On April 19, the Maine Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Ralph Nader’s lawsuit for damages against the Democratic Party and its allies, concerning that party’s attempts to keep him off the ballot in 17 states in the 2004 presidential election, is entitled to a trial. This means that the lower court must hear the evidence that Nader wishes to present. The decision is Nader v The Maine Democratic Party, 2012 ME 57. The decision is 21 pages and there is a concurrence of 9 pages.
The opening paragraph of the decision is, “In this appeal we consider whether the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may be invoked to deprive a minor-party candidate of his day in court on a suit in which he alleges that he was subject to abuses of process, damaging to his candidacy, by organizations and individuals who conspired to take actions to prevent or complicate his inclusion on the ballot in Maine and other jurisdictions during the 2004 presidential election. We conclude that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims.”
The decision has a paragraph about ballot access, which makes it clear that ballot access for independent candidates is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Nader has had several lawsuits against the Democratic Party and its allies for their behavior in 2004, but this is the first decision that permits a trial. Similar lawsuits in Virginia state court, and in federal court, were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. It happens that Maine has a lengthier statute of limitations than those other jurisdictions. In order to prevail in the trial, Nader will be required to show that the Democratic Party’s actions in Maine in 2004 to keep Nader off the Maine ballot were devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law. He is free to present evidence from around the country, all of which is relevant, but that evidence must include solid evidence from Maine in order to keep the lawsuit viable. UPDATE: here is a story about the decision from Maine Public Radio.
Way to go Oliver!
How come the genius Nader lawyers are brain dead ignorant about statutes of limitations in civil cases ???
#2, in practice, statute of limitations laws can be extremely ambiguous. That was the case with the Nader cases.
The decision actually came out April 19, but the court clerk erroneously showed “April 17” on this copy, but that is being corrected.
# 3 How about instant filing of court cases as soon as one has reliable info that one’s political enemies have allegedly subverted one’s rights, privileges or immunities ???
A whole lot of stuff about *discovery* in court rules, etc.
Has Nader ever gotten ANY $$$ damages in his many cases in the last circa 55 plus years ???
He won a whopper against GM.
Yes! Go Ralph. Thank you Oliver Hall for all your hard work for justice. SM
Democrats have rotted their party themselves; yet they still harbor hatred and fear of the man they blame as
their “spoiler”, so much they bend and break any law to
stop him.
Pingback: Maine Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that Ralph Nader is Entitled to a Trial in his Claims Against the Democratic Party in 2004 | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#5 I believe that their were some key revelations that came out of the numerous other ballot access cases that nader was involved in. By the time he understood he could build a case around such a broad conspiracy, and knew who the defendants would be, it was arguably past the statute of limitations. Thankfully he recognized that maine offered a longer window in which to file. Hopefully there is enough evidence related to maine to make a strong case.
Nader is a millionaire largely from his share of damages won in many cases over his distinguished career. I would not like to be one of those who he has named in this suit.
The court ruled against Nader’s case in Pennsylvania recently, even though Pennsylvania state employees were found guilty of working for the Democratic Party on state time and resources to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004. He not only lost the case but was forced by the courts to pay the Democratic Party’s huge legal costs for the case.
This country has a sleaze system. We all know that. The only thing that we might be able to perceive as good about it is that the Green Party Movement is honing its skills to a degree unimaginable to those in the Democratic and Republican Parties who have everything handed to them on a silver platter. While they are getting fat and lazy, the Green Party movement is working non-stop and relentlessly against the most impossible political odds that have ever existed. The cache of political and electoral expertise in the Green Party is ever-expanding. Ralph Nader always liked to say, *First they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.* It wasn’t his saying, he explained, but it is appropriate for the 30-year ongoing and relentless evolution of the Green Party and maybe even with the case coming up in Maine.