On December 5, Ralph Nader filed this brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, in Nader v Democratic National Committee, 08-7074. He argues that the lower court erred when it refused to permit a trial in his lawsuit for damages against Democratic Party behavior in 2004.

The brief says, “The Conspirators filed 29 complaints before 19 tribunals (i.e., in 19 states) within 12 weeks, regardless of probable cause and regardless of the merits of the cases, as part of a coordinated nationwide effort to bankrupt the Plaintiff Candidates’ campaign and effectively bar them from running for public office; and in certain key states, where litigation alone would not be sufficient to accomplish their improper purpose, the Conspirators engaged in coordinated acts of sabotage and other systematic efforts to prevent the Plaintiff Candidates from complying with state election laws, in order to manufacture legal grounds for their otherwise baseless litigation.”

This brief further highlights the extent to which the Democratic Party’s challenge in Pennsylvania was brought using state government resources, which was illegal, since challengers to Pennsylvania petitions must be private, not government, entities.

On December 5, the Ohio Supreme Court releases its opinion in State ex rel Skaggs v Brunner. The decision invalidates provisional ballots in which the voter failed to both sign, and print his or her name on the outer envelope. Now that this issue has been decided, Ohio can recommence counting its provisional ballots.

On December 4, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth refused to re-open the matter of whether Ralph Nader should pay approximately $80,000 in court costs, over the 2004 petition. Nader had asked that the matter be re-opened, given that earlier this year, the Attorney General indicted many people who challenged Nader’s petitions for using state resources instead of their own resources.

Nader is free to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse the Commonwealth Court, and he and others are also free to file a federal case that would argue that candidates and political parties may not be charged money to pay for election administration. The recent federal case in Wilkes-Barre, that found a violation of the U.S. Constitution because the city forced proponents of an initiative campaign to pay $11,000 for the costs of invalidating their petition, may help.