The Arizona Daily Sun of January 16 has this article about yesterday’s court order in the Green Party’s ballot access victory.
The quote from Arizona’s Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, indicates he thinks that Ralph Nader in 2004 was the Green Party’s presidential nominee. Actually, Nader in 2004 was an independent candidate.
There is no actual quote from Ken Bennett, other than the ruling was “not unexpected”. The linking of Nader v. Brewer to the Green Party may have been an interpolation on the part of the reporter.
The only reason that one might expect a different decision would be that in Nader v. Brewer the 9th Circuit highlighted the fact that Ralph Nader personally would have been barred from circulating a presidential petition in Arizona.
A legal victory may not be in the best long term interests of the party as far as building active membership in Arizona, just as the Libertarian Party’s legal victory with regard to independent voter participation in their primary may prove to ultimately be harmful.
Mr. Riley, other than your own clairvoyance, on what do you base this assertion? Exactly how does this legal victory risk building active Green Party membership in Arizona? Is there any situation anywhere that you don’t have insightful comments to offer?
This is the statement from Secretary of State’s office:
“The ruling was not unexpected given the constitutional issues involved, and we respect the court’s decision. My office, however, continues to have concerns about the potential for fraud associated with out-of-state petition circulators, and will seek a legislative remedy to address these concerns while following the court’s guidelines.â€
#2 Not the court decision per se, but rather the possibility of becoming dependent on petition circulators. If more persons had registered with the party, the Arizona Green Party wouldn’t be petitioning again.