Nader to be on Florida ballot

[clk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20040913/ts_nm/campaign_florida_dc


Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name can appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the contrary, Florida's elections chief told officials on Monday in a move that could help President Bush in the key swing state.

In a memo to Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections, Division of Elections director Dawn Roberts said the uncertainty of Hurricane Ivan, which could hit parts of the state by week's end, forced her to act.


Hmm...this sounds really fishy to me. I think last week they ruled that Nader couldn't be on the ballot because the Reform Party didn't qualify as a National Party. Now they're using Hurricane Ivan as an excuse to put Nader on the ballot anyways...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by clk
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20040913/ts_nm/campaign_florida_dc



Hmm...this sounds really fishy to me. I think last week they ruled that Nader couldn't be on the ballot because the Reform Party didn't qualify as a National Party. Now they're using Hurricane Ivan as an excuse to put Nader on the ballot anyways...

It does sound fishy. But then it was the Democratic Party which got the injunction to keep Nader off the ballot in the first place. :D

[clk]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It does sound fishy. But then it was the Democratic Party which got the injunction to keep Nader off the ballot in the first place. :D

I wouldn't mind if the Republicans filed an appeal or something, but the fact that a state official filed the appeal makes it look like the Republicans are using their power of office to manipulate the election in their favor.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by clk
I wouldn't mind if the Republicans filed an appeal or something, but the fact that a state official filed the appeal makes it look like the Republicans are using their power of office to manipulate the election in their favor.

Apparently, absentee ballots have to be mailed out by this Saturday, and a hearing to determine a permanent injuction isn't scheduled til next week. (edited to add: Correction, the hearing is scheduled for this week, but the hurricane has a remote chance of preventing it.)

An appeal automatically lifts the temporary injuction, which allows Nader to be put on the absentee ballots. It does not affect the regular ballot. The permanent hearing will do that.

But this cracks me up:

The Florida Democratic Party reacted with outrage, calling the move "blatant partisan maneuvering" by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother, and vowed to fight it.
Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004 ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law.

You gotta admit that's pretty funny!

[crimresearch]

Yeah whatever happened to "Every vote must count"?

[clk]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Yeah whatever happened to "Every vote must count"?

I think Nader should have filed earlier to get on the ballot instead of doing it at the last minute.
I don't have a problem if he follows the law. I believe the Republicans should have respected the court decision. If a democratic judge had ruled that Nader couldn't be on the ballot because his party wasn't a national party even though it was, then I would have been upset about that, too.

[Dorian Gray]

Whatever happened to hating those activist judges who make the law rather than interpreting it?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Whatever happened to hating those activist judges who make the law rather than interpreting it?

Why hate them? They were overturned by the US Supreme Court.
:p

[RPG Advocate]

This thread is a prime example of why not having instant runoff voting is a boneheaded move.

[Luke T.]

Some more stuff I found:

Local Democrats and anti-Bush groups have initiated litigation aimed at keeping Mr. Nader off the ballot in at least six states, including several expected to be close in November.

Source. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040907-113843-3990r.htm)

Washington Post Article: Democrats Sue to Block Nader From Ariz. Ballot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html)

Democrats attempted to put a roadblock in front of independent candidate Ralph Nader's efforts to gain access to the presidential ballot in Arizona, with the filing of a lawsuit by two Arizona residents challenging the validity of the petitions submitted by Nader's campaign.

The suit underscores the determination of the Democrats to try to frustrate Nader's efforts to qualify for state ballots.

Although state law prohibits a political party from filing or financing such suits, the state party provided space in its office for volunteers and staff members working on their own time to review the signatures.

Nader called the suit "potential harassment" and said if Democrats persist, he will revise his campaign strategy. "We will concentrate only on the close states."

The action in Arizona came a day after Nader stormed out of a Capitol Hill meeting in which members of the Congressional Black Caucus told him to abandon his bid for the White House. The chairman of the group, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), refused to apologize for a meeting that Nader publicly described yesterday as abusive.

"Some of them used very abusive language," Nader told National Public Radio host Tavis Smiley during his morning program. "Congressman [Melvin] Watt of North Carolina used such abusive language until I could hardly believe what he was saying."

[clk]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Although state law prohibits a political party from filing or financing such suits, the state party provided space in its office for volunteers and staff members working on their own time to review the signatures.

I dunno if I understand this correctly...are they saying that the Democrats provided space in their office for state workers to come and work on the case? If that is true, that seems just as fishy as the Florida appeal. It seems like a conflict of interest for state workers to be working at the Democratic offices on this particular case. I don't know all the details, but both incidents reek of corruption. I thought this kind of sh*t wasn't supposed to happen in the US?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by clk
I dunno if I understand this correctly...are they saying that the Democrats provided space in their office for state workers to come and work on the case? If that is true, that seems just as fishy as the Florida appeal. It seems like a conflict of interest for state workers to be working at the Democratic offices on this particular case. I don't know all the details, but both incidents reek of corruption. I thought this kind of sh*t wasn't supposed to happen in the US?

I don't think they meant state workers. I think they meant Democratic party staff members and other volunteers.

Edited to add: If a Democratic staff worker helped to bring about the suit on the Democratic party's time, that would be illegal. So that is why they are careful to say they worked on their own time. But providing facilities that cost money is financing, too.

[shanek]

Cool. I'm not a Nader supporter, but it's great to see another candidate beat the system and gain his right to let the voters choose him in November.

According to Ballot Acces News (http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html), Florida's gonna have a full slate! Bush, Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and even Calero or Harris or whoever the smeg the Socialist Workers Party guy is.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
This thread is a prime example of why not having instant runoff voting is a boneheaded move.

IRV, Preference Voting, Condorcet Voting, any of those would be a vast improvement to our current system (although I personally think Condorcet is the best of the three).

[Luke T.]

Update:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/presidential.polls.nader/

The Florida Supreme Court, by a 6-to-1 vote, rejected legal challenges brought by the state's Democratic Party and seven voters, who argued that Nader should be kept from appearing on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate because it is no longer a viable national party.

The Florida Democratic Party later announced that it would not continue to pursue the legal fight.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Update:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/presidential.polls.nader/

The Florida Supreme Court, by a 6-to-1 vote, rejected legal challenges brought by the state's Democratic Party and seven voters, who argued that Nader should be kept from appearing on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate because it is no longer a viable national party.

The Florida Democratic Party later announced that it would not continue to pursue the legal fight

Interesting that the vote was 6-1. The Florida Supreme Court voted 4-3 in 2000 to allow vote counting to continue beyond the state constitution's mandated date to complete the voting.

Anyone know if the makeup of the court has changed in the last 3+ years? Or was the case so clear-cut that even Democratic judges couldn't justify keeping Nader off the ballot?

[shanek]

And on a similar vein, NH Democrats are blocking Badnarik's access:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/22/201552/458

We had a number of issues pile up on us:

a) of the pro petitioners that National sent in late, some were working both for the LP and Nader, which we did not know, and they got lots of sigs from people who signed for both candidates, which is against state law. Whichever candidate got their names to the towns first got that signature, the other candidate was SOL.

b) some towns rejected petitions signed by registered voters whose address on the voter rolls had been changed by E911 renumbering and renaming of addresses, but the voter put their old postal address on the petition, so the town would rule that it was invalid because they were "not registered at that address" even though they still live at the same house.

c) several towns did not return petitions to us until after the Sept 1 deadline, and even after OUR Sept 8 deadline to turn them into the Secty of State's office. This is a clear violation of federal elections law. We have a number of late delivered and late postdated packages (one of which came in yesterday) filled with petitions certified by towns.

d) some towns refused to mail petitions back and refused to notify us that they were certified and ready to be picked up. Over 40 are sitting at Keene City Hall right now.

e) some unidentified person went to Rochester City Hall and picked up our certified petitions. Nobody at city hall is admitting to have given them to them or what the recipients name is. None of our people picked them up.

f) a number of towns were mixing petitions up, and gave us some Green Party or Nader petitions. We got those to those groups, and they sent us what they say they received of ours from those towns.

While we collected way more than necessary, the rejected and missing petitions were very significant in the 1st congressional district. The law says you have to get not just 3000 statewide signatures certified, but 1500 in each congressional district. While we can't prove a prima fascie case against the DNC, the pattern of obstructionism seems to be in Democrat dominated towns, primarily in the 1st district but with exceptions like Democrat controlled Keene, and the Dems are pursuing a scorched earth policy toward third parties.

[epepke]

Originally posted by clk
I think Nader should have filed earlier to get on the ballot instead of doing it at the last minute.

Why? He did it at the last minute so that he could bitch about it. He's done nothing but bitch since he discovered that the Corvair was a crappy car.