed by at least 12,000 signatures of whom at least 50 shall reside in each county of the state...."
The Illinois law was challenged by the Progressive Party just before the 1948 elections. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court where it was argued that the statute's disproportionate favoring of rural counties violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed and upheld the law. Writing the dissent, Justice Douglas stated: "The notion that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to our standards for popular representative government." He was referring to the fact that 25,000 signatures from 50 of the least populous counties could form a new party while the same number from 49 counties with 87 percent of the registered voters could not. . . .
Other Requirements
Early filing dates, often four to six months before the election, effectively bar eleventh hour protest or splinter parties and force the gathering of signatures before the acme of the public's political consciousness. In other states, the period within which signatures may be obtained is severely restricted. Pennsylvania, for example, requires that the total number of necessary signatures be obtained within a 20 day period.
The potential group from which signers may be solicited is even limited in many states. Prevented from signing an independent nominating petition are those who voted in a contemporary party primary as well as voters affiliated with another party within a specified previous period.
Such state action has the effect of preventing voters from changing party connections during a campaign after the primary elections or during the prescribed pre-election period.
One of the characteristics of an inflexible standard is the facility with which it can be abused in its enforcement. Thus, even when a minority party complies with all the major regulations there remains a fair possibility that the petition will be totally negated by a technical defect or omission often due to ambiguities in the election law.
As a final resort for the politically frustrated, the write-in vote is available in 47 states, and would probably be implied as a constitutional right in the absence of any express provision.
In practice, the write-in vote is a somewhat illusory privilege. No party has ever won an election in this manner, though an occasional independent has been elected this way. The experience of the Socialist Party is that most states, finding the write-in unwieldy, simply disregard them in submitting their count of the vote.
Restrictions Parallel Movements
Since 1948, when Henry Wallace's Progressive Party conducted a national campaign, minor parties, by their diminished activity, have not provided the underlying impetus for further state restrictions along the line of number, apportionment and authentication. Indeed, there was hardly any need to increase already severe requirements. But it is more than sheer happenstance that periods of minor party activity have been paralleled by a rash of restrictive enactments from the two party dominated legislatures. The thirties and forties were such periods. In 1932 the Socialist Party made the North Carolina ballot with a petition of 10,000 signatures. Immediately thereafter the legislature enacted more stringent requirements. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties appeared on the election ticket in 1936.
Added to these legal obstacles have been a variety of pressures in the form of discriminatory judicial and administrative enforcement, and harassing, intimidating tactics by vigilante groups. The latter pressure has been expressed in the past by publishing petitions in newspapers to embarrass or black-list signers and even by physical violence against small party workers.
The constitutionality of even the harshest statutes has been maintained against claims of deprivation of due process, equal protection of the laws, and the right to vote. If the restrictions on access do not constitute an absolute bar and if the particular court gives weight to the write-in as an available alternative, these laws are deemed reasonable and therefore valid. Otherwise judicial review is as broad as judicial discretion which thus far has taken the form of a "hands off the legislature" policy.
What is constitutional may still be unwise. This is revealed by an examination of the evils which these restrictions are allegedly designed to prevent. (Ralph Nader and Theodore Jacobs, "Do Third Parties Have a Chance?" <em>Harvard Law Record</em>, <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w19/msg00102.htm> and <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w19/msg00103.htm> October 9, 1958)</blockquote>
At 1:03 AM -0400 8/11/04, Michael Hoover wrote:
re. liberal party, suppose you mean new york liberal party as it is only one of any significance
Sorry, I meant to write the Liberty Party. "Although its vote never exceeded 3% of the votes cast in a presidential election, the party did further political abolitionism. In closely contested state and local elections, the Liberty party often held the balance of power, sometimes causing major party candidates to take advanced antislavery positions in a bid for its support" (Kinley J. Brauer, "Liberty Party," Encyclopedia Americana). More importantly, many Libertymen eventually joined with anti-slavery factions of Whigs and Democrats to form the Free Soil Party, many of whose former members would later form the core of the Republican Party. Only out of many seeming failures can a movement grow -- in fact, there is no way people can gain political experience except by trying, failing, and trying again over at least several decades. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
