Matt Gonzalez, running mate with Ralph Nader this year, announced that he has changed his registration from “Green” to “Independent”. He said this was to help get on the ballot as an independent candidate for vice-president in Oregon, Idaho, and Delaware. See this story. Thanks to ThirdPartyWatch for the link. Oregon, Idaho, and Delaware have laws that say independent candidates for all partisan office cannot be members of a qualified party. Other states with similar laws don’t apply these laws to presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and even Oregon, Idaho and Delaware did not always do so in the past. The Idaho ruling is especially egregious, since the Green Party has never been a qualified party in that state, so Idaho should have no concern that Gonzalez had been a registered Green in California.
It is disappointing that Gonzalez knuckled under. Nader and Gonzalez should have fought the rulings of various state elections officials in those three states, instead of giving in. In the opinion of Ballot Access News, no state may validly tell anyone that he or she can’t be an independent presidential or vice-presidential candidate, based on that candidate’s voter registration. In Storer v Brown, a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court upheld a California law that forbade people from being independent candidates if they had been registered members of a qualified party during the last year. But that ruling concerned a candidate for U.S. House.
In presidential elections, the true candidates are candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names appear on the November ballots not in their capacity as candidates, but as labels for competing slates of presidential elector candidates.
The presidential elector candidates, if elected, have an Article II right to vote for whomever they please in the electoral college in December, if the person they vote for meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president. We know this is true, because Congress has always counted all electoral votes in January, no matter whom they were for. The only exception was in 1872, when 3 electors voted for Horace Greeley, who was dead. Congress wouldn’t count the 3 votes for Horace Greeley. But Congress has always counted the votes of all other electors, even “disobedient” electors.
States may control qualifications for candidates for presidential elector. States may presumably tell candidates for presidential elector that they must be registered some particular way. But states do not have the authority to tell presidential electors whom to vote for. Therefore, logically, the First Amendment ought to protect the right of valid candidates for presidential elector to say (through the November ballot) whom they will vote for. There can be no state interest in forcing presidential electors to lie about whom they will vote for in the electoral college. If their mindset is to vote for Gonzalez for vice-president (no matter how he is registered to vote), then they have the right to say so, via the November ballot.
Another argument is precedent. In 1980, independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson was on the ballot in all 50 states, and he was a Republican. It happens that Illinois doesn’t have registration by party, but Illinois does keep track of which primary ballot each voter chooses, and in March 1980, Anderson voted in the Illinois Republican primary, so in the eyes of Illinois, Anderson was a Republican. Also he was in Congress at the time and continued to list himself as a Republican in the Congressional Directory.
George Wallace appeared on the ballot of all 50 states in November 1968, and he was a member of the Democratic Party at the time. Again, Alabama does not have registration by party, but Wallace publicly held himself out as a Democrat. His wife was Governor at the time and she had been elected as a Democrat.
Robert La Follette was on the ballot in November 1924 in 47 of the 48 states as an independent Progressive, or as the nominee of the Farmer-Labor Party or the Socialist Party, and he held himself out as a Republican. He was in the Senate at the time and was listed in the Congressional Directory as a Republican. But again, Wisconsin doesn’t have registration by party.
Still another argument is that no state has official knowledge of how a resident of another state is registered. Some years ago, a state court in Kentucky ruled that the fact that a Republican candidate for Congress happened to have recently been a registered Democrat in Florida, could not be used to keep him off the ballot. The court said laws about partisan affiliation cannot possibly be meant to apply to registration records outside of the state. The case was Ball v Whitfield, decided May 13, 1994.
The Nader-Gonzalez team could have made a strong legal fight, if it had decided to fight the incorrect interpretation of Delaware, Idaho and Oregon elections officials, instead of giving in to them. We lose our voting rights when we fail to fight back.
It’s unfortunate that Nader & Co. didn’t take the high road, but understandable in the context of a low financed effort. There is a mix of third party activists who do unite around the subject of ballot access. If a complex character like Nader misreads this type of support or ignores it, no level of bullying by the heavies will go without question or remorse. At least Ralph could elevate this type of issue in the previous campaigns and complicate the very accepted notions of democracy the country purports.
With all the legal battles of 2004 and the anticipated legal battles of 2008, it is not surprising or unanticpated that anyone, including Ralph Nader, would carefully choose which battles he wishes to fight. Regardless of the anticipated outcome of any particular legal battle, the reality of having to fight a battle during an election campaign, when you can avoid that particular battle entirely, is a good move. If that were the only anticipated legal battle or one of just a few, it would be a different story.
Gov. Lurleen Wallace died earlier in 1968, prior to the November elections.
As I recall, Robert LaFollette was one of several Republican senators disciplined in 1925 by the GOP Senate caucus for not backing the ’24 GOP presidential ticket. I believe they were stripped of their seniority.
I have a feeling that Matt Gonzalez’s stated reason is a pretext and that the real reason is simply that he wanted to leave the Green Party. I’m not sure why he couldn’t have quietly done that before joining the ticket, however. In any event, it certainly does seem ridiculous that one state can impose a requirement on a presidential candidate regarding that person’s registration in another state, especially when the actual candidates are the presidential electors.
There is a flip-side. If Nader/Gonzalez are not registered Greens, or are not the nominated Green candidates, or do not seek to become nominated Green candidates, then, depending on the state, they lose what might be pretty easy access to the Green Party ballot line. I wonder if they will be Greens in some states and Independents in others. Could going Independent be a net loss in ballot access? I am certain the campaign has weighed this half of the question. I am certain the Democratic Party has a team working on this too.
You may have noticed that the announcement that Nader will not seek the Green Party nomination came from the Green Party–I don’t think Nader/Gonzalez have been that explicit. I suspect they will take a Green Party ballot line wherever they can get it.
Idaho law has a specific requirement for independent presidential and vice-presidential candidates to not be affiliated with a political party. Thus is separate from the provision regarding independent candidates for other offices.
There in fact does not appear to be any requirement with regard to presidential electors, since they do not make the filing required of candidates for other office; nor for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of political parties.
Despite Richard Winger’s claims that the real candidates are the presidential elector candidates, under Idaho’s scheme for choosing its presidential electors, it is clear that the parties and presidential candidates are paramount. If we are going to recognize an Article II right of conscience for presidential electors; we better be willing to recognize an Article II right of state legislatures to define the manner by which presidential electors are chosen.
In Idaho, independent candidates for President/Vice President file a petition to gain ballot access. The filing deadline is August 25, but a wise candidate would likely not wait until the absolute deadline. It is not until September 1, at minimum one week later that the presidential candidate is required to designate his 4 presidential elector candidates.
Those who sign a Nader/Gonzalez petition must trust that the candidates will designate trustworthy individuals to serve as presidential elector candidates. Voters who vote for Nader/Gonzalez must trust that the presidential electors will indeed vote for Nader and Gonzalez.
Idaho state political parties designate both the the presidential and vice presidential candidates and the presidential elector candidates for their party. While the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidate might influence voters, they are actually voting for slates of presidential electors designated by the party.
So in 1968 and 1980, Idaho voters were supporting American Independent presidential electors and National Unity presidential electors, rather than George Wallace, Democrat or John Anderson, Republican. Presumably voters would trust that Wallace and Anderson, and more importanly the presidential elector candidates were supportive of the values of the American Independent or National Unity parties. The parties in their role of choosing the presidential/VP candidates and presidential electors could determine whether the party affiliation of the individuals was significant.
But in the case of an independent candidate for President or Vice President it could be confusing to voters to have a member of a party running as a candidates of no party.
Idaho has created a scheme whereby _slates_ of elector candidates are either associated with a political party, or with individual presidential/VP candidates who are not associated with a political party.
What would be really great is if Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez begin a brand new political party! They do not need the Green Party. As I have written before on these pages, the logical choice for the Green Party is Cynthia McKinney for president! As an activist with the Peace and Freedom Party of California, I am hoping that my Party nominates Ralph Nader – if not him, then Cynthia McKinney. The state nominating convention will be held in August.