On June 14, a Maine Superior Court ruled that independent U.S. Senate candidate Herbert Hoffman should remain on the ballot. Knutson v Department of the Secretary of State, AP-08-49. The Secretary of State had ruled that Hoffman’s petition has 4,038 valid signatures. He needed 4,000. John Knutson, state chair of the Maine Democratic Party, had then sued the Secretary of State, charging that Hoffman should be off the ballot.

Everyone agrees that more than 4,000 registered voters signed the petition. The disagreement stems from the fact that three particular signers charged that the person who asked them to sign the petition was not the same person who signed off on that petititon sheet as the witness. The Secretary of State had not counted those three signatures, but the Democratic Party wants those entire sheets invalidated, instead of just the three particular signers. The witness does not need to be the person who spoke to the voter; the witness just needs to be someone who was in the presence of the voter. The Secretary of State, and the Superior Court, define “in the presense of” to mean “close proximity coupled with awareness.” Therefore, they said that there is no evidence that the witness wasn’t “in the presense of” the other signers on those sheets.

From a common-sense viewpoint, one wonders what difference it makes who circulated the petition, as long as the petition was signed by the proper number of registered voters. There are about a dozen states which don’t even require the circulator to sign the petition forms, and therefore no one even knows or cares who circulated the petition. These states just care how many registered voters signed the petition. Thanks to David Bright for this news.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has this story, dated July 14, on the illegal use of public employees to participate in the “private” challenge to Ralph Nader’s 2004 petition, and Carl Romanelli’s 2006 petition. The quote from a spokesperson near the end of the article, claiming that both candidates “falsified” their petitions, is untrue. No one ever accused either candidate of anything worse than having petitions with many invalid signatures. There is no logical connection between invalid signatures on a petition, and a charge of “falsification” of petitions. “Falsification” implies forgery.

The Green Party, now on the ballot in 21 states plus D.C., hopes to place its presidential nominee on the ballot in at least 40 states plus D.C., with this strategy. Six Green Parties can handle their own ballot access; they are Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington.

Then, the party hopes to get 13 more states, by the device of having Green Parties pair up with each other. In other words, a Green Party that is safely on the ballot already (or a Green Party in a state in which ballot access is hopelessly difficult) will help a neighbor state with the neighbor state’s petition. According to GreenPartyWatch, the formulas are: Alabama will get help from Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; Connecticut will get help from Massachusetts and Rhode Island; Iowa will get help from Illinois and Wisconsin; Kansas will get help from Nebraska; Kentucky will get help from Illinois and Indiana; Missouri will get help from Arkansas; New Hampshire will get help from Maine; Ohio will get help from Michigan; Pennsylvania will get help from Maryland and D.C.; Utah will get help from Arizona; Vermont will get help from Maine; Virginia will get help from D.C. and Maryland; Wyoming will get help from Colorado.

That would just leave these ten states without ballot status: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. It is possible that Alaska can do its own petition, but not likely; it needs 3,128 signatures by August 6.