On July 22, the 6th circuit heard arguments in Nader v Blackwell. This case is unusual, because it concerns personal liability for an elections official, Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State. Nader charges that when Blackwell permitted initiative circulators to hire out-of-state circulators in 2004, and simultaneously refused to let Nader hire out-of-state circulators, that conduct (which kept Nader off the ballot in 2004) arises to an injury for which Blackwell should be held accountable. The case is Nader v Blackwell, 07-4350. The three judges were Danny J. Boggs (a Reagan appointee), and Eric L. Clay and Karen Moore (Clinton appointees). The judges seemed interested in the case but it is difficult to predict how they will rule. Ohio law at the time forbade out-of-state circulators for both independent candidates and initiative petitions.
Ralph Nader is unique in the history of U.S. ballot access, for trying to redress wrongs that were done to him and his voters. Other presidential candidates who were kept off ballots, such as Henry Wallace in 1948, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, and John Anderson in 1980, were content to fight to keep themselves on various ballots. But they never took legal action of their own after the election to redress harms they had suffered. Only Nader has done that, most notably in his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, plus his complaint against the DNC filed with the Federal Election Commission, and also this particular Ohio lawsuit.
Richard,
Thank You for making this important point.
What Ralph Nader is applauded continuing to fight the horrible and shameful ballot access abuse commited every year by both major parties.
Fairer laws may result.
This article goes to show how tenacious Nader is and how strong his desire is to right the systematic political wrongs for future generations of 3rd party candidates. I think a lot of people have a skewed impression of him, and I hope his persistence in this case (along with other ballot access cases currently under review in New Mexico and the bombshell indictment in PA) help to shed light on our antiquated and biased ballot access laws.
I hope the court reviews the case thoroughly and sees the strength in Nader’s arguments, resulting in a win for both him and our American democracy.
Best,
Nigel Gully
Worcester, MA
The major news media really needs to start looking at Nader’s lawsuits a bit more. His victory in the U.S 9th Circuit Court should have made headlines but it was muted. I hope that the 6th Circuit rules in favor of Nader and that the Arizona case does make it to the Supreme Court.
Yes Uncle Ralph is an American populist icon!
How ever, as some one whom has personally TRIED to work with him and his staff: he is his own worst enemy! [Just ask his former volunteers, extremely few whom come back for more abuse!]
Ralph Nader is like the desert survivor whom crawls out of the wilderness, and moans and groans, all the while pushing away one tall, sweating, frosty glass of ice water after an other!
Been there, done that! Never again! I may vote for the guy but I will never ever ever contribute time, effort, or money for Don Quiote Junior!
Good for Nader. I just contributed to http://www.votenader.org eventhough I support Bob Barr for President. It’s too bad most Americans don’t support Third Party candidates regardless whom they will eventually vote for
Nader’s staff has updated the Map on his website. They have added Arkansas, Tennessee and New Jersey to the “qualified” category but say they won’t be submitting New Jersey’s Signatures until next Monday. They also have official designated Indiana, Oklahoma and North Carolina as “write-in” states as the paperwork has been filed in those states. The tally should jump as the states roll in over the course of the next month.
Please, Richard, check your history again. The Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ’76 never quit the fight! Here is a quotation from the very end of a two-page Committee leaflet that was printed in January of 1977:
We are grateful to the many local chapters of the American Civil Liberies Union which supported challenges to state ballot laws. And we are indebted to attorneys througout the country who volunteered their services, often at great sacrifice, to establish the political rights of independents.
The major political parties have long used state and national laws as a weapon against dissent. In the McCarthy campaign the independents struck back, using an older and more powerful law, the Constitution of the United States.
The effort, just begun, will continue until all discriminatory laws have been struck down.
The above leaflet was also reprinted by McCarthy ’76-CA, Third Congressional District (Philip Sawyer, Treasurer).
What Eugene McCarthy was talking about was finishing his lawsuits saying states must have procedures for independent presidential candidates. Many of those McCarthy cases were won after the election. But that hadn’t been what I was talking about. I was talking about suing the people who kept you off the ballot, for damages. McCarthy never did that.
That must be a mistake on Nader’s web page, that Nader filed for write-in status in Oklahoma. Oklahoma doesn’t permit write-ins.
You have to scroll over Oklahoma on the map to see more info. He acknowledges that there are no write-in candidates, says that they filed petitions, and indicates that there will be a law suit regarding Oklahoma’s rules for ballot access.
Peter Diamondstone is a major party candidate in Vermont for the Liberty Union Party.
He was not invited to the first Governor debate in Vermont which was advertised as a debate for major party candidates.
A candidate who used to be with a major party, but is not longer, was invited to participate in the debate.
Anthony Pollina is not officially or legally a candidate yet in Vermont, but he used to be with the Progressive Party, which is a major party in Vermont.
Because Anthony Pollina did not file ballot access petition signatures to get on the ballot as a major party candidate, he should NOT have been invited to the first governor candidate debate this season in Vermont.
Peter Diamondstone, who SHOULD have been invited, was taken away by state police for trying to attend!
Cris Ericson, who is also a legal candidate in Vermont and who has filed her ballot access petitions, was also not invited.
She is a candidate for United States Marijuana Party.
You can see who IS and who ISN’T on the ballot
by going to
http://www.sec.state.vt.us
and click on the left, Elections
then scroll down to Candidate Lists
for the General Election where
Cris Ericson
is listed for the United States Marijuana Party for Governor and for U.S. Rep.
and Peter Diamondstone is listed in the PRIMARY
election list as a major party candidate for governor.
Anthony Pollina is NOT listed at all!
Political debates and forums in Vermont
are run in a corrupt way.
Nevertheless, Richard – my good friend – your message made it sound like CCP/McCarthy ’76 did not continue on. In reality, it went on doing the hard work and “fighting the good fight” for a long time. As a veteran of that political organization, I am still fighting on and keeping alive the name of that great man, the late Eugene J. McCarthy.
How the world might have changed in 1968 if RFK would have set aside the Kennedy ambition and humbly gone to Senator McCarthy and said, “hey, what can I do to help: run as your vp, stay in the senate, or resign and contribute as a non political person or candidate” [like his sister’s ‘Special Olympics]! How things might have changed with President McCarthy instead of a bullet riddled RFK lying on the kitchen floor!
I’ve always said that I never believed Nader was entering the 2004 and 2008 elections to win it, but rather his primary reason was to open up ballot access and threaten those that keep it closed with personal liability. For that, I give him credit. If the courts start holding these ballot restrictors personally liable, they, and others, would be less likely to do it again in the future.
Steve Z wrote::I’ve always said that I never believed Nader was entering the 2004 and 2008 elections to win it,”
Anyone who knows anything about Nader knows he forecloses on nothing when he undertakes these endeavors.
Maybe winning isn’t realistic at this stage but if you rule it out you only wind up creating the rationalization in your mind to justify a less than 100% effort and in the process guarantee that winning will never happen.
There are numerous goals the represent significant achievements. For instance, if Nader can garner 7% of the popular vote he will be granted the Federal Matching Funds to support a national party.
If Nader can make it into the Presidential Debates then winning does become an achievable goal. But it will never happen if Nader and the people sell him short.
Any one whom knows …..
Anyone who knows anything about Nader knows he and his know it all staff can be stumbling bumbling idiots in these endeavors.