On August 7 or August 8, Ralph Nader will bring a lawsuit against the Idaho Secretary of State, to win the ability to use petition circulators who are not permanent residents of Idaho. Idaho is one of five states in which Ralph Nader has never appeared on the ballot. It requires 5,984 valid signatures for an independent presidential candidate. Nader’s 2004 petition was found not to have enough valid signatures. For some reason, Idaho petitions are always judged to have a low validity rate, even though a very high percentage of Idaho residents are registered to vote.
The Idaho petition deadline for an independent presidential candidate is August 25. The lawsuit will be based on Nader’s July 9 victory against Arizona’s ban on out-of-state circulators. That decision was from the 9th circuit, so it should control the outcome in Idaho, since both states are in the 9th circuit. Idaho, California and Arizona had been the only states in the 9th circuit that prohibit out-of-state circulators.
And yet, in 2006, the independent ‘United Party’ [a paper thin organization if there ever was one] got on the ballot for CD1 using the Natural Law Party ballot. It took the guy and his spouse about six weeks to arraign. Duh?
Go get em Ralph. Take the long way around the barn. Why take ‘the high road’ when you can take the vertical trail? Why cut corners when you can add a couple?
Opportunities lost? After Richard Winger, Phil Sawyer, and Don Lake separately suggested to the [so called] reform party of California that they engage in a ‘friendly take over’ of the NLP line, the same was forwarded by Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] for Nader/ Camejo P2004 —–with similar results.
Montana is also in the 9th, and outlaws out of state petitioners on ballot issues. That should also apply to Independent candidates as well I think.
Are the NLP still on the ballot in Idaho?
In 2006, the Natural Law Party changed its name to the United Party, in Idaho. The law requires a party to run at least 3 candidates, in order to remain on the ballot for the next election. The United Party nominated 3 candidates in 2006, but one of them withdrew. So it was on in 2006 but went off immediately afterwards.
Thanks for the note on Montana.
Good luck to Ralph! I’d love to see Idaho as another state which has an opportunity to vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket. After all, what’s so wrong with the idea of “more voices, more choices?”
Why would the law necessitate in-state petitioners only? What’s the reasoning behind that?
Best,
Nigel
Here’s a good run-down on the current state of residency requirements:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Residency_requirements_for_petition_circulators