Back in January 2008, the Tennessee Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that the requirements to get a previously unqualified party on the ballot are so onerous, they are unconstitutional. No party has successfully petitioned in Tennessee since George Wallace’s American Party did so in 1968. A petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote is needed, due four months before the primary. The petition must say that the signers are members of the party whose petition they are signing. Over the decades, various minor parties have tried to complete this petition, but they have all failed. Tennessee is the only state in which the Reform Party, during the period 1995-2000, ever made a substantial attempt to complete a petition for party recognition and failed.
The lawsuit has taken longer than expected, because last year the Tennessee Attorney General, who is defending the law, asked the political party plaintiffs to answer extensive interrogatories. Now the Attorney General plans to take depositions from the three state party chairs. This is unusual behavior in a constitutional ballot access lawsuit. It is the law that is on trial, not the parties.
Go for BIG $$$ damages against the EVIL party hack govt officers involved — to make an example of the EVIL monsters in govts ???
How much longer is it going to take to get a decision in this case?
The depositions are probably going to be in November 2009. Afterwards, the parties will submit final briefs. They are free to ask the judge to expedite his decision, so that it can be in time for elections in 2010.
I presume the deposed will be allowed to have an attorney present. The AG is likely doing this as an intimidation tactic, and the chairs are going to have to be on their toes.
I hope that the respective state chairs are prepared for the questions.
The Tenn. state party chairs should arrange for the media and press to be at the deposition(s)! Perhaps too insist that the deposing be taped &/or done at a cable-tv station to be cablecast later as public-access tv.
These unusual demands would make the issue more newsworthy (“sexy”) and throw such government shenanigans into the spotlight.
Many years ago a friend of mine was disposed and she thought it unjustified so I was there as an un-named witness and videotaped it for her.
The deposing lawyers angrily objected but we held firm. The deposing attorneys got a judge involved and the justice ruled that she could have an unidentified witness AND that videoing was ok!
The deposition commensed but for a shorter time than the attorneys earlier predicted!
k…