Ralph Nader’s name will be on the ballot this year in states containing 85.2% of the national popular vote cast in 2004. This is far better than his 2004 showing, when he was only on before 50.1%. However, it is not as good as his 2000 showing, when he was on in 90.5% of the nation.
This year, Cynthia McKinney will be on the ballot in states that cast 70.5% of the national popular vote in 2004. This is the second best ballot access showing in the party’s history. Only 2000 was better for the Green Party.
Of course, the exact state-by-state distribution of the 2008 national popular vote will be slightly different than it was in 2004. Using the 2004 vote totals is the best approximation one can make at this point.
In 2004, presidential nominee David Cobb had been on the ballot before 54.8% of the voters. In 2000, Green nominee Ralph Nader had been on before 90.5% of the voters.
On September 12, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in federal court, to get a ruling that since the state lets the qualified parties substitute a new nominee, that the state must also let the unqualified parties have the same freedom. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, case number not known yet.
On September 12, at 6:30 p.m., U.S. District Court Judge Yvette Kane denied injunctive relief to the Constitution Party of Pennsylvania. She said that it is possible the legislature had delegated authority to the State Elections Department to write a regulation setting a filing deadline. She also said that even if the Elections Department did not have authority from the legislature to do that, that setting aside the August 1 deadline would restore the old unconstitutional May deadline, and that would injure the other petitioning groups this year. The case is Baldwin v Cortes, 1:08cv-1626.
This lawsuit will have been beneficial, despite this disappointing outcome. Since the case only denied injunctive relief, not declaratory relief, it is still alive. It is very likely that regardless of what happens next in the lawsuit, the legislature will now understand how important it is to pass a bill setting a constitutional deadline. As noted in earlier posts on this matter, the old deadline was invalidated by two federal courts in 1984, and the legislature has ignored those 1984 decisions and has never replaced the old May deadline.
On September 12, a U.S. District Court Judge in Massachusetts held oral arguments in Barr v Galvin, the case over whether the party will be permitted to substitute Bob Barr on the ballot for George Phillies. The hearing was one hour. The judge asked few questions, and it is difficult to predict how he will rule. He said the ruling will not be out until September 19 at the earliest. The state said it doesn’t need the ruling until September 29. Massachusetts has not even had its primary (for office other than president) yet.
