The man who challenged the Illinois petitions for four minor party presidential candidates is free, if he wishes, to withdraw his objections, and it is possible he will do so.
The man who challenged the Illinois petitions for four minor party presidential candidates is free, if he wishes, to withdraw his objections, and it is possible he will do so.
Yes, I hope he does retract his challenge! He has no business of doing so and Go Greens and Libertarians for all your hard work!
I know I am going to get a lot of people on here disagreeing with me, but for the good of third parties I hope he maintains his 4 petition challenges. I would rather the third party vote be divided between Johnson and Stein than for it to be divided between 6 different third party candidates. If it is divided 6 different ways, than no third party candidate will be able to come away with a good share of the vote.
I hope he will withdraw his challenge. I do agree the Libertarian and Green parties put the time and effort in to do things right, and they are on the ballot for their efforts. However, more choices on the ballot equals more voter turnout.
#2, that doesn’t follow. When Jesse Ventura was the Reform Party nominee for Governor of Minnesota, there were 8 candidates on the November ballot. But Ventura still won.
The Libertarian and Green parties were the only ones that followed the rules. They should be the only ones who get to be on the ballot.
Did the man who filed the challenges give any conditions that he wanted met before he lifts the challenges? I find it odd that someone would go through all the work involved in filing a challenge only to lift it a few days later.
Who is this guy, anyway?
#5, the rules are illegitimate. Illinois didn’t require any signatures for any party to appear on the ballot during the period 1927-1931. In 1931 the legislature ended that policy and put into effect the current system. A new party must submit hundreds of thousands of signatures if it wants to run for all levels of office in Illinois. Separate petitions for each US House candidate amount to 5% of the last vote cast alone mounts up to hundreds of thousands of signatures.
Furthermore, chances are the Greens didn’t have 25,000 valid signatures either this year. They submitted about 29,000.
To Nick Kruse:
The rules are that you can file and if no one challenges you’re on the ballot. All 6 candidates followed the rules, though two of them did it in different ways. One of the huge hurdles is that you cannot fulfill the actual petitioning requirement unless you have tons of money to hire paid petitioners. Given that they will lie what it is for half the time, it is essentially a financial requirement, not a support requirement.
The person who filed the petitions made a firm statement that they are opposed to open ballot access and are an opponent of third parties in general. They made a firm statement that they believe that you should not be a choice unless you have money behind you, which favors candidates who represent the top echelons of society.
Whomever it is, if they do not withdraw, I hope their name does get out there and a lot of press so people can scowl at them in the streets. I just hope it is not an action of either the Libertarian or Green parties, who were not disqualified, because that would more or less spell the destruction of their party – as they would gain a strong anti-democratic tinge.
I like third parties. I really do. But frivolous candidates have no place on the ballot. Only serious candidates (Obama, Romney, Stein, and Johnson) should be on the ballot. One of the 4 candidates who could be kicked off the ballot couldn’t even find someone to run with him as his Vice-Pres. Of the 300 million people in this country, he couldn’t get one of them to run as his VP. The other 3 candidates are almost as frivolous. Candidates like that have no business being on the ballot.
Nominated representatives of long established US Third Parties, many of which cover political ranges not covered by the four you mentioned? You’re making excuses to justify such an action. You’re making large assumptions as to whether the other candidates are frivolous or not. What is the margin that you’re using to decide whether they are frivolous or not? I know that one has ballot access in other states as well, I’m sure the other four have similar ballot access elsewhere. Perhaps they would call Stein and Johnson frivolous and not serious candidates in the states where they don’t have ballot access.
#10, the Constitution Party presidential candidate is not frivolous. He was elected to Congress in every election 1996 through 2006. He has far more experience in government than Jill Stein does.
In 2008, the Constitution Party presidential candidate polled more votes than the Green Party presidential candidate in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In the nation as a whole, the Constitution Party outpolled the Green Party for president.
Virgil Goode has been at 6% in some Virginia polls recently. I doubt Jill Stein has that much support in any state.
Richard:
Didn’t Baldwin also poll more votes than Nader and/or Barr in around 10-12 states in 2008?
#12 – Rocky Anderson was also elected Mayor of Salt Lake City for two terms, and has more political experience than Jill Stein.
@12-Okay, the constitution party isn’t frivolous. Now what is your response about the other 3 candidates, especially the one who couldn’t even find a VP?
It seems to me that frivolous is in the eye of the beholder. I would be very careful about who gets to decide who is frivolous. That path leads in a bad direction.
Alexander was the VP Candidate for the Socialist Party USA in 2008, appearing on 8 state ballots I believe. Hard to imagine the Socialist Party USA being considered “frivolous”. Really?
Greens have again shown their bad faith. The Green Party would not have achieved ballot access in 2010 in New York without the help of the SPUSA. We were not “frivolous” when the Greens were using us.
I understand challenges being made in toss up states although I completely oppose it. But I understand getting coservative or liberal third parties off in hopes of helping the 2 big parties. But this is Illinois. Everyone knows Obama won the state before any votes have been casted. If people don’t like Obama or Romney it’s good to have other options. It’s better to vote third party then not vote at all in my opinion. I do understand other arguments though as well about hoping some are not allowed back on so the third parties don’t split to much of the vote. My view is the more the better. Give people many options in my opinion.
To Richard Winger (and anyone else interested):
The man who filed the four objections is Rob Sherman. Here is his website: http://www.robsherman.com/information/aboutrob.htm . He is a liberal activist and works for “the civil rights of atheists, state/church separation and the need for lap/shoulder seat belts on school busses.”
He was the Green Party nominee for state representative in the 53rd Illinois district in 2008. He is now the chairman of the Cook County Green Party (Cook County is the one with Chicago).
Civil rights for atheists? OK, fine. How about civil rights for voters, too. Please do the right thing„ Mr. Sherman.
We should contact Mike DeRosa, Green Party rep for the Coalition for Open and Free Election,(COFOE) before expelling the Greens from COFOE.
This person was earlier identified as Robert Sherman, a famous atheist and according to the internet a member of the Illinois Green Party. Considering that Socialists have helped get the Greens on the ballot in Illinois and many other states (Howie Hawkins, Socialist Party member and Green candidate in NY) Mr. Sherman should withdraw his objections to ALL the parties at once.
Contact Mr. Sherman at rob@robsherman.com.
If he does choose to withdraw the objections, what is the latest date he must contact the board of elections by?
The hearing is on Monday.
@18
Greens have again shown their bad faith.
What are you referring to?
@27 Oh I see @20
Is there any indication that the Green Party state or national does, or does not, oppose his actions here?
Greens who disagree should put pressure on him to withdraw his challenge.
Ironic that a Green is challenging those other parties when it is highly unlikely his own party had enough VALID signatures of voters.
Also ironic that COFOE’s meeting is at the Green Party National Convention in a few days.
@The post
Is there any indication that he actually WILL consider withdrawing? The headline indicates so, but the article just says that he is free to do so if he wants.
Can I attend? I have asked Howie Hawkins, the SP member who ran for governor of NYS as a Green and established their ballet line with the irreplaceable participation of SPNYS and the 2012 Green Party candidate for District 65 of the Texas who is also running for Vice President for the “frivolous” SP should to drop the chair of the Chicago Greens a note.
I, myself, ran as a individual member of the “frivolous” SP who ran as a Green in 2004 for US congress in San Diego receiving over 7400 votes for the Greens in one district, spending over 300 hrs of labor and over $8000 of his own funds (without one god damn thank you from that party).
@31 I believe a previous story here at BAN said observers are welcome. Richard can correct me if I am wrong.
The Green Convention is from 13-15 July in Baltimore. What day is the COFOE meeting? Even though I am as sick as a dog, I will attend.
I will be attending as an observer, representing no organization.
Previous BAN post:
Annual Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) Meeting
The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) will hold its annual board meeting on July 15, Sunday, in Baltimore, at the Inner Harbor Holiday Inn, 301 W. Lombard Street, at noon. The meeting will be in the Harbor 2 Room. The Green Party is kindly making this room available to COFOE. The national convention of the Green Party will meet on the day before, Saturday, July 14, to choose a presidential and vice-presidential nominee, in the Chesapeake Ballroom of the same hotel. Then, on Sunday morning, the national committee of the Green Party will meet at 9 a.m. in the Harbor 2 Room, but that meeting is expected to be finished by noon, making the space available for the COFOE meeting.
COFOE was formed in 1985, and is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized parties, other than the two major parties. Also included are organizations that are interested in the legal problems of political parties and independent candidates. The COFOE board currently includes representatives from the Conservative Party, the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, the Socialist Party, the Working Families Party, Free & Equal, and the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.
Anyone is free to attend the board meeting.
Oddly the details you are asking for are being held for moderation. Go to the archives here for June 27, currently on page 4 of the blog.
I tried to post the URL and then the full text (that may appear here later if and when released from moderation) so that’s the best I can do. Apparently BAN’s spam filter considers their own story URLs and/or post texts posted later as comments to be possible spam.
I’ll try to post a part of the text and see if that works
——————-
Annual Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) Meeting
The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) will hold its annual board meeting on July 15, Sunday, in Baltimore, at the Inner Harbor Holiday Inn, 301 W. Lombard Street, at noon. The meeting will be in the Harbor 2 Room. The Green Party is kindly making this room available to COFOE. The national convention of the Green Party will meet on the day before, Saturday, July 14, to choose a presidential and vice-presidential nominee, in the Chesapeake Ballroom of the same hotel. Then, on Sunday morning, the national committee of the Green Party will meet at 9 a.m. in the Harbor 2 Room, but that meeting is expected to be finished by noon, making the space available for the COFOE meeting.
[..]
Anyone is free to attend the board meeting.
Thanks Mr. Rockwood for the information on who’s doing this. I’m co-chair of the SC Green Party. I’ll write an email asking him to drop the challenges. I should be at the convention in Baltimore as well and would like to attend the COFOE meeting.
Even if this is a misguided individual action, then it’s bad enough.
Regarding Kruse’ comments above, I find the notion of a minor party advocate throwing aspersions on other parties as being “frivolous” (@2,5,6,15) to be really disheartening. This apes the “There Is No Alternative” blather of the Democratic and Republican party apparatchiks. You’re going to get pulled into the Democratic orbit, arguing like that.
@5 is especially silly. The incumbents write the rules. Anything bureaucratic hurdle that trips up the Constitutionalists or the Socialists can be turned against the Greens or anyone else challenging the status quo. We need simplified ballot access, especially in states like Illinois and North Carolina. Trying to game the system just plays into the hands of the duopoly.
I hope, one day, we will be offering Mr. Sherman our thanks for provoking steps toward electoral solidarity among third parties in general an the US Left in particular.
If you are a presidential candidate and you don’t have a mathematical possibility of winning 270 electoral votes, than you are frivolous. I take back calling the Constitution Party frivolous but what I said about the other 3 parties taken off the ballot still stands. I have absolutely no problem with a Socialist party candidate (or a candidate of any other party) running for congress or governor, because they have a mathematical chance of winning.
I see absolutely no reason why the Justice, Together Enhancing America, and the Socialist parties would want to dilute the liberal third party vote. Jill Stein is progressive enough for the people who are members of those 3 parties.
#42, all those candidates likely have enough write-in access to mathematically have that possibility.
@43 The fact is they do want to contest and these parties (and the Constitution Party) have as much “right” to do that as anybody. These parties, particularly the Socialist Party have very different programs the unity you presume isn’t really very appealing for them. It isn’t really appealing to a lot of independent progressives. I say this as a Stein supporter.
The way to build national unity is through joint action at the local level. Not fait accomplis. This is a real turn off.
Really, your arguments sound like Democratic Party attacks on Nader in 2000 and 2004.
@42 Substitute “realistic” for “mathematical” chance of winning and you’ve got the stock Democratic argument against the Greens.
@45, I am not going to substitute in “realistic” because I am not a Democrat. I just think at some point you have to draw the line. If a candidate absolutely cannot win the office they are seeking, then they shouldn’t seek that office. To win the presidency you need 270 electoral votes; this is a fact. If there is no mathematical way of getting 270 votes, then you can’t win. If you can’t win, then you shouldn’t be on the ballot.
Also, someone please answer me this:
Why should the presidential candidate who didn’t even bother finding himself a VP candidate be on the ballot? Is anyone going to try to convince me that he is not frivolous?
#48, Ross Perot never had a true vice-presidential running mate in 1992. In 1992, he said Admiral Stockdale was his stand-in vice-presidential candidate, and that he would find the actual v-p candidate later. But he never did.
In 1976, Eugene McCarthy, independent presidential candidate, didn’t have a v-p running mate either. Instead he used a different v-p in every virtually every state.
With write-in votes and/or faithless electors, any candidate could theoretically have a mathematical chance of winning.
That’s a silly threshold anyway, since we all know that the Greens and Libertarians are extremely highly unlikely to win the presidency.
Who’s to say you have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to ballot access? California managed an election that I voted in with 135 candidates just fine, and Iraq had one with 111 candidates iirc and managed OK too; yet the states with the easiest ballot access, no signatures needed, get 10-20 candidates for president at most.
Also, who am I, a non-“progressive,” to tell Socialist Party members whether the Green Party is socialist enough for them or not, etc? That is their business to decide for themselves.
With write-in votes and/or faithless electors, any candidate could theoretically have a mathematical chance of winning.
That’s a silly threshold anyway, since we all know that the Greens and Libertarians are extremely highly unlikely to win the presidency.
Who’s to say you have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to ballot access? California managed an election that I voted in with 135 candidates just fine, and Iraq had one with 111 candidates iirc and managed OK too; yet the states with the easiest ballot access, no signatures needed, get 10-20 candidates for president at most.
Also, who am I, a non-”progressive,” to tell Socialist Party members whether the Green Party is socialist enough for them or not, etc? That is their business to decide for themselves
I’m a registered Green, I’ve been active in Green campaigns in Philly and CT, and I founded a College Greens chapter at my college, and I sent an email to Rob Sherman to tell him to withdraw his petition challenges. I really hope this wasn’t supported by the party.
Common Tater, thanks for reminding us of the October 2003 California special gubernatorial election, which had 135 candidates for Governor on the ballot. Peter Camejo, Green Party candidate in that election, got 242,247 votes in that election, 2.80%. That was a higher percentage than he got when he ran for Governor as the Green nominee in 2006. In 2006 he got 205,995 votes, 2.37%, even though in 2006 there were only 6 candidates on the ballot.
I knew Rob Sherman while in Illinois. He is quite stubborn and ignored party and individual member requests several times (like not to bring his gas guzzling RV in parades….) I was upset when I first read about it, but the other parties really should have collected more signatures. While 25,000 signatures is way too much, a handful is not enough. I’ve found petitioning to be a great way to build support – not doing so is a disservice to your candidate and a failure to engage on the grassroots level. Of the challenged parties, only the Constitution Party made an effort and one far short of their previous ones. I don’t entirely condone what Sherman did but it’s not bloody murder.
Richard, your article’s title says that Rob is considering removing his objections. Did he tell you that he is considering removing the objections, or were you just speculating?
From the Green platform:
“We will act to broaden voter participation and ballot access.”
Here, an officer of the Green Party is acting to narrow ballot access instead of broaden it. This is a fundamental hypocrisy that is making the Green Party seem no more legitimate and no less prone to double speak than the Democrats. I do not think anyone would be as upset as if the challenges came from the Republican or Democratic parties whom we expect to do such undemocratic actions.
One two-liner blog post, 59 responses.
O.o
Props to Common Tater for his good analysis.
#57, the Illinois Green Party together will make the decision. The Illinois Green Party is debating the issue internally over the next few days.
My appeal to Mr. Sherman to withdraw his objections:
Dear Mr. Sherman,
I urge you to withdraw your challenges to the ballot access petitions of four presidential candidates.
I write this as someone who joined the Socialist Party USA when it reformed in 1973 and has been active in the Green Party since our first national organizing meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota in august 1984. I was also involved in the Peace and Freedom registration drive for party status and ballot access in 1967-68 in California, in the People’s Party presidential campaign of Ben Spock and Julius Hobson in 1972, and the Citizens Party presidential campaign of Barry Commoner and LaDonna Harris in 1980.
I know how hard it is to get on the ballot. I’ve petitioned successfully 17 of 19 attempts for myself and petitioned countless times for other Green candidates, with mixed success because of major party challenges or state official malfeasance. I have been challenged on my own petitions by the Democrats almost every time, most of them utterly frivolous challenges that served only to force me to devote limited time and resources to defend my petition instead of campaign for the office.
I appreciate the hard work that the Illinois Green Party put into petition to put the Green Party presidential ticket on the Illinois ballot. As you know, I was the vice-presidential candidate on the petition as a stand-in until our presidential nominee chooses a running mate. I congratulate you on a job well done.
Nonetheless, I believe Greens should support the ability of all candidates to be on the ballot. Let the voters decide!
Greens should not use the restrictive ballot access rules to eliminate candidates. Those rules were written by the two corporate parties to exclude alternatives. Greens should be in solidarity with other parties on reforming ballot access laws, not acting like the Democrats and Republicans do to exclude them.
Also keep in mind that ballot access challenges are a double-edged sword. The Greens are working very hard to get on the ballot in many states this year where the requirements are very onerous. If one of our members challenge other parties in Illinois, we cannot credibly object if one of them challenges a Green petition in another state.
It would be a self-inflicted defeat if progressive independents allow rules written by the corporate parties to exclude all of us end up dividing and conquering us. I suggest that a better approach is that we support each others’ ballot access this year and work in the future toward an electoral united front against the corporate two-party-system.
The most important divide politically today is not between progressive third parties, but between all of them and the corporate rulers. Once we break open ballot access and replace the winner-take-all two-corporate-party system of rule with proportional representation for full representation and democracy, then the various strands of independent progressive politics can run their own slates, win their own proportionate shares of legislative representation, the can debate, negotiate, and legislate policies during their term in office.
But today we need solidarity against the corporate parties’ attempts to silence us. To restricting ballot access, we must add the Citizens United repeal of the Tilden Act ban on corporate campaign spending, preventive detention of organizers before demonstrations, the war on whistlelbowers using the Espionage Act, the federal coordination of the suppression of Occupy, warrantless surveillance of all our phone calls and emails by the National Security Agency, and many other bipartisan assaults to our political freedoms and constitutional rights.
We need unity in the fight to for our freedoms. I want the Greens to set a positive example in this respect.
Please withdraw your petition objections.
Sincerely,
Howie Hawkins, Syracuse, New York, delegate to the Green National Committee
Thank you Howie on so many levels. Thanks for being there when it counted and responding so quickly and considerately. And want to thank COFOE and Ballet Access News for providing a forum that this issue was identified and discussed.
And additionally, I am happy to admit that the comments I have made on this issue in this and other forums have proven to be wrong.
Pingback: Howie Hawkins, Others Respond to Rob Sherman On Illinois Ballot Access Challenges | Independent Political Report
I agree with all of you that 25,000 petition signatures is to high of a requirement for a state to impose. With that being said: 2 of the parties submitted one signature, 1 party submitted two signatures, and 1 party submitted 250 signatures. If a party doesn’t bother to circulate petitions, than why should we allow them on the ballot?
“The Dems and Repubs didn’t challenge any presidential Third Partiers because they want the Third Party voters divided as widely as possible. As Andy wrote at noon on Tuesday, if Third Party votes are divided among many candidates, all Third Party presidential candidates would appear to be weak and inconsequential since none would be generating a respectable percentage of the vote.
That’s exactly what the Dems and Repubs want, but that’s exactly the opposite of what we need. We want to demonstrate that we are a strong and credible political force that is rapidly moving in the direction of overthrowing the government at the ballot box. That’s why the Dems and Repubs didn’t challenge anybody but I did.” – Rob Sherman
I urge all of you to read Rob’s statement if you have not yet done so: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/07/statement-from-the-illinois-ballot-access-petition-challenger/
Nick, it is possible, perhaps likely, that a campaign with minimal resources may have made a stragic choice to submit the minimum requirement for ballot access in a particular state, operating under the notion, perhaps misguided in this particular case, that third parties would support voter choice. This move by the Cook County Green Chair appears to defy that convention and I believe sets an unfortunate precedent for the Green Party moving forward.
Who does Mr. Sherman think put these restrictions in the election law in the first place? Jefferson or Washington? In the contemporary society, asking people to give personal information to complete strangers putting themselves at risk of identity theft is ridiculous. Mr. Sherman thinks he can only put his party at the expense of others. The fact is, with the likes of Mr. Sherman, there will be no cooperation between third parties.
#69
Signing petitions doesn’t put you at risk for identity theft. There isn’t anything you need to put down that isn’t already in the phone book or isn’t known by town clerks.
It would be interesting to have Mr Sherman and Mr. Hawkins address the Annual Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) Meeting being hosted by the Green party at their convention.
“Dear Rob,
I urge you to withdraw your challenge to the ballot petitions of the other independent parties in Illinois.
I can understand the need to maintain a ballot line for the Illinois Greens after this election. But the cost of this challenge is the sense of solidarity that exists with these same parties where we are filing challenges together to open up ballot lines across the country.
In particular, challenging the Justice Party and the Socialist Party petitions raises difficulties for us.
Yours truly,
Jill Stein, M.D.”
Although I received it from multiple sources, I have been notified that the above note by Dr. Stein may have been sent in confidence. I ask the assistance of the administrator of the page to remove it.
I assume the following is for public consumption as its comes from their media coordinator –
“The Green Party has often worked closely with other parties in our challenge to state ballot access rules that are designed by D & R politicians to hinder alternative parties and independents. We’ve done so in coalition with other progressive parties and with parties whose platforms are very different from our own.
Our attitude towards other progressive parties and candidates has always been “We encourage you to join the Green Party and run for office as a Green candidate…. but we support your right to get on the ballot. We believe in multiparty democracy.”
The argument that other alternative party candidates on the ballot might “water down the vote” for Green candidates, and therefore the Green Party
should work to knock them off the ballot, is uncomfortably similar to the “spoiler” accusation that Democrats use to justify their efforts to block
Green candidates.
If we’re asked by the news media about the Green Party’s response to the challenges in Illinois, our response will be “The Green Party doesn’t support these actions.”
Scott McLarty
Media Coordinator
Above posted from other open website.
One poster had the arrogance to ask “why should we allow them on the ballot?”. Who is this “we” you speak of? Some kind of exclusive imperial club?
Maybe “we” should disqualify the Green Party because they couldn’t get 5% of the vote in the last election to maintain their automatic ballot status which is why they had to get 25,000 signatures.
Don’t blame the Socialist, Justice or Counstitution Parties for using the law smarter than the Greens. These challenges smell like sour grapes from the GP lawyer Andy Finko who got Rob Sherman to file them.
AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL!
Are we fighting to replace one lawyers’ democracy with another or are we all trying to rid ourselves of lawyers’ democracy altogether?
From the Georgia Green Party:
Greens denounce action of Illinois Party County Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 6th, 2012
For further information, contact:
678-298-9463 x3
presssecretary@georgiagreenparty.org
Georgia Green Party Chairman urges Withdraw of Challenges
In a letter faxed this morning to the Chairman of the Cook County Illinois Green Party, Bruce Dixon, Chair of the Georgia Green Party urged that the Illinois Party official withdraw his challenge to the ballot access petitions filed by competing political parties.
“Our position in support of open ballot access is grounded not in any parochial self-interest we as Greens have in seeing our own candidates on the ballot,” wrote Mr. Dixon, himself a Chicago native who relocated to Cobb County Georgia a decade ago, “but in the democratic principle that a voter ought to have the opportunity to cast a ballot for their candidates of choice and to have those ballots counted.”
Mr. Dixon’s letter accuses the Illinois chairman of setting “a very dangerous precedent.” He points out the strategic alliance being built, not only in Georgia but across the nation, among emerging political parties. These parties are working together in spite of their many political differences to challenge the undemocratic barriers which deny voters an opportunity to cast ballots for their candidates of choice.
The Georgia Green Party is a co-plaintiff with the Constitution Party of Georgia in litigation challenging the barriers they face with respect to access to the Georgia ballot for their respective 2012 Presidential slates. Georgia poses the most restrictive barriers to ballot access in the world. The barriers were erected in 1943 to limit the participation of black voters, already prohibited from participation in the all-white Democratic primary, from challenging public elections in the General Election by organizing with other parties.
The Georgia Green Party has organized since 1996 to provide an electoral alternative for voters committed to peace and justice, democracy and ecology. Its has fielded dozens of candidates, most of whom have run as write-in candidates, although some of its candidates in local and non-partisan races have scored 30% or more at the polls. The Party has fielded Presidential slates in 2000, 2004 and 2008. Jill Stein of Massachusettes is expected to win the Party’s nomination at its Presidential Nominating Convention, to be held next weekend in Baltimore Maryland.
Richard, the reason that Peter Camejo got more votes in 2003 is because they let him in the debate. He was very articulate and chrismatic speaker who was also impressive. The reason he was allowed in the debate is because in 2002, while Peace and Freedom Party was off the ballot, he received their endorsement and received the combined vote of what both the Green and Peace and Freedom candidates usually get. The same thing happened to the Peace and Freedom Party U. S. Senate candidate, David Wald. In 1976, he received 104,383 votes for 1.4%; in 1980, they included him in the televised debate and his vote increased to 196,354 for 2.4%; then in 1982, he was kept out of the debate and his vote dropped to 96,388 for 1.2%. This shows the power of the mass media and why alternative parties should always insist on being included in the debates and treated fairly in the media.
Art: “Don’t blame the Socialist, Justice or Counstitution Parties for using the law smarter than the Greens.”
Oh, so the 3 parties that aren’t going to be on the November ballot knew the election laws more than the party that got on the ballot.
Challenging the petitions of any socialist, pro-labor, pro-environment party is shocking, appalling, and disgraceful. The left gets nowhere in this country in significant part because this fratricidal type of behavior is still tolerated. I urge the IL GP to take disciplinary action, up to and including expulsion, against any members who have engaged in conspiracy to challenge lawfully filed, non-fraudulent, prima facie valid petitions submitted by pro-labor, pro-environmental parties.