On August 22, the Democratic Party of Charleston County, South Carolina, asked a federal court to let it intervene in the pending lawsuit South Carolina Green Party v South Carolina State Election Commission. The Democratic Party simultaneously filed a brief, arguing that the Green Party nominee for State House, Eugene Platt, should be kept off the November ballot. The Court is very likely to grant the Democrats the right to intervene.

The issue is whether someone who has already been nominated by a minor party, and who later runs in a major party primary and loses that primary, should be kept off the general election ballot entirely. South Carolina permits fusion. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “sore loser” laws in 1974, Platt argues he isn’t a “sore loser”. He is an “ambitious winner”, i.e., someone who wins one party’s nomination and then tries for another party’s nomination.

The Democratic Party brief makes much of the fact that in 1976, a federal court in South Carolina kept some United Citizens Party nominees off the general election ballot. But the United Citizens candidates in that case had first lost the Democratic primary, and afterwards had received the United Citizens nominations. Thus, they were “sore losers”.

It appears that Ralph Nader will qualify for the ballot in 45 states, plus the District of Columbia, without having filed a single ballot access lawsuit. Nader is expected to be on the ballot as an independent candidate, with no partisan label, in 34 states, by his own choice. Also by his own choice, he will have a partisan label in eleven states. Those labels are: Independent Party in Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico; Peace & Freedom Party in California, Iowa, Utah; Populist in New York; Peace in Oregon; Ecology in Florida; Natural Law in Michigan.

Not every state lets an independent candidate use the word “independent” next to his or her name on the ballot. Some states insist on shunning that word and instead requiring an independent candidate to be labeled “by petition” or “nonpartisan” or “unaffiliated”, or “no party candidate” or other such unattactive labels. The State Supreme Courts of Minnesota and Massachusetts, many years ago, both ruled that “Independent” is such an important generic term, that the Constitution requires that independent candidates be allowed to use that word, if they wish it. It is possible that a similar lawsuit will be filed soon by Robert Owens, an independent candidate for Ohio Attorney General. He wants “independent” next to his name on the November ballot, but the state will only print “no-party candidate”.

Assuming Nader is on in 45 states this year, he will have exceeded his previous best showing, that of 2000, when he was on in 43 states plus D.C. The 45-state ballot access will be the best for a candidate who is universally perceived to be clearly of the “left”, since Henry Wallace in 1948 also appeared on 45 state ballots (except that Lenora Fulani was on in all 50 states in 1988). Some people might say that John B. Anderson in 1980 was to the “left” of both major party nominees, but that is not a universally accepted notion; most people would say Anderson had been a centrist (Anderson was on in all 50 states).

On August 24, the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention voted to seat the full Florida and Michigan delegations. The vote was unanimous. Thus ends an intraparty struggle that spawned three federal lawsuits in Florida. Thanks to PoliticalWire for this news.