On August 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in their debates lawsuit. The case had been filed on September 28, 2015, and is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:15cv-1580.
Here is the 27-page decision. It says, “Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law.”
The decision names thirteen presidential candidates who have run (outside the major parties) since the Commission on Presidential Debates has existed, who were on the ballot in states with a majority of the electoral vote, and who received less than 1%. The purpose of this information, which is in footnote three, is to show that just because a candidate gets on the ballot in states with a majority of the electoral vote, that does not mean such a candidate has much popular support. However, footnote three, based on the judge’s own research (or the research of her clerks), has factual errors. The judge relied on election returns published by the FEC, but the FEC returns do not say which candidates were on in states with a majority of electoral college votes, and the opinion’s list of candidates is erroneous.
(1) the footnote says Virgil Goode in 2012 was on ballots in states with a majority of the electoral college, but he was not; he was on in states with 257 electoral votes and 270 is a majority. (2) the footnote says that Ron Paul was on the ballot in states with a majority of the electoral vote in both 1998 and 2008, but Paul was only on in two states in 2008, and 1998 was not even a presidential election year. (3) the footnote omits Ralph Nader, even though in 2004 he received less than 1% and he was on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral vote (he was on in states with 278 electoral votes). (4) the footnote misspells Harry Browne’s name as “Harry Brown.” (5) the footnote misspells Howard Phillips’s name as “Howard Philips.”
Another factual error in the decision is on page 21. The decision says Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, lost a case over debates in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Actually Forbes was a candidate for U.S. House. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the decision.
I assume this will be appealed? Also there is a second case pending on different grounds right?
The reference to 1988 obviously should be 1988, and the footnote also references 1998 as the year the Commission on Presidential Debates began sponsoring the debates which would also correctly by 1988.
Yes, the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v FEC is still pending, before another judge, in the same court.
The footnote is entirely jacked up. Howard Phillips’ name is mistakenly spelled with one l instead of two.
If you think the judicial branch of the oligarchy is going to let outsiders into their propaganda shindig, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
And I stand by my forecast that neither Stein nor Johnson will get more than 1% of the popular vote.
Is there any ambiguity about whether or not the court is correct about the jurisdictional issue?
As far as the polling numbers are concerned, has any third party or independent candidate since Perot ever gotten even half as much as Johnson’s current 10%-12% in polls? The current situation is clearly different from past elections.
Thanks, Chris. I will amend the post to mention the Phillips spelling also.
1. Since when do fact errors change the LAW ???
2. If Clinton/Trump were debating in a private house is a there any claim that other candidates for Prez have some sort of right to enter into such private house and be in the debate ???
3. Somehow in 2016 NOT enough media forms for candidate exposure ??? — electrical (TV, radio, internet, etc) or mechanical (newspapers, magazines, etc.).
Don Willis – Given that Johnson got .99% of the vote last time and that this time around he has much more media exposure, I think it is safe to assume that he will at least break 1% of the vote this time around. Remember, Ed Clark broke 1% as the the Libertarian Candidate in 1980 so its been done before.
Also Gary Johnson got more than 1% of the vote in 2012 in the states in which he was on the ballot. And it seems increasingly likely he will be on every ballot in 2016.
I think it is also likely that Jill Stein will get over 1% of the vote, given that at the rate her campaign is succeeding in ballot access she will be on the ballot in over 40 states (Ralph Nader wasn’t even on all 50 in 2000), and she has been demonstrating much more support this year than in 2012 (primary season matching funds, up to 7% in the polls, etc).
As for the decision, typical Establishment nonsense. We should be readying massive, non-violent protests outside the CPD debates this year. They can’t do to thousands of people what they did to Jill in 2012.
Nader was on 43 ballots in 2000; Stein will probably top that. (Of course, we do count to 51 because we support statehood for DC.)
Richard – that’s splitting hairs. Johnson was on the ballot in 49 of 51 states+DC in 2012. He got 0.99% of total votes cast which means he got slightly over 1.00% including the two states non-ballot states. OK, I’ll amend my forecast – Johnson gets 1.2% of total votes, Stein gets 0.8%. BFD.
There is no hope for any minor party candidate to actually win a significant election until RCV/IR is implemented, and even then it will be tough sell on Kardashian Nation voters. The Trump/Clinton election is irrelevant to future of our republic – neither candidate has any interest in abiding by the Constitution. The only advantage with Trump election is that he will hasten the demise of the elites. Electing Clinton is 4 more years of Obama for domestic policy, and 4 years of Dick Cheney for foreign policy.
Quite frankly, by far and away the most important election this fall is Maine Question 5.
The Court’s Article III no-standing conclusion is very weak.
Wikipedia shows Goode having been on the ballot in enough states to have 271 Electoral Votes, plus having write-in status in enough states to have had the chance at another 235 EVs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012#Constitution_Party
Wikipedia’s map is correct, but the wikipedia author’s arithmetic is wrong. Goode was on in Alabama 9, Colorado 9, Florida 29, Idaho 4, Iowa 6, Louisiana 8, Michigan 16, Minnesota 10, Mississippi 6, Missouri 10, Nevada 6, New Hampshire 4, New Jersey 14, New Mexico 5, New York 29, North Dakota 3, Ohio 18, Rhode Island 4, South Carolina 9, South Dakota 3, Tennessee 11, Utah 6, Virginia 13, Washington 12, Wisconsin 10, Wyoming 3. Those equal 257 (26 states). 270 is needed for a majority.