Both the New York Times and Slate Mangle Green Party History

Posted on by July 13, 2012
5

The print edition of the New York Times has this fairly long article on Jill Stein and the Green Party. It says that Stein is the first Green Party “candidate” to qualify for primary season matching funds. Actually, Ralph Nader received $667,000 in primary season matching funds when he was the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2000.

Slate has this article commenting on the New York Times article, written by David Weigel. He originally wrote that Cynthia McKinney received primary matching funds in 2008, when she was the Green Party’s presidential candidate. But then he found out that wasn’t correct, and he re-wrote his story, but never pointed out that Nader did receive primary season matching funds as the Green Party candidate in 2000.

Both the New York Times article, and the Slate article, are unfair to Ralph Nader. The New York Times story says Nader in 2000 “only” received 3% of the vote. But Nader’s showing in 2000 was the highest percentage of the vote that a party to the left of the Democrats had polled since 1924. Henry Wallace in 1948, and Norman Thomas in 1932, each ran historic races, but each only got 2% of the vote. The Slate article claims that Nader “undermined” the Green Party in 2004, but carries no specifics. Nader in 2004, if he were so inclined, could have challenged the Green Party petition in Pennsylvania. The 2004 Green Party petition in Pennsylvania only had a few hundred more signatures than the legal requirement, but neither Nader nor anyone else challenged it.

Decision on Letting Non-Democrats Vote in Florida Democratic Party Primary for One Office is Delayed

Posted on by July 13, 2012
1

On July 13, U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch issued a procedural opinion in LaCasa v Townsley, the case over whether non-Democrats should be allowed to vote in the August 2012 primary in Florida for one particular partisan office, State Attorney in Miami-Dade County. The order says the original complaint is flawed, because the plaintiffs didn’t sue the Secretary of State; they just sued the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections. The order instructs the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Here is the order.

The case is still being expedited. The next oral argument will be on July 23 at 10 a.m. The reason the plaintiffs want non-Democrats to be able to vote in the Democratic primary is that the only two candidates who filed to be on the primary ballot are both Democrats, and there are no independent candidates in the race. There are two write-in candidates in the general election, so under Florida law, as interpreted by the Secretary of State, only registered Democrats may vote in the Democratic primary. If the two write-in candidates had not filed, Florida law says that because only Democrats are running for the office, all voters may vote in the Democratic primary for that office.

Constitution Party Plans to File Virginia Petition Early

Posted on by July 13, 2012
9

Virginia petitions to place independent presidential candidates, and the presidential nominees of unqualified parties, are due August 24. The Constitution Party petition will be submitted on Monday, July 16, and will contain approximately 14,000 signatures. The requirement is 10,000, with at least 400 in each U.S. House district.

When a group turns in a Virginia petition with more than the minimum number of signatures, election officials then start to check the signatures. Groups are permitted to then turn in additional signatures. Therefore, it is advantageous for a group to submit at least 10,000 signatures early in the process, because then they can learn how many more they need, if any, and avoid collecting signatures unnecessarily.

U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Upholds Ban on Obtaining Signatures on Petitions on Post Office Interior Sidewalks

Posted on by July 13, 2012
12

On July 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upheld the Postal Service regulation that bans obtaining signatures on interior postal sidewalks. The case is Initiative & Referendum Institute v U.S. Postal Service, 10-5337. The regulation was created in 2000 and this case had been filed in 2000. Here is the decision.

The opinion is written by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush Jr. appointee. It upholds the regulation partly because, in 2010, the Postal Service amended the regulation and said that individuals are free to stand on interior postal sidewalks and ask passers-by to sign a petition. But, the act of signing is not permitted on the sidewalk. Instead, the passer-by must be told that if he or she wishes to sign the petition, he or she must go to an adjoining area where the signature can be affixed to the petition. In effect, this virtually requires that petitioners work in teams, one to stand on the interior post office sidewalk and solicit the signature, and another to be stationed nearby, but off the post office sidewalk. Obviously this is very inefficient.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, another Bush Jr. appointee, signed the Griffith opinion, and yet wrote separately to say the policy makes no sense. She concludes her separate opinion to say, “The Postal Service may conclude, on further reflection, that the present compromise causes more confusion and disruption than it abates. In that case, the Service may decide to do what is sensible and permit the entire signature-gathering encounter — for that would surely not be unreasonable.” The third judge in this case, Karen Henderson, a Bush Sr. appointee, merely signed the Griffith opinion and did not write separately.

U.S. District Court in Los Angeles Refuses to Enjoin California Top-Two System

Posted on by July 12, 2012
3

On July 12, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson declined to enjoin California’s top-two open primary system. The case is Elise Brown v Debra Bowen, 2:12-cv-5547. This case is very new, and had been filed by a San Bernardino County Democrat on June 26, 2012. She lives in the Eighth U.S. House district, a strongly Republican district including rural and suburban parts of San Bernardino County and Inyo County. The only two candidates who will be on the November 2012 ballot in that district are Republicans.

The brief order says “At most, plaintiff has established that she lives in a district in which Democrats were unable to coalesce around a single candidate to secure a spot on the general election.” Here is the opinion.

Actually, Democrats did a good job of coalescing in that race. Only two Democrats ran in the June 5 primary, but ten Republicans ran, as well as former Republican legislator Anthony Adams who ran as an independent. Nevertheless, the two top vote-getters were Republicans Paul Cook and Gregg Imus, both very conservative. Here is a link to the unofficial returns for that race. California official election returns for the June 5, 2012 primary are set to be released by the Secretary of State on Friday, July 13, at the end of the day.

Judge Anderson says this case is about associational rights, but actually it is about voting rights.