Challengers to Ralph Nader Pennsylvania 2004 Petition Return $30,000 of Nader’s Court Costs

A few days ago, Ralph Nader received some relief from the costs assessed against him in 2004 by the people who had challenged his Pennsylvania petition. Pennsylvania state courts had awarded the challengers $81,102 under the unique Pennsylvania system that says if a petition doesn’t have enough valid signatures, the petitioning candidate or group must pay large court costs. Peter Camejo, Nader’s vice-presidential nominee in 2004, had then paid $20,000. Nader had $30,000 seized from one of his bank accounts and another $30,000, in another bank, had been frozen ever since.

After the Pennsylvania scheme was held unconstitutional on July 24, 2015, Nader’s attorney notified the 2004 challengers that the basis for the award against Nader no longer exists. While there was no legal requirement that the challengers do anything about that, they did release the remaining $30,000.

Sixth Circuit Issues Strong Defense of Free Speech Activity on Public Streets and Sidewalks

On October 28, the Sixth Circuit issued an en banc opinion in Bible Believers v Wayne County, Michigan, 13-1635. The majority opinion is 41 pages. The issue was whether Bible Believers had a right to engage in street preaching, and to parade around with banners, signs, and tee-shirts that displayed messages criticizing Islam and Mohammed, while attending the annual Arab International Festival in Dearborn. “En banc”means all full-time judges of the Sixth Circuit participated; there are 15 such judges.

The festival is very large and streets are always closed, because as many as 300,000 people attend over three days. Law enforcement had told Bible Believers to leave, or they would be arrested, because their activity was causing young persons to throw beverage plastic bottles and garbage at the Bible Believers group.

The festival allows groups to register for an assigned table, under the information tent, but Bible Believers did not wish to do that; they wanted to move around where they could be seen. The opinion makes it clear that Bible Believers were what most people would call “an extreme and ill-mannered evangelical group” who even carried a severed pig’s head on a spike and also carried signs that said, “Islam is a Religion of Blood and Murder.” But, they were on public sidewalks and streets, and the First Amendment protected their right to be present and to speak as they wished. There are exceptions to free speech in such contexts; “fighting words” and “incitement to violence” can be banned. But the decision says “fighting words” only means words directed at an individual who is present. As to incitement, the decision says that Bible Believers did not ask anyone listening to do anything violent.

The en banc opinion of October 28 reverses the earlier decisions in this case.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers Compare Presidential Primary Insurgency in U.S. to Multi-Party Systems in Rest of World

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers have this article at Mintpress News, an on-line news source that has existed since 2012 and is based in Minnesota. Zeese and Flowers say the presidential primaries of the two major parties reveal great divisions in each of those parties, and if the United States had different election laws, the existing parties would be more coherent, and of course there would be more parties.

Commission on Presidential Debates Sticks to 15% Poll Rule

On October 29, the Commission on Presidential Debates said it won’t change the 15% poll rule that it has used throughout this century. Here is the announcement. Although the decision was made on October 28, it was not announced until October 29.

Two lawsuits are pending against the 15% rule, both in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. They are Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, and Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates. The first one depends on campaign finance law and the second on antitrust law.