Today the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a request by Ralph Nader to place his name on the ballot.
Nader wanted the court to force election boards to review their voter registration lists, a process Nader said could have led to the validation of petitions to place him on the ballot.
The court ruled six-to-one against Nader, saying his campaign waited too long to raise its concerns.
Nader had argued that a backlog of applications prevented boards from confirming valid signatures on his petitions.
The court’s decision is available to read here. You can also read all the relevant briefs on the Nader Ohio issue at Andrew Hyman’s website.
The campaign is appealing this decision to the US Supreme Court, which is already meeting today to consider Nader’s Pennsylvania appeal.
The full Ohio Supreme Court Opinion can be accessed via http://www.andrewhyman.com/nader.html
Basically, the case was decided on a technicality, and a very dubious one at that. The Court said that Nader should have brought his lawsuit BEFORE the Ohio Secretary of State invalidated some of his petition signatures, because Nader should have known that that might happen. Of course, the Ohio legislature had established no such statute of limitations, and the Ohio Supreme Court basically created it out of thin air, using a concept called “laches.”
I don’t know the law in Ohio, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court has long expressly held that
the doctrine of laches does not apply to cases like this ballot access case that are based on statutes rather than equitable principles. Laches is not a defense to an action
at law in Oklahoma. “And this is the general rule.” Van Antwerp v. Schultz, 1950 OK 102, 217 P.2d 1034, citing 21 C.J. p. 214, ¶212; 30 C.J.S., Equity p. 523 ¶ 113; 19 Am.Jur. p. 339 section 490.
If the Ohio legislature did not establish a statute of limitations for this election case, then laches should be irrelevant, it seems to me. I hasten to add, that I am no expert in Ohio law, but the US Supreme Court has made very clear that the relief sought by Nader (a writ of mandamus) “could be issued only in an action at law, while an injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitive, was an equitable remedy.” Stern v. South Chester Tube, 390 U.S. 606 (1968). So, I’m very suspicious of today’s Ohio Supreme Court opinion.
Even if I’m wrong about this “laches” business, still, what was Nader supposed to have down? Filed suit immediately when the legislature enacted its unconstitutional residency requirement for petition circulators, or otherwise forever lose the right to object to it? The Ohio Supreme Court did not go quite that far today, but it seems to have done something very similar: requiring the Nader campaign to read the mind of the Ohio Secretary of State.
This court to my understanding has at best shown that they actually expected Nader to have a mystical approach to the election. I strongly believe that Nader has true justifications for his request and for the court to expect Nader to be a mind-reader shows that truly Justice can be denied someone who deserves it.
I am quiet a novice when it comes to US and Ohio laws, but honestly what has just happened shows that the state is truly not protecting someone who is in danger, but rather is exposing him to more electoral danger and some other person is reaping unjustly from this(and that is the Democrats). It is hard to convince me that this is not a conspiracy in favour of the Democrats.
I just did some quick research regarding whether the doctrine of “laches” is applicable to someone who is seeking a writ of mandamus. In some states, it is not. See ADDIS v. SMITH, 226 Ga. 894, 178 S.E.2d 191 (1970) (“A plea of laches is an equitable plea and does not apply to the legal remedy of mandamus”). However, in other states, it is. See LOPP v. PENINSULA SCHOOL DIST., 90 Wn.2d 754, 585 P.2d 801 (1978).
So, maybe the Ohio Supreme Court was not wrong on this point. But still, it’s hard to fathom how Nader’s case could have been ripe for a lawsuit before the Ohio Secretary of State invalidated any of Nader’s petition signatures. After all, the Ohio Secretary of State could have refused to enforce such an unconstituional statute.
Zero Tolerance for Ballot Access Petitions and Filing Fees
“The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the
Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the
scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost
identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed
as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war
cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). The argument
that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies,
one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish
idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the
American people can “throw the rascals out†at any election
without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Either
party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and
vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years
if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things
but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic
policies.”
[Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
(New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]
Let us begin with this historic case. The U.S. Supreme Court stated
in it’s decision these principles:
The State governments have no right to tax any of the constitutional
means employed by the Government of the Union to execute its
constitutional powers.
The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede,
burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional
laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the
national Government.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (USSC+)
It is a power vested in the Congress to constitute its membership by
election of persons chosen by citizens of the United States and
citizens of the States.
Filing fees levied upon those persons seeking election to Congress or
the Presidency do “retard. impede, burden” and control the operation
of powers vested in the national government. Those fees are, in fact,
taxes by the states on persons seeking federal elective office and
therefore contrary to the doctrine announced in McCulloch v Maryland.
The States are expressly forbidden to lay any duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws. If the obligation of this prohibition must be conceded, the same paramount character would seem to restrain, as it certainly may restrain, a State from such other exercise of this power; as is in its nature incompatible with, and repugnant to, the constitutional laws of the Union. . . .
What fee may the states require of a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senator, or President and Vice President of the United States that is absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws?
The fees currently levied upon candidates for the Presidency vary from ZERO for the candidates of two political parties to ten thousand dollars in Arkansas (in litigation). The fees discriminate between the candidates of one class of political parties and the candidates of other classes of political parties and nonpartisan candidates. I submit that all such variances violate the the equal protect and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In so far that more than a majority of the states do not discriminate and those fees in those states are ZERO, then ALL fees beyond ZERO levied by states are contrary to the doctrines of McCullough v Maryland and unconstitutional. A majority of the states have determined their necessary ‘inspection’ fees for candidates are so minimal and incidental to overall cost of elections as to be effectively ZERO.
Furthermore, petitioning requirements stand as an in-kind tax commensurate with monetary fees and are also equally violations of the Constitution for the same reasons stated above. Therefore, I argue that it should be the policy of the Libertarian party and all other parties and candidates to oppose, resist and challenge for legal remedy against any ‘filing fees’ or signature petition requirments in any amount whatsoever.
For the reasons stated, I urge a Constitutional Amendment Initiative for Oklahoma and litigation and/or Initiative where possible in all other states.
D. Frank Robinson, candidate for Congress 5th District of Oklahoma 2006
o6oa2n5at4tnm139