NY Times Features Senator Ernie Chambers, But Neglects to Mention His Time in the New Alliance Party

The New York Times of April 29 has this feature story on Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers, who is being forced into retirement after 40 years due to term limits. The New York Times told a lot of interesting anecdotes about Chambers, but did not mention that in 1988, he registered as a member of the New Alliance Party and won its primary, to be the party nominee for U.S. Senate. Not surprisingly, he won the NAP nomination unanimously, and as the NAP candidate in November, polled 1.55% of the vote.

He was also running for re-election to the legislature in 1988. The Nebraska legislature is non-partisan, but the election law said he could not be on the ballot for two offices simultaneously. So, Chambers ran as a write-in candidate for re-election to the legislature, and he kept his seat, winning with 2,084 write-ins. Therefore, one could honestly say that the New Alliance Party had its own state legislator that year, since he was a registered member of that party.

The New Alliance Party existed as a nationally-organized party from 1982 until 1994. Its presidential candidate in 1988 and 1992 was Lenora Fulani. The party dissolved itself in 1994 so that its members could help create the Patriot Party. That, in turn, was dissolved in 1995 so that its members could become part of the new Reform Party. Today the old nucleus of the New Alliance Party is organized as CUIP, a non-partisan group that promotes the interests of independent voters.


Comments

NY Times Features Senator Ernie Chambers, But Neglects to Mention His Time in the New Alliance Party — No Comments

  1. Have you ever been on a CUIP conference call? The two I was on were Obama strategy sessions.

  2. Sorry you have been disappointed in the two CUIP conference calls you participated in citizen1. I’ve been on every call for months and have not encountered any such strategy sessions. It is an election year so there has been much chatter surrounding that. And since Senator Obama is reaching out to progressive thinking independents, there is much talk among us on his campaign.

  3. Maybe a better term on my part would have been pep rally. Anyway if you were not for Obama you did not feel like you belonged.

    I also do not understand what point is being made with term limits and the federalist papers.

  4. “Not surprisingly, he won the NAP nomination unanimously”

    actually, i’ve read reports where Kerrey won the NAP nod via write-ins with Chambers in 3rd (with write-ins), Kerrey declined the NAP nod and they nominated Chambers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.