On August 7, the South Carolina Green Party filed a lawsuit against the State Election Commission. The Commission refuses to print Eugene Platt on the November ballot as the Green Party candidate for a particular State House seat. This is because, after the Green Party nominated Platt via convention, Platt then also tried to win the Democratic primary for the same office. He barely lost the Democratic primary. Under a somewhat ambiguous South Carolina election law, as interpreted by the state, Platt is now disqualified from being the Green Party nominee because he tried and failed to get the Democratic nomination. The case is South Carolina Green Party v S.C. Election Commission, federal court. This is an ACLU-sponsored lawsuit. South Carolina permits fusion, so if Platt had won the Democratic primary, he would be listed on the November ballot as both a Green and a Democrat.

Platt is a local office-holder and one of the strongest Green Party nominees ever nominated in South Carolina. He had also won the Working Families nomination, so if he wins the lawsuit, he will be listed in November as a Green and perhaps also as the WFP nominee.

South Carolina does not have registration by party.

On August 6, Ralph Nader submitted his Iowa petition. Instead of just qualifying as an independent candidate, in Iowa he qualified using the ballot label “Peace and Freedom.” This means that if he gets 2% or more of the vote, the Peace and Freedom Party will become a ballot-qualified party in Iowa. Currently the only qualified parties in Iowa and the Democratic and Republican Parties. Nader did poll over 2% in Iowa in 2000 under the “Green” label, and therefore the Green Party was ballot-qualified in Iowa for the 2002 election. However, since it didn’t poll as much as 2% for Governor in 2002, its qualified status only last two years.

On August 6, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, and the Barr-Root campaign, and the national LP, jointly filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Secretary of State. The lawsuit is sponsored by the Massachusetts ACLU, and argues that the Constitution requires Massachusetts to permit stand-in presidential candidates and to then let the party replace the stand-in with the actual presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Thanks to Art Torrey for this news. The case is Barr v Galvin, number 08-11340.