September 20, 2004
Nader In Arkansas
In Little Rock Arkansas last Friday, Circuit Judge Timothy Fox listened as two parties argued their cases. The Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against Ralph Nader just days before citing petition fraud on behalf the Populist Party of Arkansas. Today Judge Timothy Fox ordered Nader and Camejo to be stricken from the ballots in Arkansas. The decision was made based on evidence that the Populist Party failed to follow proper Arkansas election procedures. The following is a breakdown of the three hour court case.
In the opening statements, the attorney representing Nader and the Populist Party of Arkansas (also known as the Better Life Party) argued that neither Nader nor Camejo were served properly. The subpoena to appear in court was received by Nader at his home around 11 P.M. the night before the trial. Camejo himself was not served at all but the subpoena was delivered to the campaign headquarters. The attorney claimed the defendants were without due process and requested the case be dismissed or postponed until a time when they could appear in person at their trial. This request was denied.
Argument One: The Populist Party was not qualified to be a party because they received less that 3% of the vote in the 2000 election. The rules governing the legal definitions of a political party make it so that a party must have received at least 3% of the last election vote to be considered legally.
Defense One: The defense claimed that the Populist Party was not by legal standards a party but instead a political group. This determines the type of petition required to support a candidate with. Apparently the party petition has a place for the party name which is not on the group petition. These petitions are lacking candidate verification so that canvassers can collect signatures for a party, not knowing candidate names. The group petition instead has a name for candidates, but no group name. The Secretary of State already ruled that the petitions were compliant with that of the group signature forms.
Argument Two: Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo had accepted the nomination for President in other states by other political parties. Nader and Camejo have accepted the nomination in some states by the Reform Party, and are also running as independents in others.
Defense Two: The rules governing the nomination for President in other parties deal with the state level. A candidate can only run in one party or as independent in a single state. Nowhere does the law say other states must be considered.
Argument Three: The Populist Party did not hold a convention. A convention is required by the election laws in Arkansas. The Democrats did not consider the six person conference call by the Populist Party to be a convention.
Defense Three: There are no laws specifying how a convention must be held, only that a convention has to take place. The Populist Party of Arkansas elected officials according to Robert’s Rules of Order. Under Arkansas code, this is perfectly acceptable.
Argument Four: The Populist Party of Arkansas changed to this name after being called the Better Life Party, and after collecting several hundred signatures. It was argued that this change constituted fraud on the part of the Party. Along with these accusations, it was also argued that the name of the Populist Party was left off the petitions so that the 1988 candidate David Duke would not be associated with this campaign.
Defense Four: This was seen as irrelevant to the court case and all objections were sustained by the judge.
Argument Five: The requirement of 1000 valid signatures in paper form from qualified voters was not met. Even though 1214 signatures were verified by the Secretary of State’s office when Nader was first put on the ballot, 370 challenges were issued on behalf the Democrats due to address problems.
Defense Five: The 1214 signatures were either verified by date of birth or by address. An additional 72 signatures that went uncounted in the original decision brings the count up to 1286. There is no law which states that if an address is omitted or is unverified, that a name must be taken off the petition.
In the closing statements, the defense reiterated their arguments. There is no law requiring group name be on group petition. There is no law which says a candidate cannot be running for more than one party in many different states. There is no law specifying the way a convention must be held. There is no law which says there must be an address on the group form, let alone a valid one. A final request was made to dismiss the case but this was once again denied. The Judge made his final statements and said that the evidence would be considered with a ruling coming no later than Monday, September 20.
The conclusion of this case leaves me in dismay. I believe that there is a lack of evidence which states that the Populist Party broke election laws here in Arkansas. The Secretary of State already verified the signatures and petition forms. How the Democrats can come back and overturn this decision is beyond me. One thing is certain though, the Democrats are sure narrowing down my choices come November. Not only can I not vote for Nader now, but I refuse to vote for such a disgraceful party such as the Democrats. We have entered an era where opponents must be sued off the ballots instead of faced down in debate. It is a dark time if you ask me.
Posted by Adam Ducker at September 20, 2004 08:01 PMAdam, outstanding article. There is no more anti-democratic party in America than the Democratic Party if you exclude extremists like the anarchy party and fascist parties. Talk about an oxymoron - The Democratic Party is quintessential.
And what Democrats don’t realize is they are the losers. Opening the doors to Nader and Badnarik would benefit the Democratic Party in the long run. But, like the Republicans, they can’t see beyond the next election to save their long term viability as a major party.
Posted by: David R Remer at September 20, 2004 08:12 PMAdam,
Excellant, this proves that it is time for the political party system needs to come into the 21st Century for the sake of our future generations. For to long the elite has been trying to seperate itself from us Americans. Yet, let them get into trouble and they come running to us for money to bail them out.
I’m not sure you can help me, but do you or anybody else know of a site that will pull the political laws up on the net that is free?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 20, 2004 09:04 PMHenry, not sure but try the Federal Elections Commission. www.fec.gov
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2004 11:26 PMDavid,
Thanks for the start. Check out http://www.fec.gov/pdf/cfr11.pdf linktext
A good read is had on pages 31-33 on how bloggers can get direct information from FEC
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 20, 2004 11:54 PMThere’s scuttlebutt about Nader’s campaign here in Ohio too, with rumors that petition signatures are invalid and those circulating the petitions are felons or not registered to vote in Ohio (which they’re required to be). And then of course there are the charges that Nader is allowing fringe right wing groups to back his petitions because the right wingers want him to torpedo Kerry.
I like Ralph Nader. I think he’s smart and concerned and well-intentioned. — But what if he’s another “ends justify the means” cynical jerk?
Nader has been a lifelong crusader. His biggest splash came after the publication of his book Unsafe at Any Speed back in the 1960s.
The book was an indictment of the auto industry’s safety standards in general, and the Chevy Corvair in particular. The Corvair was GM’s answer to the wildly popular and gas saving (for that time) VW Beetle.
Nader charged that the Corvair’s suspension could cause it to roll over. The car never seriously challenged the VW for a lot of reasons, and after Nader’s crusade, GM eventually discontinued production. A few years later a safety commission determined that the Corvair was no more unsafe than any other car of the period, but the damage was already done.
I guess that I’ve always seen Nader as a sort of consumer’s rights type. That’s not a bad thing in itself, of course, but I’m not sure that qualifies him to be president. His numerous campaigns seem to be more about finding a platform for his positions than to mount a serious challenge.
Even with all that, it’s fascinating to watch the DNC try every trick in the book to keep him off the ballot, since most of those who might vote for Nader would probably vote for any Democrat if Nader wasn’t available. Like the old song says, The girls all get prettier at closing time.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 21, 2004 11:40 AMDavid:
In what way would you see the opening of the Democratic party to Nader and Badnarik as a plus for the Dems? And how exactly would they do such a thing? I wonder what planks they would have to change in order to have a Nader or Badnarik WANT to join forces with the Democratic party. I’m curious about your thoughts on this.
I find it hard to believe that the Democrats, who cried so shrilly in 2000 about the disenfranchised voter, now are doing all they can to limit the options of the very same voters. This seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy (Dan Rather’s hypocrisy aside, for the moment). Can anyone out there defend these actions, and provide a rationale for doing so, other than simply the craven desire to win the election at all costs? Im interested in opinions here.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 21, 2004 02:21 PMI note a great deal of cynicism about Democratic motives for legally challenging the validity of Nader’s candidacy in Arkansas. To be honest, it kind of confuses me that they are being vilified for merely taking the opposition to court.
In our system of government, isn’t it the purpose of the legal system to resolve disputes? And isn’t that what we had here: a dispute over whether or not Nader’s candidacy adhered to the rules the people of Arkansas have established through legislation over the years? Why shouldn’t it have been decided by their court system? Is it merely because you disagree with the decision made?
There is a lot of talk here about limiting voter choice, and suing the competition off the ballot, but look at things from the other side for a moment. If Nader’s candidacy truly did violate rules laid down by the people of Arkansas, then wasn’t the Democratic party acting as their advocate in preventing him from circumventing those rules? Clearly, this would not be limiting voter choice so much as upholding the choices they have already made about who is an acceptable candidate for them to vote on. This would not be eliminating legitimate competition, but preventing someone from essentially poaching votes they had no right to according to the laws of that state.
Posted by: Jarin at September 21, 2004 03:21 PMIf Dem.’s have to sue to keep Nader off the ballot, and out of debates, what does that say about their defending free speach ?
If they fear Nader so much, is there something wrong with their platform that don’t appeal to their “so called base” ?
I think that a really smart Independant could have a chance in 2008.
For many years Dem.’s have depended on “sheep” to stay in power, now the non-sheep have turned to Independant or Republican because of the Dem.’s silly ash platform.
Jarin:
I dont have a problem with using the legal system in a proper manner. But I do have a problem with those on the “left” who only see the legal system as proper when it works for them. For instance, its easy to hear the whines over the “selection, not election” in Florida. We hear Terry McAuliffe complaining that the 2000 election was “stolen”.
The fact is that the 2000 election was exceedingly close, and the courts ended up playing a major role. I’d assume you dont feel the election was stolen, since the courts were used then in the same manner that you are advocating today. Is my assumption correct?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 21, 2004 03:42 PMSarcasm may be satsifying to the speaker but rarely convincing to the listener.
Posted by: Alejo at September 21, 2004 03:51 PMJarin,
Yes, I am very upset with the results, and it effects my words a little. I was at the trial though. I tried to present the evidence here as I saw it. How the judge could rule the way he did confuses me. This article tried to hint at some of those confusing details. The point is whether or not they violated state laws, and I believe they did not. An appeal is in the process though.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 21, 2004 04:56 PMBeagle:
If Nader has to ignore the law (aka cheat) to get on ballots, what does that say about his willingness to uphold it as an elected official?
If he can’t surpass the legal hurdles to get on the ballot legally, is there something wrong with his platform that it does not sufficiently appeal to his “so-called base”?
I think you’re right, a really smart Independent might have a chance in 2008. In fact, I hope one will. Preferably, one smart enough to manage to get on the ballot legally.
Joe:
I am all for state courts deciding state issues like this. Had the 2000 election question been left to the state court in Florida at the time, there would have been more recounts. It was the United States Supreme Court which overstepped its bounds, and I believe its jurisdiction, to reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling and steal the election for Bush. All in all, a very different situation than the one being addressed here.
Trying to conflate these issues to score cheap political points is really rather sad, given their blatant dissimilarity.
Posted by: Jarin at September 21, 2004 05:05 PMAdam:
That might be your belief, but apparently the opposition made its case well enough that the judge saw it their way, and he is the one charged with making such decisions in our system of law and government. Out of curiosity, do you recall what arguments the plaintiff made in their opening and closing statement? I notice that you only detail those for the defense.
Posted by: Jarin at September 21, 2004 05:17 PMJarin,
There were no closing statements for the plantiff like there were for the defense. But I covered all of the arguments made in the case, and their defense.
Posted by: Adam at September 21, 2004 05:54 PMjbod, you misunderstood or I was not clear. When I said open the doors, I meant open the doors to the ballots in each and all states to third parties. Not open the doors to join the Democratic Party.
Greens, Reform Party, and liberal independents are not a threat to the Democratic Party in the long run. Unless the Democratic Party continues to block democracy and fight third party ballot access. Then the Democratic Party will inevitably lose credibility as a party representing democracy. The Libertarians will grow from the ranks for fiscal conservative Republicans.
That was my meaning.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2004 09:39 PM9-20-04
We’re now on the ballot in Florida and Colorado and recently won in New Mexico and Maryland. We’ve filed petitions in all 50 states and Washington, DC. We’re officially on the ballot in 37 states for a total of 305 potential electoral votes. I encourage you to check out the new Ballot Access Update on the home page of our website - votenader.org.
—Ralph Nader
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2004 10:15 PMDavid:
I misunderstood your original comments. Thanks for the clarification.
Jarin:
In our system of government, isn’t it the purpose of the legal system to resolve disputes?
These are YOUR words, not mine. Yet you then take the highest court in the land to task for having done exactly what you suggest is their purpose. I’m not going to be the one to argue the state’s rights issues etc in the 2000 election. I’m going to defer to the highest court in the land to make their decision on what, when and how they should involve themselves in issues.
It appears to me that you disagreed with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2000, and therefore you question their decision making. That’s okay to do, but it was THEIR decision to make as to whether to get involved or not. That is simply how the legal system works…. you keep going higher and higher in the courts until you either reach the summit or you reach a level where the judiciary says you have no standing.
In that case, the highest judiciary under the Constitution made a legal determination to review the case. If you truly want the courts to make decisions, then you must allow them to also make decisions that you dont agree with.
joe:
As with all federal courts, the jurisdiction of the court is limited. While the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a few cases such as suits between states, most of its work consists of appellate review of cases from state supreme courts or from lower federal courts. Its jurisdiction is limited by Article III of the U.S. Constitution to “cases” and “controversies” arising under federal law. Thus, for example, cases that arise from the state supreme courts may only be heard by the United States Supreme Court if they present an issue of federal law. Where the state court decided the case on an independent and adequate state ground, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear it.-wikipedia
In short, the jurisdiction which it is appropriate for the us supreme court to rule on is also part of our system of government. There is a clear violation of states rights here that goes entirely beyond whom the candidate that was favored was. Would you be so complacent about states rights if the state supreme court had decided in favor of your candidate, and the federal supreme court overturned that, in the process overstepping their jurisdiction?
Posted by: Jarin at September 22, 2004 08:22 PMI just received absentee ballot and Nader is listed as a candidate for president
Posted by: becky hicks at October 21, 2004 10:51 AM
