Pennsylvania Supreme Court Won't Re-Open 2006 Green Party $80,000 Case

Posted on by October 25, 2008
6

On October 21, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to re-open the question of whether the 2006 Green Party U.S. Senate candidate must pay approximately $80,000 in costs to the people who challenged the party’s statewide petition. The vote was 5-1, with one Justice not voting. Only Justice Saylor would have re-opened the matter. Therefore, the party’s candidate for U.S. Senate, along with his attorney, are still liable for the payment, even though it is uncontradicted that the challenge to the party’s statewide petition was a criminal enterprise. On November 5, two Pennsylvania state employees who worked on the challenge to the party’s 2006 petition are expected to plead guilty. Challenges in Pennsylvania to petitions are brought by private individuals, not by any arm of the government. Yet, in fact, the challenges were brought by people using state employees, state computers, and state payroll hours.

On the somewhat similar matter involving Ralph Nader’s 2004 petition, that matter had not been in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; it had been in the Commonwealth Court. It is still pending.

Libertarian, Constitution Parties are Only Nationally-Organized Parties with More Legislative Nominees in 2008 than in 2006

Posted on by October 24, 2008
3

The Democratic, Republican, Green, Reform, and Socialist Parties have fewer state legislative nominees on the ballot this year than they did in 2006. However, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties have more legislative nominees on the ballot this year, compared to 2006. Also, the Socialist Workers Party has the same number (one) on the ballot for state legislature this year as in 2006.

If the Working Families Party is considered to be a nationally-organized party, then it also has more legislative nominees this year than it did in 2006. However, there really is no national structure for the Working Families Party; instead there are separate state WFP’s.

For purposes of this comparison, in fusion states, if a candidate has the nomination of more than one qualified party, that candidate is only credited to the party that the candidate belongs to. In the case of the Socialist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, when that party is not on the ballot in a particular state, but that party’s candidate wins the nomination of a party that is ballot-qualified, then the candidate is grouped with the party which actually put him on the ballot. For example, Matt Erard is a Green Party nominee on the Michigan ballot, so he is classed as a Green, even though he is also a member of the Socialist Party, which is not on the Michigan ballot. However, if he had qualified as an independent, he would have been classed as a Socialist Party nominee.

Some little-known parties that are only organized in a single state have legislative nominees. One is the Blue Enigma Party of Delaware, which has 3 legislative nominees. See this interesting article about that party. Another is the British Reformed Sectarian Party of Florida; see this article. Still another is the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, in Connecticut. The party has 5 legislative candidates. All of them consider themselves political opponents of U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman. They took over the “party” that Lieberman created when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2006.

A state-by-state breakdown for legislative candidates, and also U.S. House candidates, for each political party, will be in the November 1 paper edition of Ballot Access News. For a free sample of that issue, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to BAN, PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.

Tennessee State Senator Fails to Get Injunctive Relief for Ballot Access

Posted on by October 24, 2008
Reply

On October 24, the 6th circuit refused to put Tennessee State Senator Rosalind Kurita on the ballot. She had won the August primary but the Democratic Party had still removed her and substituted her primary opponent, on the grounds that too many Republicans had voted in the Democratic primary. The case remains alive, and next year the 6th circuit will probably decide whether the Democratic Party really has the authority to do what it did this year. The case is Kurita v The State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party, 08-6245.

Republicans, Democrats Fail to Run Against Each Other in 39.5% of State Legislative Elections This November

Posted on by October 24, 2008
2

One of the scandals of elections in the United States is that the Democratic and Republican Parties field so few nominees for state legislative posts. This year, there are 5,773 regularly-scheduled state partisan legislative elections. In 2,281 of those elections, either the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, has no nominee. That means that 39.5% of the legislative races have no Democratic-Republican contest.

This is the worst competitive posture since 2000. The percentage in previous even-numbered years has been: 2006 37.6%; 2004 38.7%; 2002 36.9%; 2000 40.6%; 1998 41.1%; 1996 32.7%; 1994 35.8%; 1992 32.8%; 1990 35.9%; 1988 36.6%.

Of course the major parties ought to be free to decide to skip running candidates in districts in which they feel they can’t win. But, given the large number of districts with no contest between the two major parties, it is infuriating that ballot access laws in many states keep minor parties and independent candidates from contesting legislative seats and giving the voters a choice.